 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a43e8cf@news.povray.org...
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > IIRC, somebody somewhere wanted to start calling it KiB or something
> > stupid for when you actually mean 2^10...
> I think that "somebody somewhere" would be the International
> Electrotechnical Commission.
>
> The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers also adopted
> the naming convention in their IEEE 1541-2002 standard, as well as the
> European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization.
Good intentions, but "kilo binary binary digit" - what were they smoking?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> http://www.imgur.com/jvehe
> >
> >> Who do you believe?
> >
> > Why for me?
>
> You're the one I most vividly remember complaining that disk drive
> manufacturers say 1,000,000,000 bytes is a gigabyte?
No, that would be me.
DIE, WA, DIE!!!!11
....
OK, I'm done now for at least a week... ;)
....Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/25/09 15:46, Darren New wrote:
> I find it interesting that google thinks 1024 meg is a gig, and wolfram
> thinks 1000 meg is a gig. :-) Clearly science disagrees with computers.
Do you mean the other way round? The link clearly shows Wolfram
thinking 1024 Megs is a Gig.
--
Marge: "When I married you, I knew we wouldn't live in luxury."
Homer: "And I kept that vow."
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Do you mean the other way round? The link clearly shows Wolfram
> thinking 1024 Megs is a Gig.
Errr, no, I don't think so. The top half is where google says 100,000 megs
is 97 gig, implying 1024 meg to the gig. The bottom half is wolfram saying
100,000 meg is 100 gig. Hence, wolfram thinks 1000 meg is 1 gig, yes?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> Good intentions, but "kilo binary binary digit" - what were they smoking?
Where did you get that name? It's "kilo binary byte".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Good intentions, but "kilo binary binary digit" - what were they smoking?
>
> Where did you get that name? It's "kilo binary byte".
I guess if you were talking about kiloBITS, then you would have "kilo
binary bit", and allegedly "bit" is short for "binary digit"... It's
tenuous though.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I guess if you were talking about kiloBITS, then you would have "kilo
> binary bit", and allegedly "bit" is short for "binary digit"... It's
> tenuous though.
Btw, I have never understood why "kilobit" is so popular of a term.
Many things are measured in kilobits for no apparent reason, even though
other similar things are measured in kilobytes.
To me "kilobit" is a very confusing term. It doesn't tell my anything.
If someone says to me "the file was 150 kilobytes in size", I immediately
get a grasp of whether it's a large or a small file in that context, without
needing to think about it. However, if someone said "the file was 150 kilobits
in size" that would tell me nothing. I would have to perform some mental math
in order to comprehend the meaning. (Of course an easy approximation would be
to divide by 10... assuming the 25% error isn't significant in the context.
In many contexts that's a huge error.)
The only rational reason for using kilobits rather than kilobytes would
be if you need to express sizes which are not multiples of 8 bits. However,
in practice that's *never* the case. All practical sizes in computing are
multiples of 8 bits. There's absolutely no reason to use kilobits. There's
unnecessary accuracy in the unit.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Btw, I have never understood why "kilobit" is so popular of a term.
> Many things are measured in kilobits for no apparent reason, even though
> other similar things are measured in kilobytes.
The only place I've seen it used is in networking (most kinds of
networks transmit individual bits) and data compression (you might want
to send the data over a network or other transport, and you need to
compress it enough that the decoder can receive the data fast enough).
Haven't seen it anywhere else. (As you say, it wouldn't make much sense.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a449e36@news.povray.org...
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> > Good intentions, but "kilo binary binary digit" - what were they
smoking?
> Where did you get that name? It's "kilo binary byte".
"Kilo binary" as a prefix is not limited to bytes, another (less ambigious)
unit is the bit, hence kibibits, mebibits... etc.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/26/09 00:21, Darren New wrote:
> Errr, no, I don't think so. The top half is where google says 100,000
> megs is 97 gig, implying 1024 meg to the gig. The bottom half is wolfram
I can't read...
Anyway, to the best of my knowledge, kilobyte is the only one agreed
upon. In my high school textbooks, 1 KB was 1024 bytes, but 1 MB was
1000 KB (not 1e6 bytes).
--
Q: What do you call a half-dozen Indians with Asian flu?
A: Six sick Sikhs (sic).
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
