# The incredible shrinking iPod **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 17, 2010, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-shrinking-ipod/550587 "2010-08-17T23:35:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2010, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-shrinking-ipod/550587/41 "2010-08-23T18:49:53Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > You have this the wrong way around. I’m just going by what Apple says on its website (I provided the link in post 15 in this thread), and according to the website, I have it the right way around! 😛 From that link: > [@](#): > > Understanding storage capacity in Mac OS X v10.5 (or earlier), iPad, iPhone, iPod > > Capacity stated on product packaging > > Storage device manufacturers measure capacity using the decimal system (base 10), so 1 gigabyte (GB) is calculated as exactly 1,000,000,000 bytes. The capacity of the storage media in your Mac (Mac OS X v10.5 or earlier), iPad, iPod, iPhone and other Apple hardware is measured using this decimal system. We set this out on our product packaging and on our website through the statement “1 GB = 1 billion bytes.” > > Capacity stated in Mac OS X or iOS > > When you view the storage capacity of your Mac (Mac OS X v10.5 or earlier), iPod, iPhone, iPad, or other electronic devices within its operating system, the capacity is reported using the the binary system (base 2) of measurement. In binary, 1 GB is calculated as 1,073,741,824 bytes. ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2010, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-shrinking-ipod/550587/42 "2010-08-23T19:24:22Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > > [@qpw3141](#): > > > > You have this the wrong way around. > > I’m just going by what Apple says on its website (I provided the link in post 15 in this thread), and according to the website, I have it the right way around! 😛 From that link: > > > [@](#): > > > > Understanding storage capacity in Mac OS X v10.5 (or earlier), iPad, iPhone, iPod > > > > Capacity stated on product packaging > > > > **Storage device manufacturers measure capacity using the decimal system (base 10), so 1 gigabyte (GB) is calculated as exactly 1,000,000,000 bytes.** The capacity of the storage media in your Mac (Mac OS X v10.5 or earlier), iPad, iPod, iPhone and other Apple hardware is measured using this decimal system. We set this out on our product packaging and on our website through the statement “1 GB = 1 billion bytes.” > > > > Capacity stated in Mac OS X or iOS > > > > When you view the storage capacity of your Mac (Mac OS X v10.5 or earlier), iPod, iPhone, iPad, or other electronic devices within its operating system, the capacity is reported using the the binary system (base 2) of measurement. In binary, 1 GB is calculated as 1,073,741,824 bytes. The underlined section is incorrect when applied to manufacturers of flash storage devices. Whatever apples says on any web page, if you are using flash it will have a size of some multiple of a power of two. Even apple, big as they are are not going to get any chip manufacturer to do something as surreal as produce chips with a size that isn’t a power of two (or multiple thereof). Of course, there’s nothing that says that apple have to **use** all the memory on a chip so I suppose that they could simply not use any above 7,999,999,999. Nonetheless, the amount of physical flash in an 8GB flash based player **will** be 8,589,934,592 bytes. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2010, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-shrinking-ipod/550587/43 "2010-08-23T19:45:54Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > Nonetheless, the amount of physical flash in an 8GB flash based player **will** be 8,589,934,592 bytes. To be more precise, the amount of physical flash in a flash based player _advertised_ as containing 8 GB (or 8 GiB) can only be determined by cracking open the case and looking inside. In any case, Apple doesn’t advertise that the player has an 8 GiB (binary) capacity, it advertises an 8 GB (decimal) capacity. I can’t find any article that describes how much of the flash memory of an iPod touch is available for the operating system + applications. So my calculations will assume at most 8 GB (decimal) available for operating system + applications. If Apple is only using 8 GB (decimal) of the flash memory, obviously the difference between 8 GiB (binary) and 8 GB (decimal) should not be added to the size of the operating system. ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2010, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-shrinking-ipod/550587/44 "2010-08-23T19:54:14Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > > [@qpw3141](#): > > > > Nonetheless, the amount of physical flash in an 8GB flash based player **will** be 8,589,934,592 bytes. > > To be more precise, the amount of physical flash in a flash based player _advertised_ as containing 8 GB (or 8 GiB) can only be determined by cracking open the case and looking inside. Nope. If it’s an 8GB flash player it **will** contain 8,589,934,592 bytes of flash. **No one** manufactures **any** semiconductor memory based upon powers of ten. It’s inherent in the way it’s made that it will be based on powers of 2 (and usually 4). For confirmation see [**here**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory) (look under ‘Capacity’.) BTW, opening the case won’t help. You’d need to break open the chip and use a very powerful microscope. Even then, good luck with counting the bits. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2010, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-shrinking-ipod/550587/45 "2010-08-23T20:04:46Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > Nope. > > If it’s an 8GB flash player it **will** contain 8,589,934,592 bytes of flash. You miss my point. A player with an _advertised_ capacity of 8 GB can have 4 GiB (if my advertising is a pack of lies.) It can have 4 GiB + 2 GiB + 1 GiB + 512 MiB = 8,053,063,680 bytes = approx. 8 GB (decimal). It can have any combination. Though it is _most likely_ that it will have 8 GiB. Regardless, the OP’s question was about how much usable storage space she can expect from her iPod Touch. It is reasonable to use, as a starting point, the manufacturer’s advertised usable storage space. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2010, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-shrinking-ipod/550587/46 "2010-08-23T20:18:07Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > …You need to understand the difference between the ‘memory image’ which I was talking about and the full disk installation. > > When anyone says a modern OS fits in \MB, they are obviously talking about the RAM usage… But ram usage doesn’t really tell you much about the size of an operating system. Theoretically you could have a very large OS that only requires a very small amount of ram to operate, the trade off would be execution time as it would have to page things (e.g. the os code itself, data, etc.) in and out much much more than if the entire os was loaded into ram. ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2010, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-shrinking-ipod/550587/47 "2010-08-23T22:01:08Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > You miss my point. A player with an _advertised_ capacity of 8 GB can have 4 GiB (if my advertising is a pack of lies.) It can have 4 GiB + 2 GiB + 1 GiB + 512 MiB = 8,053,063,680 bytes = approx. 8 GB (decimal). It can have any combination. Though it is _most likely_ that it will have 8 GiB. Well, if you want to jump into the realms of the ridiculous just so that you can say you were right, go ahead. The chips in the ipod touch are, nonetheless, 8,589,934,592 bytes in size. (See below.) > [@](#): > > Regardless, the OP’s question was about how much usable storage space she can expect from her iPod Touch. It is reasonable to use, as a starting point, the manufacturer’s advertised usable storage space. Except that that starting point is, demonstrably, wrong. See [**Here**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte) > [@](#): > > Because of its physical design, computer memory is addressed in multiples of base 2, thus, **memory size at the hardware level can always be factored by a power of two. It is thus convenient to use binary units for non-disk memory devices at the hardware level** , for example, in using DIMM memory boards. Software application, however, allocate memory, usually virtual memory in varying degrees of granularity as needed to fulfill data structure requirements, and binary multiples are usually not required. Other computer measurements, like storage hardware size, data transfer rates, clock speeds, operations per second, etc., do not depend on an inherent base, and are usually presented in decimal units. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > > [@qpw3141](#): > > > > …You need to understand the difference between the ‘memory image’ which I was talking about and the full disk installation. > > > > When anyone says a modern OS fits in \MB, they are obviously talking about the RAM usage… > > But ram usage doesn’t really tell you much about the size of an operating system. Theoretically you could have a very large OS that only requires a very small amount of ram to operate, the trade off would be execution time as it would have to page things (e.g. the os code itself, data, etc.) in and out much much more than if the entire os was loaded into ram. As I said before, do you **really** think that apple would make such a cock-up of the design that a media player OS needed to page? Certainly it may load different CODECS as needed but it’s not going to be paging normal program code. ---
**Author:** ![beowulff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beowulff/32/542_2.png) [@beowulff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beowulff)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2010, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-shrinking-ipod/550587/48 "2010-08-23T22:14:45Z")
**qpw3141** - You said: > [@](#): > > If you are only getting 6.83GB then the OS must be disgustingly bloated. > > That means that it’s using over one GB. Yet you can get the whole of Windows 7 in 1GB and still have plenty of space to run apps. This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how computers work. One the one hand, you say that using 1.2GB for the OS (on disc) is “disgustingly bloated”, and on the other hand you turn around and say that Windows 7 will fit in 1GB (of RAM). How do you reconcile these two completely