Hi!
I would like to tell about a little misunderstanding on the Steinberg’s developers side. If we look on “Progress/Size” column in Steinberg Download Assistant, then for example for Cubase Pro 10.0.40 we see 21.14 GB, but in real it is 21,135,379,564 bytes and you took the digits of billion and round it. That’s not correct. You should divide three times by 1024, not 1000 (or simply cut down 6 digits from right) to have the value of Gygabytes (GB). For 21.135 billion bytes it is 19.68 GB.

I hope there is least one programmer who understands this monumental piece of computer science

You’ll certainly be nominated for the ‘nerd of the year’ award?

Because,frankly…who cares!

Most users have gotten accustom to the ‘catalog’ view of file sizes? Nobody cares about ‘actual’ sizes!
It only becomes important when calculating ‘exact’ space? And again, …who cares about that with today’s storage spaces?

Common users only care about what they see in their file manager, and rightfully so! That’s the only measure that makes sense to us all.

Come to think of it? Why do I even bother to reply to this? It’s a waste of precious time!

Is the calculation base-2 mathematics or base-10 mathematics? And, is it file size, or the total space taken up by the clusters the file occupies?

I recently noticed this after stumbling upon an update for Cubase which didn’t show up in my Steinberg hub.

"Look after the bytes and the Gigabytes will look after themselves"

That was not an accurate way of determining if the files were the same.

The OP is mistaken, simply.

If it’s your attitude in music production, then I’m worried a bit of your listeners

Indeed, size don’t matter, but I’m talking about correctness. Do you understand that simple one word?

Don’t laugh on this! I know what I’m talking about. If you see the actual file size of 1 000 000, then if you shorten it for megabytes (MB) you cannot simply remove six zeros. You should divide by 1024 twice. It’s not the regular mathematics, it’s computer science. If you are sound designer, you work with 24 bit, 32 bit sounds… Do you know why it’s not 20 and 30?

Since when in computer software the file download object size is calculated in clusters occupied? Do you mean I’m noob? Or maybe Steinberg’s developers think so about all customers? Steve, you upset me, I thought you make more sense

BACK TO THE SCHOOL!
KB or kilobytes = amount of bytes divided by 1024
MB or magebytes = amount of kilobytes divided by 1024
GB or gigabytes = amount of megabytes divided by 1024
TB or terabytes = amount of gigabytes divided by 1024
And that’s the law of using abbreviations KB, MB, GB and TB. There is no other explanation of using abbreviation GB in computer science. And I’m right!

If we all agree and state publicly that you are right, will that make you happy?

You’re dividing when you should be multiplying.

No, he’s correct and should be dividing.

MB > KB, therefore as he wrote 1024KB / 1024 = 1MB

Jebus, who cares.

But like I asked- are you talking decimal or binary? Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte

This matters so little it can only be measured by using quantum mechanics, which results in it mattering so little that it circled around and matters infinitely! d’oh

I’m more worried about yours! When you start to harass them with all these numbers while they’re trying to listen to music.

Jebus cares.

Then why there are numbers at all? You can put simple phrase - “take a deep breath” And all depends on network speed and drive capacity.
I disappointed here because of this attitude. Many composers work on their poor environment using old garbage like computers, counting every megabyte, but you laughing on them. Sadly.

Steve, right for you from the Wikipedia:
“The use of gigabyte may thus be ambiguous. Hard disk capacities as described and marketed by drive manufacturers using the standard metric definition of the gigabyte, but when a 400-GB drive’s capacity is displayed by, for example, Microsoft Windows, it is reported as 372 GB, using a binary interpretation.”

So, you simply accent your wikipedian knowledge to stand in opposite, not for healthy discussion

We’re not laughing at those people, we’re probably “laughing” because it’s a very minor concern.

You gave an example yourself in the first post and the difference was less than two GB for a download. What difference does that mean in the real world? There isn’t a single situation where a user has such an old computer that those final 2GB make a difference as far as drive space is concerned. Think about it, it’s 2019 and the user is downloading Cubase 10 Pro in your example.

If they’re going to have a problem with drive space they’re going to have a problem with the computer in general.

And as for download speeds… well let’s pick an arbitrary number, but let’s assume they at least have broadband because otherwise a download makes no sense to begin with… so let’s say 15Mbit download speed… and let’s use binary to do the math…

2GB x 1024 = 2048 MB.
2048MB x 8 = 16,384Mb.
16,384Mb / 15 (Mb/sec) = 1,093 seconds
1,093 / 60 = roughly 19 minutes.

So, the difference in how much time is spent on a super-slow broadband connection downloading Cubase is 19 minutes. But that’s roughly only 9% of the total download time. So how much of a difference does 19 minutes make out of a total of closer to 3.2 hours (about 192.5 minutes) ?

I’d say it’s negligeable.

ANeeman, my point (and maybe others’ ) is that the difference is small, less than 2gb (by any measure) and not important to most people, and that there are several methods that are used to calculate file size, and no one has said you are wrong.

It seems important to you that people to recognize the technical correctness of your assertion- but when questioned or contradicted you counter by saying the others aren’t discussing in good faith.

[edit- written while MattiasNYC was posting]

It means a lot. At the time when I first time download Cubase 10 Pro, I was on so called mobile rig - tiny laptop with limited space on its internal drive. So I spent time to free space exactly for the download size as it shown in Download Manager. But sadly the download didn’t fit in freed space. This was the only reason I started to investigate why it’s so.

If it was the system drive then that’s terrible, terrible practice. Never get that close to maxing out that drive.

If it was about a non-system second drive in the laptop then fine, I get that it was annoying that it didn’t fit. But you only had to a) wait until you got to your desktop to download it there instead, or b) use a USB stick for like \$5 instead.

Really, this is close to a non-issue to pretty much all users.

No, it’s about context. You didn’t explain exactly what the problem was with calculating size the way it was done. It could have been a matter of available time to download or it could have been about drive space.

So I’m saying that the larger context is that it’s bad practice to max out system drives or other work-type drives and therefore it doesn’t really happen often to most users that treat their computers with even just a tiny bit of care, and that for those that worry about how long it will take to download it won’t matter that much either because the discrepancy will be less than 10% of the total download time on a slow broadband connection…

… and yes, drive space is super-cheap these days, and rather than get right up to the limit it’s so cheap and easy to just grab anything from an old spinner to a thumb drive and avoid any problems…

… and that finally because of all of that you’re an edge case and this really doesn’t end up being a problem for many users. As a matter of fact you’re the only one I’ve seen mention this as a problem.