It would be nice to have a different standard for decimal vs. binary kilobytes.
But if Don Knuth thinks that the "international standard" naming for binary kilobytes is dead on arrival, who am I to argue?
81–90 of 430 posts
It would be nice to have a different standard for decimal vs. binary kilobytes.
But if Don Knuth thinks that the "international standard" naming for binary kilobytes is dead on arrival, who am I to argue?
Because Windows, and only Windows, shows it this way. It is official and documented: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20090611-00/?p=17...
> Explorer is just following existing practice. Everybody (to within experimental error) refers to 1024 bytes as a kilobyte, not a kibibyte. If Explorer were to switch to the term kibibyte, it would merely be showing users information in a form they cannot understand, and for what purpose? So you can feel superior because you know what that term means and other people don’t.
And a megabyte is depending on the context precisely 1000x1000=1,000,000 or 1024x1024=1,048,576 bytes*, except when you're talking about the classic 3.5 inch floppy disks, where "1.44 MB" stands for 1440x1024 bytes, or about 1.47 true MB or 1.41 MiB. * Yeah, I read the article. Regardless of the IEC's noble attempt, in all my years of working with people and computers I've never heard anyone actually pronounce MiB (o…
> I've never heard It doesn't matter. "kilo" means 1000. People are free to use it wrong if they wish.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was earlier than the 90s, and came with popular 8-bit CPUs in the 80s. The Z-80 microprocessor could address 64kb (which was 65,536 bytes) on its 16-bit address bus. Similarly, the 4104 chip was a "4kb x 1 bit" RAM chip and stored 4096 bits. You'd see this in the whole 41xx series, and beyond.
Even then it was not universal. For example, that Apple I ad that got posted a few days ago mentioned that "the system is expandable to 65K". https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Apple_1_...
The mistake was using the "Kibi" prefix. "Kibibyte" just sounds a bit silly when said out loud.
>Why do we often say 1 kilobyte = 1024 bytes? Because Windows, and only Windows, shows it this way. It is official and documented: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20090611-00/?p=17... > Explorer is just following existing practice. Everybody (to within experimental error) refers to 1024 bytes as a kilobyte, not a kibibyte. If Explorer were to switch to the term kibibyte, it would merely be showing users in…
The mistake was using the "Kibi" prefix. "Kibibyte" just sounds a bit silly when said out loud.
"I bought a two tib SSD."
"I just want to serve five pibs."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In computers, "kilobyte" has a context dependent meaning. It has been thus for decades. It does not only mean 1000 bytes.
I understand the usual meaning, but I use the correct meaning when precision is required.
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.
> 1 kilobyte is precisely 1000 bytes Agreed. For the naysayers out there, consider these problems: * You have 1 "MB" of RAM on a 1 MHz system bus which can transfer 1 byte per clock cycle. How many seconds does it take to read the entire memory? * You have 128 "GB" of RAM and you have an empty 128 GB SSD. Can you successfully hibernate the computer system by storing all of RAM on the SSD? * My camera shoots 6000×4000…
32 Gb ram chip = 4 GiB of RAM.