Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Click the "Create Account" button now to join.
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Important User How to reduce the size of a gmapsupp.img file on a card???
    How to reduce the size of a gmapsupp.img file on a card???How to reduce the size of a gmapsupp.img file on a card???How to reduce the size of a gmapsupp.img file on a card???How to reduce the size of a gmapsupp.img file on a card???
    osiris4isis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Darkside of the Moon
    Posts
    2,876
    Rep Power
    1384

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Butters View Post
    So, you can maybe now clearly see that 2 GB is 2,000,000,000 bytes but 2 GiB is 2,147,483,648 bytes. Also your so-called 2GB CF card only has effective storage available of ~1.90 GiB or 2,047,541,248 bytes. Your garmin-based GW Navi can actually read an image up to the FAT 16 file size limit which is one byte less than 2GiB or 2,147,483,647 bytes so by using a card larger than your 2GB CF you can get a slightly bigger img file on it, almost 100,000,000 bytes or ~10 MB larger in fact. If you have a later model GW with an SD card navi then your 2GB SDs have even less space than a CF.
    This is assuming
    1. There are no bad sectors that would give less space than the "theoretical" limit
    2. Taken into account of overhead of the FAT table
    Do not PM me with questions. That's what a forum is for.

  2.    Advertissements


  3. #2
    Important User How to reduce the size of a gmapsupp.img file on a card???
    How to reduce the size of a gmapsupp.img file on a card???How to reduce the size of a gmapsupp.img file on a card???
    Butters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    1,466
    Rep Power
    1059

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by osiris4isis View Post
    This is assuming
    1. There are no bad sectors that would give less space than the "theoretical" limit
    2. Taken into account of overhead of the FAT table
    Yeah sure, let's confuse 'em a little bit more hey? Anyway, i think bad sectors are ignored by the OS after a re-format (aren't they?), not even shown in used, free or total capacity and the overhead of the File Allocation Table is already accounted for when looking at available fee space in properties, which for this recently formatted 2GB CF is 96KB in overhead:
    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

 

 

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •