How to delete stuff on ps3

[Shifty Geezer]

37GB? Do you mean you have the 40GB model?

Yep.

How about vidzone? Is it possible Sony 'reserve' XGB for some game compatability?

I have used that a couple of times when it first came out. I suppose it may reserve space, but then as it's a music streaming service that doesn't make much sense!

What would be worth doing as an epxeriment is grabbing an old PS3 and factory resetting, and then seeing what updates do what to the available HDD space. Although if capacity is being reserved by FW we wouldn't see that.

 

[KongRudi]

The browser probably cache some but not 9GB..

 

[goonergaz]

Yep.

I have used that a couple of times when it first came out. I suppose it may reserve space, but then as it's a music streaming service that doesn't make much sense!

I know it steams but I don't know if some files are held on the HDD to cut down the treaming time. For example, initially we'd get buffering but now our play-list plays with no issues whatsoever. Just a thought. Certainly you'd never get the full 37GB, that's like a totally clean 40GB HDD isn't it? I would have thought 33GB is nearer the mark.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There was reserved space, you're right. I've probably just looked at 37GBs and stupidly though that was 3gigs gone rather than account for the GB/GiB conversion!

 

[Dregun]

I recently replaced my 40gb with a newer 320gb version and noticed that a % of HDD space seems to be taken up rather then a set amount.

Before I transfered my data between my two consoles I checked the amount of available space. Mind you this was just me turning on the console and not even playing a single game, logging into PSN Store, PSN or going on the internet. My console was missing around 30GB, after doing a quick calculation I began once again to hate the underhanded "marketing" of storage space.


Back in the day things were binary. 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024. Since 1024 was 2 to the 10th power it became the standard for describing Kilo, Mega and Giga. Now what is supposed to happen is if a drive says its 1GB it should be:

1024 bytes = 1KB
1024 Kbytes = 1MB
1024 Mbytes = 1GB

However manufacturers have been skimping and misrepresenting the sizes by just rounding everything to a base of just 1,000. So this is why your PS3 is never the size it is supposed to be

320GB PS3 should have a total of 335,544,320,000 bytes (Binary)
Instead
320GB PS3 has a total of 320,000,000,000 bytes (Decimal)

Nothing too severe right...? Looking at the numbers its only off by 15 and some change...but. Once we start deviding that number as a computer or PS3 would do to calculate the size we have to devide that by 1024 so when doing so we get..:

320,000,000,000 bytes / 1024 = 312,500,000 Kilobytes
312,500,000 Kilobytes / 1024 = 305,176 MegaBytes
305,176 MegaBytes / 1024 = 298 Gigabytes

This has been happening ever since the first few GB drives hit the market, it was easier for a manufacture to say they have a 1GB drive even if they didn't actually have all the MB needed to make it that much.

Even scarier... This is how many GB are in a 1TB drive with that misrepresentation.
931GB = 1TB ..yeah you lost 93GB by their math because 1024GB = 1TB! If we ever manage to get to 1024TB the loss because of this system is going to wreak havok

 

[zed]

@Dregun

no, 1024 bytes is not 1KB its actually 1 KibiByte
1000 bytes = 1KB

wikipedia should have more info
but in essense what happened is many years ago, some misguided individual (fool ) used the prefix kilo for the number 1024 & it stuck, now about a decade or so ago the correct term began to be used (true most likely by drive manufacturers since the number is bigger thus better for marketting)

 

[Shifty Geezer]

@Dregun

no, 1024 bytes is not 1KB its actually 1 KibiByte
1000 bytes = 1KB

wikipedia should have more info
but in essense what happened is many years ago, some misguided individual (fool ) used the prefix kilo for the number 1024 & it stuck, now about a decade or so ago the correct term began to be used (true most likely by drive manufacturers since the number is bigger thus better for marketting)

You can't really say the "correct term" is being used as if originally they picked the wrong term, when originally there was no binary term as humanity hadn't had to deal with binary numbers enough to develop a language for them.

At the time, a kilobyte was a large amount, easier to say than "one thousand and twenty four bytes", and a suitable approximation that everyone working in the field understand as an overloading of the term 'kilo' to mean multiple things. This standard was natural and never caused confusion. The problem was when someone changed from the existing understood standard to using kilo to mean the original 10^3. That went against all common conventions and was uncalled for. Humanity could quite happily have gone on using kilo and similar terms to represent their base two powers.

