Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

1 kilobyte is precisely 1000 bytes?

waspdev.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 430 posts

Re: 1 kilobyte is precisely 1000 bytes?

#11

Post by quotemstr »

dr_zoidberg wrote: post #8
jachee wrote: post #2

The entire reason "storage vendors prefer" 1000-based kilobytes is so that they could misrepresent and over-market their storage capacities, getting that 24-bytes per-kb of expectation-vs-reality profit. It's the same reason—for pure marketing purposes—that screens are measured diagonally.

Not sure about that, SSDs historically have followed base-2 sizes (think of it as a legacy from their memory-based origins). What does happen in SSDs is that you have overprovisioned models that hide a few % of their total size, so instead of a 128GB SSD you get a 120GB one, with 8GB "hidden" from you that the SSD uses to handle wear leveling and garbage collection algorithms to keep it performing nicely for a longer…

Sounds like an urban legend. How likely is it that the optimal amount over-provisioning just so happens to match the gap between power-ten and power-two size conventions?

Re: 1 kilobyte is precisely 1000 bytes?

#12

Post by quotemstr »

It's too late. Powers-of-two won. I'm the sort of person who uses "whom" in English, but even I acknowledge that using "KB" to mean 1,000, not 1,024, can only breed confusion. The purpose of language is to communicate. I'm all for pedantry when it's compatible with clarity, but we can't reconcile the two goals here.

Re: 1 kilobyte is precisely 1000 bytes?

#13

Post by nerdsniper »

recursive wrote: post #3

I'm suprised they didn't mention kibibyte. (Edit: they did) There are plenty of applications where power-of-2 alignment are useful or necessary. Not addressing that and just chastising everyone for using units wrong isn't particularly helpful. I guess we can just all switch to kibibytes, except the HDD manufacturers.

We can, but we won't. At least not any time soon. For the foreseeable future, kilobyte will remain an ambiguous term, and kibibyte will very often not be used when someone is referring to 1024 bytes.

Re: 1 kilobyte is precisely 1000 bytes?

#14

Post by digiown »

quotemstr wrote: post #12

It's too late. Powers-of-two won. I'm the sort of person who uses "whom" in English, but even I acknowledge that using "KB" to mean 1,000, not 1,024, can only breed confusion. The purpose of language is to communicate. I'm all for pedantry when it's compatible with clarity, but we can't reconcile the two goals here.

Is it? Outside of Windows, I rarely ever see KB used to mean 1024 anymore. Linux and Mac usually uses KB for 1000, and "K" or "Ki" or "KiB" for 1024.

Re: 1 kilobyte is precisely 1000 bytes?

#16

Post by mc32 »

One thing that annoys me is:

Why don’t kilobyte continue to mean 1024 and introduce kilodebyte to mean 1000. Byte, to me implies a binary number system, and if you want to introduce a new nomenclature to reduce confusion, give the new one a new name and let the older of more prevalent one in its domain keep the old one…

Re: 1 kilobyte is precisely 1000 bytes?

#17

Post by Dwedit »

nerdsniper wrote: post #9

Final edit: This ambiguity is documented at least back to 1984, by IBM, the pre-eminent computer company of the time. In 1972 IBM started selling the IBM 3333 magnetic disk drive. This product catalog [0] from 1979 shows them marketing the corresponding disks as "100 million bytes" or "200 million bytes" (3336 mdl 1 and 3336 mdl 11, respectively). By 1984, those same disks were marketed in the "IBM Input/Output Devic…

At least it's not a total bizarro unit like "Floppy Disk Megabyte", equal to 1024000 bytes.

Re: 1 kilobyte is precisely 1000 bytes?

#18

Post by direwolf20 »

quotemstr wrote: post #11
dr_zoidberg wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure about that, SSDs historically have followed base-2 sizes (think of it as a legacy from their memory-based origins). What does happen in SSDs is that you have overprovisioned models that hide a few % of their total size, so instead of a 128GB SSD you get a 120GB one, with 8GB "hidden" from you that the SSD uses to handle wear leveling and garbage collection algorithms to keep it performing nicely for a longer…

Sounds like an urban legend. How likely is it that the optimal amount over-provisioning just so happens to match the gap between power-ten and power-two size conventions?

It doesn't, but it's convenient.

Re: 1 kilobyte is precisely 1000 bytes?

#20

Post by cedilla »

nerdsniper wrote: post #9

Final edit: This ambiguity is documented at least back to 1984, by IBM, the pre-eminent computer company of the time. In 1972 IBM started selling the IBM 3333 magnetic disk drive. This product catalog [0] from 1979 shows them marketing the corresponding disks as "100 million bytes" or "200 million bytes" (3336 mdl 1 and 3336 mdl 11, respectively). By 1984, those same disks were marketed in the "IBM Input/Output Devic…

You've got it exactly the wrong way around. And that with such great confidence!

There was always a confusion about whether a kilobyte was 1000 or 1024 bytes. Early diskettes always used 1000, only when the 8 bit home computer era started was the 1024 convention firmly established.

Before that it made no sense to talk about kilo as 1024. Earlier computers measured space in records and words, and I guess you can see how in 1960, no one would use kilo to mean 1024 for a 13 bit computer with 40 byte records. A kiloword was, naturally, 1000 words, so why would a kilobyte be 1024?

1024 bearing near ubiquitous was only the case in the 90s or so - except for drive manufacturing and signal processing. Binary prefixes didn't invent the confusion, they were a partial solution. As you point out, while it's possible to clearly indicate binary prefixes, we have no unambiguous notation for decimal bytes.

Post reply on HN