Just bought my wife a new Sage Kindle paperwhite and the specs say that storage is 8GB. However, when I look under storage management on the device it only shows 6GB. Anyone know where the other 2GB has gone or is this normal?
Kindle Storage Question
- Thread starter zom247
- Start date
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
Formatted volume and then OS takes up space
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,588
- Location
- Rutland
It's normal. Two seconds on Google would have been quicker to get you the answer:
https://www.google.com/search?q=kin...id-samsung-ss&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
https://www.google.com/search?q=kin...id-samsung-ss&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,932
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
I remember a time when proper where asking why 2mb floppy discs was 1.44mb.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,140
- Location
- Woking
You'll also find that she will probably never fill it up. I've had a Paperwhite for about 5 years and I've never deleted anything off it. I'm a relentless reader as well so have 100s of books on there.
Cheers, obviously worded my search wrong
Companies in misleading storage claim shock.
Another example: Steam says you need 89GB for Elder Scolls Online. Reality: you need around 220GB since the installer also wants 80GB space for patches and 15% empty hard drive space for the game to run.
Another example: Steam says you need 89GB for Elder Scolls Online. Reality: you need around 220GB since the installer also wants 80GB space for patches and 15% empty hard drive space for the game to run.
I don't think 1.44mb floppies were ever advertised as anything but 1.44mb?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,932
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Weird, I don't remember those saying that. Old age, or the fact that I just used to buy hundreds of unbranded ones at computer shows in the 80s/90s.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 May 2004
- Posts
- 12,975
- Location
- Sunny Stafford
A 1.44 floppy would show as 1.38MB once inserted in the A: drive.
A 3.2GB drive would format itself to 3.0GB.
A 1TB drive would format itself to 950GB.
Formatting errors aside, the Kindle's space take up will be similar to mobile phones and tablets where the OS takes up some of the space. Then it's even more obvious with PCs as some of the space will be taken up by Windows or Linux, and Macs with OS X.
A 3.2GB drive would format itself to 3.0GB.
A 1TB drive would format itself to 950GB.
Formatting errors aside, the Kindle's space take up will be similar to mobile phones and tablets where the OS takes up some of the space. Then it's even more obvious with PCs as some of the space will be taken up by Windows or Linux, and Macs with OS X.
IIRC it was because 2MB was the unformatted (physical) capacity and how much was usable was determined by the OS/file system, and I think there were some OS/File System combinations that came out as different usable capacities. I think Mac's had a different capacity on earlier 3.5" discs compared to the IBM 3.5" ones (something to do with how the drive worked rather than the disk).Weird, I don't remember those saying that. Old age, or the fact that I just used to buy hundreds of unbranded ones at computer shows in the 80s/90s.
I thought that with my original 2GB Sony Ereader and ended up having to empty stuff out, then the same with my current 4gb Kindly but an increasing number of ebooks have illustrations, and I think newer kindles now how audiobook capabilities so 8gb goes fairly fast if you use it.
for my next one I'll probably go with something like the Oasis which IIRC can do 32gb.
It's not actually misleading. Some report in base2 and others in base10. In reality they're exactly the same number just displayed differently - which obviously causes a lot of confusion for people who don't know.
It is misleading. How many average consumers know about things like base2 vs base10?
You get a 32GB model, you should expect 32GB of storage.
They should market it with relation to the free storage you get, not the storage + the OS. But doing the former sounds like less, doesn't it.
And who cares about how much storage the OS takes up on something like a Kindle? A Kindle user isn't going to end up re-partitioning the drive are they.I would concur is we were talking about e.g. the SSD market - or some kind of specialist item - or something, but we're not. We're talking about Joe Bloggs casually buying something of Amazon.
The very fact that the OP made this thread shows that people get confused by this. And Amazon know damn well that they market these models with bigger available storage than the consumer is getting. They're not marketing it as storage, but it's what the consumer will expect, and they know this.
Oh no! Even Overclockers are doing this, how misleading!
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/ocuk-gaming-fsg-core-1080p-pre-built-gaming-pc-fs-1d9-ep.html
Why do they advertise the 240GB SSD storage size instead of what is left when the Windows 10 OS is installed? Shocking!
You clearly didn't read the entirety of my post and selected one part just so you could make your comment, I said:
I mean, it was right there in my post, I even said a specialist item like an SSD wouldn't count
Overclockers is a specialist shop. People here know about these things. Amazon is not a specialist, they're about as generalised as you get when it comes to retail.
OK so we'd better discuss Currys then! My Packard Bell came with falsely advertised storage!
Chicken tikka jalfrezi every time.