• @Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    84 months ago

    Found the hard drive manufacturer.

    It’s 1024. It’s always been 1024. It’ll always be 1024.

    Unless fo course we should start using 17.2GB RAM sticks.

    • @QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      74 months ago

      There’s a conflict between the linguistic and practical implications here.

      “kilo-“ means 1,000 everywhere. 1,000 is literally the definition of “kilo-“. In theory, it’s a good thing we created “kibi-“ to mean 2^10 (1024).

      Why does everyone expect a kilobyte to be 1024 bytes, then? Because “kibi-“ didn’t exist yet, and some dumb fucking IBM(?) engineers decided that 1,000 was close enough to 1,024 and called it a day. That legacy carries over to today, where most people expect “kilo-“ to mean 1024 within the context of computing.

      Since product terminology should generally match what the end-user expects it to mean, perhaps we should redefine “kilobyte” to mean 1024 bytes. That runs into another problem, though: if we change it now, when you look at a 512GB SSD, you’ll have to ask, “512 old gigabytes or 512 new gigabytes?”, arguably creating even more of a mess than we already have. That problem is why “kibi-“ was invented in the first place.

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod
        link
        fedilink
        English
        14 months ago

        It’s not just the difference between kilo- and kibi-. It’s also the difference between bits and bytes. A kilobit is only 125 eight-bit bytes, whereas a kilobyte is 8,000 bits.