incongruous statements? Or, better yet, try to install Windows 7 on a machine with 1GB of disc. ---
**Author:** ![si\_blakely](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d9b06d/32.png) [@si\_blakely](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/si_blakely)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2010, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-shrinking-ipod/550587/49 "2010-08-23T22:39:12Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > As I said before, do you **really** think that apple would make such a cock-up of the design that a media player OS needed to page? Certainly it may load different CODECS as needed but it’s not going to be paging normal program code. The iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad has a web browser, media player, photo gallery, games and user installed applications (running in a sandbox VM). In only 128Mb, even single tasking, it swaps. New generation devices with 256Mb running OS 4 can multi task apps, real paging/swap territory. Thus the large OS. Si Sent from my HTC Magic using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2010, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-shrinking-ipod/550587/50 "2010-08-23T22:42:07Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > Well, if you want to jump into the realms of the ridiculous just so that you can say you were right, go ahead. The chips in the ipod touch are, nonetheless, 8,589,934,592 bytes in size. (See below.) Why thank you! I love being right. It is theoretically possible for a device, using Flash memory, to have 8 GB (decimal) of memory, approximately, if it has 7.5 GiB (binary) of flash memory. To prove that the iPod touch actually has 8 GiB of flash memory, you shouldn’t post a link saying that flash memory is measured in binary (which no one is disputing), you should post a link showing the inside of an iPod touch, and showing that it has two 4GiB flash memory chips. Which it seems to have, by the way, according to the pictures I’ve seen of the insides of an iPod touch. > [@](#): > > Except that that starting point is, demonstrably, wrong. See [**Here**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte) This is another quote showing the difference between binary units and decimal units. I am well aware of the difference. However, to know how much memory you can expect to use with a device, it doesn’t matter how much is physically installed. It matters how much can actually be used. Which is the point I’m making. It is possible that some of the 8 GiB of flash memory is unusable (for operating system + applications.) Example: I could install 4 GiB of RAM in a system running Windows XP. That doesn’t mean that Windows XP will have access to 4 GiB of RAM. Some of the RAM will never be used. So if I tried to measure how much RAM is being used by the operating system alone, it would be a mistake to say: “With no programs running, windows shows that I have 3 GiB of RAM available. Therefore the OS itself uses up 4 - 3 = 1 GiB of RAM.” That is wrong, because some of those 4 GiB are never used in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2010, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-shrinking-ipod/550587/51 "2010-08-23T22:44:36Z")
Among other problems I think we may all be using different terms. A very large OS may have a small kernel. The rest of the OS could be the various bits of OS services and pre-installed applications. It is certainly debatable as to whether bits like ftpd and bash are part of the Linux “operating system”. ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-shrinking-ipod/550587/52 "2010-08-24T06:52:39Z")
> [@beowulff](#): > > This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how computers work. You keep saying that but it’s just meaningless trash talk. > [@](#): > > One the one hand, you say that using 1.2GB for the OS (on disc) is “disgustingly bloated”, and on the other hand you turn around and say that Windows 7 will fit in 1GB (of RAM). How do you reconcile these two completely incongruous statements? Well, it’s actually very easy if you know anything about how computers work, 😉 You seem to want to keep saying this based only on your misunderstanding of the difference between a working memory image and a complete installation. Windows is a full blown OS that is **enormously** configurable and works on a **vast** array of hardware to which can be attached a similarly vast array of peripherals and supports a mind numbing large range of software. The ipod just has to run one app at a time and only has to do it on one device. The only peripherals it has to attach are a pair of headphones. It’s not difficult to see why one would take up a lot more room than the other. > [@](#): > > Or, better yet, try to install Windows 7 on a machine with 1GB of disc. That actually works very nicely provided you don’t try and do anything memory intensive with it. You can certainly run a media player in that space without paging. ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-shrinking-ipod/550587/53 "2010-08-24T07:01:43Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > > [@qpw3141](#): > > > > Well, if you want to jump into the realms of the ridiculous just so that you can say you were right, go ahead. The chips in the ipod touch are, nonetheless, 8,589,934,592 bytes in size. (See below.) > > Why thank you! I love being right. It is theoretically possible for a device, using Flash memory, to have 8 GB (decimal) of memory, approximately, if it has 7.5 GiB (binary) of flash memory. Well, I said that to keep you happy. Of course, it couldn’t really because there would be no where to fit all those chips. > [@](#): > > To prove that the iPod touch actually has 8 GiB of flash memory, you shouldn’t post a link saying that flash memory is measured in binary (which no one is disputing), you should post a link showing the inside of an iPod touch, and showing that it has two 4GiB flash memory chips. Which it seems to have, by the way, according to the pictures I’ve seen of the insides of an iPod touch. Anyone with the slightest intelligence can infer one from the other because the ipod is a miniature device and even the most inept of manufacturers isn’t going to do anything so surreal as to synthesize 8 decimal GB of memory by the far more expensive and space and power consuming technique of using 4 times the number of memory chips. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Except that that starting point is, demonstrably, wrong. See [**Here**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte) > > This is another quote showing the difference between binary units and decimal units. I am well aware of the difference. However, to know how much memory you can expect to use with a device, it doesn’t matter how much is physically installed. It matters how much can actually be used. Which is the point I’m making. It is possible that some of the 8 GiB of flash memory is unusable (for operating system + applications.) Er, yes, that is the whole point of the thread. Did you miss all the other posts? > [@](#): > > Example: I could install 4 GiB of RAM in a system running Windows XP. That doesn’t mean that Windows XP will have access to 4 GiB of RAM. Some of the RAM will never be used. So if I tried to measure how much RAM is being used by the operating system alone, it would be a mistake to say: “With no programs running, windows shows that I have 3 GiB of RAM available. Therefore the OS itself uses up 4 - 3 = 1 GiB of RAM.” That is wrong, because some of those 4 GiB are never used in the first place. You’re off on a completely different tack now. That is what the entire thread is about: Why is so much or the flash memory unavailable. We know that it must be being used for something else. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-shrinking-ipod/550587/54 "2010-08-24T07:04:48Z")
> [@si\_blakely](#): > > > [@qpw3141](#): > > > > As I said before, do you **really** think that apple would make such a cock-up of the design that a media player OS needed to page? Certainly it may load different CODECS as needed but it’s not going to be paging normal program code. > > The iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad has a web browser, media player, photo gallery, games and user installed applications (running in a sandbox VM). In only 128Mb, even single tasking, it swaps. New generation devices with 256Mb running OS 4 can multi task apps, real paging/swap territory. Thus the large OS. I think this actually answers the question quite well. They’ve steadily increased the capabilities of the device and with it, naturally, the various memory requirements. If you just want a music player that will leave you as much space as possible for music, the ipod touch is not the correct device. ---
**Author:** ![beowulff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beowulff/32/542_2.png) [@beowulff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beowulff)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-shrinking-ipod/550587/55 "2010-08-24T11:59:19Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Or, better yet, try to install Windows 7 on a machine with 1GB of disc. > > That actually works very nicely provided you don’t try and do anything memory intensive with it. You can certainly run a media player in that space without paging. Wrong again: you need to go back to school. > [@](#): > > If you want to run Windows 7 on your PC, here’s what it takes: > > 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor > > 1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit) > > 16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit) I said 1GB of **DISC SPACE.** ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-shrinking-ipod/550587/56 "2010-08-24T12:11:53Z")
> [@beowulff](#): > > I said 1GB of **DISC SPACE.** Yeah, congratulations, you got me. :rolleyes: I really didn’t think anyone would be so animal stupid as to talk about trying to put W7 on 1GB of disk so I stopped reading at 1GB and assumed RAM. My bad. Make of that it you will. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-shrinking-ipod/550587/57 "2010-08-24T12:41:46Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > I think this actually answers the question quite well. > > They’ve steadily increased the capabilities of the device and with it, naturally, the various memory requirements. > > If you just want a music player that will leave you as much space as possible for music, the ipod touch is not the correct device. Wasn’t that answer offered on the first page?! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-shrinking-ipod/550587.md?page=2)