Thread: Why is 'Suppmap1' in Nuvi 1xxx Inventory? & Why are some maps unselectable named as 'gmapoem'?

Sorry to bump my own thread. Consecutive posts by other people i generally find to be quite annoying, so my apologies for doing this. I had forgotten to mention something which really i could have done as an edit to either post #5 or 7. After replying to post #4 by dasilvarsa i rechecked my .xml and found this in it:
<Name>SupplementalMaps</Name>
- <File>
- <Specification>
<Identifier>IMG</Identifier>
</Specification>
- <Location>
<Path>Map</Path>
<BaseName>gmapsupp</BaseName>
<FileExtension>img</FileExtension>
</Location>
<TransferDirection>InputOutput</TransferDirection>
</File>
</DataType>
- <DataType>
<Name>NMaps</Name>
- <File>
- <Specification>
<Identifier>IMG</Identifier>
</Specification>
- <Location>
<Path>Map</Path>
<FileExtension>img</FileExtension>
</Location>
<TransferDirection>InputOutput</TransferDirection>
I had last looked at the .xml not long before my initial post but somehow again managed to miss the fact that the path for 'suppmap1' is to 'Map'. I've looked at that .xml so many times. i can't believe that i didn't see and absorb the implication at some point, and it's right above the 'NMaps' path to 'Map'. I've always taken NMaps to be an abbreviation of 'AnyName Maps' which it means in a practical sense anyway, because there is no basename entry between the Path and File Extension entries. I hadn't bothered about adding the above info as an edit because i really expected a volley of replies pointing out that the path for 'suppmap1' as 'gmapsupp' was to 'Map' in GarminDevice.xml. Perhaps most people were aware of it and just thought it too trivial to comment on, but to me it was a revelation. So maybe i was being too tough on the garmin software engineers, because it must be that the Supplemental Maps path to the Map folder was done intentionally to pave the way for NMaps in later fw revisions?

But now the reason for the bump.. i have always been confused by gigabytes & gibibytes, binary and decimal values, and the fact that harddrive manufacturers and Microsoft differed in their descriptions of what is a GB (gigabyte), or for that matter the value of a megabyte or a terabyte. So ok, i knew that when valuing a gigabyte anyway, MS would 'discount' the HD maker's value to about 93% or so roughly (1 over 1.074 or thereabouts). So i thought i'd revisit this trying, if possible, to clear this confusion up for myself. I wish i hadn't. Trying to get my head around things like 10^9, 2^30, 2^32, 1000^3, 1024^3 as values for a gigabyte and/or a gibibyte, depending on how it best suits the case of the particular claimant have now made my head spin, and that's pre-braced with a stiff expresso. I mean, reduced to simple figures they all just look like rifle numbers or NY telphone numbers to me anyway. So, BB, it was you who actually opened this particularly nasty can of worms for me. Can you clear it up without confusing me further? Keep in mind that i have had NO formal computor training, am of pensionable age and regularly deplete my meager stock of remaining brain cells thru excess consumption of fine West Aust. Shiraz. So please, you or anybody else, reply like you're explaining it to the village idiot. What is the FAT32 file size limitation, 4 GB minus 1 byte, or 4 Gib - 1, are they really the same values anyway, and what does the Heck does it really mean in actual bytes? To most people, that is. Keep it simple Sam. Hmmm?