Now that this has happened, it makes sense to have a differentiating term, but like many forced terms, kibi sounds very artificial in the English language and I dare say that limits its adoption somewhat. Still, at the end of the day the fault lies not with the people who borrowed an existing word to talk about their field, which is standard huamn language evolution, but the marketing guys who decided to break with the existing language and create an artificial 'evolution' for the sakes of putting bigger numbers on their boxes than the old standard allowed. The fact a new system was officially introduced has only created confusion as it hasn't gained universal adoption. Now we no longer know if KB means 1000 bytes or 1024 bytes, etc. whereas before the binary standard (and HDD capacities) we did. Case in point, PS3 is sold as a 40 GB pack and yet the available capacity is shown in the system as 37 GB, not 37 GiB, making it look like 3 GBs has just disappeared!

Anyway, Dregun is right that PS3 takes a percentage of HDD space. My old thread reminds me that 6 GBs was taken up by the system. Googling suggests Home reserves some space too, so I think it's all explained now - effectively from 40 GBs (box description), we're down to ~30 GiB's useable space.

 

[goonergaz]

Case in point, PS3 is sold as a 40 GB pack and yet the available capacity is shown in the system as 37 GB, not 37 GiB, making it look like 3 GBs has just disappeared!

Anyway, Dregun is right that PS3 takes a percentage of HDD space. My old thread reminds me that 6 GBs was taken up by the system. Googling suggests Home reserves some space too, so I think it's all explained now - effectively from 40 GBs (box description), we're down to ~30 GiB's useable space.

Well it's the HDD manufacturers to blame...they're the ones selling XXGB HDDs that don't actually have XXGB! You've also confirmed my thoughts on the system - when I googled your problem there were lots of comments about only having 31GB so that adds up nicely

 

[Dregun]

Growing up I knew that a Kilo of something was 1000. It just made sense to me that in a binary world when 2 to the 10th meant 1024 that it would be easier to just call it a Kilo. It wasn't like we had another set of terms to use for such a system. In imperial measurements we don't have a standard for base increases like what metric has, this I thought was just common knowledge. I thought consumers only cared that they were getting what was advertised. If your new measuring/naming system does not match the legacy measuring method used you shouldn't change your system or at least offer a comparitive representation of that measurement on a package. They can call the PS3 or whatever 320GB as long as they put 298GB underneath it.

Also frustrating to me is the Kb, Mb, Gb when discussing transfer speeds. For the longest time hardware manufacturers were not putting the lower case "B" to identify the numbers as "bits" instead of "bytes". This became very hard to describe to people that they needed to divide that number by 8 to get the Byte transfer speed. Boy was my dad mad when he found out his blazing fast 2Mb connection he had back in the day only meant he could download his nascar clips at 256KB a second instead of 2MB a second.

As I said in my earlier post it wasn't always like this, it wasn't until we hit the 1GB mark that manufacturers started to really bang out the decimal measuring system instead of the binary version. The reason RAM hasn't had that happen yet is because so many things are dependant on actually representing the actual size. 1000 cannot be broken down by 8 as easily as 1024 can be, a computer needs all the ram it can get and any misrepresentation of the actual size of the ram would be more costly to developers and increase frustration on the users.

The fact that our current computer systems still read 1KB as being 1024 means hardware manufacturers are simply doing a dissadvantage to their customers and really should be required to produce binary representations of their equipment or stop using the decimal version all together!.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's true enough. 4 GB RAM in a laptop is 4 gibibytes. 120 Mbps is 120 mibibits per second. Given the standards aren't going to be overturned because they are too entrenched, I don't see the sense in trying to push for a change that was never necessary. Mandate that HDDs are measured according to the binary definition of GB/TB, and everything returns to normal with no complications, other than having to teach a second definition for kilo/mega/giga in schools when talking about binary data formats used in computers.

 

[Colourless]

Actually over here in .au land when speeds for internet connections are given in Mbps they are actually 1024000 bps (or 1000 Kbps) which makes things even more confusing. Of course the high speed internet connections have a guaranteed speed that is significantly lower than the advertised Mbps speed. The speed you get will be less than the speed even if the advertised Mbps speed was calculated using 1024Kbps, so its a doesn't matter anyway. I think this crap started when 1500Kbps ADSL connections were advertised as 1.5Mbps. It then kind of became the 'standard'.