Discussion
JonRB said:
markmullen said:
1023 surely?
The gigabyte been redefined as 10^9 bytes now (ie. decimalised), and what we used to call a gigabyte now called the rather un-catchy gibibyte (GiB).
Was just explaining to my children (I'm SUCH a fun Dad) about bits, bytes, kilobytes etc.. Am I now wrong?! How can that be, as it is based on binary.boxst said:
JonRB said:
markmullen said:
1023 surely?
The gigabyte been redefined as 10^9 bytes now (ie. decimalised), and what we used to call a gigabyte now called the rather un-catchy gibibyte (GiB). Was just explaining to my children (I'm SUCH a fun Dad) about bits, bytes, kilobytes etc.. Am I now wrong?! How can that be, as it is based on binary.boxst said:
Oh Was just explaining to my children (I'm SUCH a fun Dad) about bits, bytes, kilobytes etc.. Am I now wrong?! How can that be, as it is based on binary.
You're not wrong as such. It *is* based on binary, but in the early days of computing we (rather incorrectly) appropriated kilo-, mega-, giga-, etc. and misused them as meaning 1024 times (etc) rather than 1000 times (etc). What's happened now is that the words have been taken back as having their correct metric meanings and the terms we previously used have been given new names. Was just explaining to my children (I'm SUCH a fun Dad) about bits, bytes, kilobytes etc.. Am I now wrong?! How can that be, as it is based on binary.It's kind of like the difference between 200 PS and 197.3 bhp, or 0-62 mph (ie. 0-100km/h) instead of 0-60mph. So, in the same way, 300 GB = 279 GiB.
HDD manufacturers have been doing it for years, of course.
Edited by JonRB on Tuesday 27th January 15:38
JonRB said:
You're not wrong as such. It *is* based on binary, but in the early days of computing we (rather incorrectly) appropriated kilo-, mega-, giga-, etc. and misused them as meaning 1024 times (etc) rather than 1000 times (etc). What's happened now is that the words have been taken back as having their correct metric meanings and the terms we previously used have been given new names.
It's kind of like the difference between 200 PS and 197.3 bhp, or 0-62 mph (ie. 0-100km/h) instead of 0-60mph. So, in the same way, 300 GB = 279 GiB.
HDD manufacturers have been doing it for years, of course.
Nonsense - it was not incorrect. Just because ignorance is prevalent these days does not mean the definitions have to change. My billion is still a million million thank you very much and my Kilobyte is still 1024 bytes. I use Bhp not PS and anymore of that and you'll be wanting to move the date line.It's kind of like the difference between 200 PS and 197.3 bhp, or 0-62 mph (ie. 0-100km/h) instead of 0-60mph. So, in the same way, 300 GB = 279 GiB.
HDD manufacturers have been doing it for years, of course.
Edited by JonRB on Tuesday 27th January 15:38
Jinx said:
Nonsense - it was not incorrect. Just because ignorance is prevalent these days does not mean the definitions have to change. My billion is still a million million thank you very much and my Kilobyte is still 1024 bytes. I use Bhp not PS and anymore of that and you'll be wanting to move the date line.
But it *is* incorrect and was always incorrect. By ISO standards, the prefix kilo- means "1000x". It was never correct to redefine kilo- to mean "1024x" when applied to bits and bytes. Yes, for sure we got used to remembering, but when computing was opened up to a wider audience of non-technical users it was always going to cause confusion. This has removed that confusion.
You're more than welcome to continue the old ways and make any personal definition (or symlink or typedef) that you want. Just don't try to tell me it's nonsense when quite clearly it isn't. What is nonsense is having different definitions of the word "kilo" depending on context.
Edited by JonRB on Thursday 5th February 08:39
JonRB said:
But it *is* incorrect and was always incorrect. By ISO standards, the prefix kilo- means "1000x". It was never correct to redefine kilo- to mean "1024x" when applied to bits and bytes.
Yes, for sure we got used to remembering, but when computing was opened up to a wider audience of non-technical users it was always going to cause confusion. This has removed that confusion.
You're more than welcome to continue the old ways and make any personal definition (or symlink or typedef) that you want. Just don't try to tell me it's nonsense when quite clearly it isn't. What is nonsense is having different definitions of the word "kilo" depending on context.
ISO smiso - the only ISO I care about is ISO 3103Yes, for sure we got used to remembering, but when computing was opened up to a wider audience of non-technical users it was always going to cause confusion. This has removed that confusion.
You're more than welcome to continue the old ways and make any personal definition (or symlink or typedef) that you want. Just don't try to tell me it's nonsense when quite clearly it isn't. What is nonsense is having different definitions of the word "kilo" depending on context.
Edited by JonRB on Thursday 5th February 08:39
Kilobyte was used to describe 1024 bytes - that was what it was defined as. In fact Kilogramme was a misnomer in the first place. The gramme had no definition when it was created except as 1/1000th of the Kilogramme - it was a relative measure. So it would make more sense to define gramme as meaning 1/1000th of something than to define "kilo" as meaning a 1000 (because kilogramme was the individual defined measure) .
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff