If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
While there may a more correct abbreviation, I do believe that in terms of
hard drive and RAM byte capacities, the 1024 = 1K thesis is in fact, correct. For years computer users have been either slightly and usually inconsequently off, but if you ever puzzled over the numbers that a drive manufacturer offers for capacity and then look at the report generated by a directory listing, there has always been that strange and wonderful disparity between the "real" K or Mb measurement and the binary K or Mb measurement. Somehow the disks never quite measure up to their claims. Transmission bandwidth is a different story. Bandwidth has often been reported as "bits per second" and then again as "bytes per second" or even "baud" (which I understand is the number of waveform edges per second). Bytes of throughput may be deceptive since a transmitted byte can be various number of bits depending on ASCII convention followed and checkbits transmitted, etc. So in computerese it seems there is no *absolute* 1K or 1Mb. Goodness knows, there ain't no "correct", just conventions. "Malcolm Weir" wrote in message ... On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 19:45:37 +0000, Alun Saunders wrote: Alan wrote: In message , Alun Saunders wrote most OS's define it (correctly) as 1024*1024=1048576 bytes. Er, no. The 1000x1000 figure is correct It depends on your definition of "correct", I suppose. How about the SI units? Ever since I've been working in the computer field, which is getting for 27 years now, a kByte has been 1024 bytes and a MByte has been 1048576 bytes, at least for RAM, ROM and suchlike. True, and they've incorrectly been using SI prefixes all the time! You do know that a Kg is not 1024g, and a Km is not 1024m, right? I can't honestly say whether hard disks way back then (which were in the order of 5 or 10 MBytes) used that or the 10^6 version, and let's face it with capacities like that the absolute difference between the two is pretty small, but I still find it misleading to use one definition for memory and another for storage purposes, and historically I find the 1 MByte=1048576 bytes the more "correct" one. You can think what you like, however. How many bits per second can you send down a 1 megabit/sec line? It has *never* been anything than 1,000,000. Because frequencies (1MHz) have always been correct. Still, in the early days, disk manufacturers sometimes quoted capacities in units of 2000 sectors, each of 512 bytes, i.e. 1024000 byes (also called "megabytes"). The correct prefix for the binary power is "Mebi", written "Mi", as in "Mebibytes" (MiB). Malc. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Recalling some fundamentals ---
Here's why the Kilo-, Mega-, and Giga- terms were appealing. 2^10 ~ 1K 2^20 ~ 1M 2^30 ~ 1G 2^40 ~ 1T etc. It's a curious blend of base-2 numbers and base-10 groupings. Early computer people liked that, and ran with it. FWIW, that predated the time when a byte was universally 8 bits. "Pieter Litchfield" wrote in message = ... While there may a more correct abbreviation, I do believe that in = terms of=20 hard drive and RAM byte capacities, the 1024 =3D 1K thesis is in fact, = correct. For years computer users have been either slightly and = usually=20 inconsequently off, but if you ever puzzled over the numbers that a = drive=20 manufacturer offers for capacity and then look at the report generated = by a=20 directory listing, there has always been that strange and wonderful=20 disparity between the "real" K or Mb measurement and the binary K or = Mb=20 measurement. Somehow the disks never quite measure up to their = claims. Transmission bandwidth is a different story. Bandwidth has often been = reported as "bits per second" and then again as "bytes per second" or = even=20 "baud" (which I understand is the number of waveform edges per = second).=20 Bytes of throughput may be deceptive since a transmitted byte can be = various=20 number of bits depending on ASCII convention followed and checkbits=20 transmitted, etc. So in computerese it seems there is no *absolute* = 1K or=20 1Mb. Goodness knows, there ain't no "correct", just conventions. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 02:29:43 GMT, "Pieter Litchfield"
wrote: While there may a more correct abbreviation, I do believe that in terms of hard drive and RAM byte capacities, the 1024 = 1K thesis is in fact, correct. The SI folks disagree. You lose. For years computer users have been either slightly and usually inconsequently off, but if you ever puzzled over the numbers that a drive manufacturer offers for capacity and then look at the report generated by a directory listing, there has always been that strange and wonderful disparity between the "real" K or Mb measurement and the binary K or Mb measurement. Somehow the disks never quite measure up to their claims. Nope. They live up to their claims, you just didn't read what the claim really WAS. You just presumed that they were making the same mistake as you... Transmission bandwidth is a different story. No, it isn't. Same deal. Same prefix. Bandwidth has often been reported as "bits per second" and then again as "bytes per second" or even "baud" (which I understand is the number of waveform edges per second). Not really. Baud is the number of information units per second. An information unit may be one or more than one bit. Bytes of throughput may be deceptive since a transmitted byte can be various number of bits depending on ASCII convention followed and checkbits transmitted, etc. Sure. But a 1Mbit/sec line is not deceptive: it transmits 1,000,000 bits per second. By the way, you know your PCI bus at 32 bits wide and 33MHz transmits 132,000,000 bits per second, right? As in 132MB/sec. So in computerese it seems there is no *absolute* 1K or 1Mb. Goodness knows, there ain't no "correct", just conventions. False. There *is* a correct usage, and common (incorrect usage). I mean, where did we *get* the prefixes K, M, G, and T, etc...? Look, we've been misusing those SI prefixes for years. We know what we mean. But let's not pretend that the misuse is "correct". Malc. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Malcolm Weir writes:
By the way, you know your PCI bus at 32 bits wide and 33MHz transmits 132,000,000 bits per second, right? As in 132MB/sec. (you meant bytes per second, but the number's right.) Look, we've been misusing those SI prefixes for years. We know what we mean. But let's not pretend that the misuse is "correct". Yup. Anton |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Pieter Litchfield wrote: While there may a more correct abbreviation, They are defined. It is the computer people that are misusing the metric prefixes and positive powers fof 1024 prefixes have been defined but as of yet are not commonly used. http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/...ts/binary.html http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/.../prefixes.html (( For the EU residents, this is an international standard which is applicable to the EU as well as the rest of the world. )) The ``marketeers'' prefer to use the SI/metric prefixes rather than the binary prefixes as they give bigger numbes. The computer ``nerds'' prefer the binary sized meanings as they more correctly their pattern of usage. Now just get the computer ``nerds'' to switch from 1.073741824 to 1GiB (512MB = 488.28125MiB). 1Mb. Goodness knows, there ain't no "correct", just conventions. There is a ``correct.'' But, generally, people are not using it as they are continuing their old practices. The correct prefix for the binary power is "Mebi", written "Mi", as in "Mebibytes" (MiB). Malc. Ipse dixit. (( In the original meaning of the Latin expression: he/she/it said it (him/her/it)self. )) Randolph J. Herber, , +1 630 840 2966, CD/CDFTF PK-149F, Mail Stop 318, Fermilab, Kirk & Pine Rds., PO Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510-0500, USA. (Speaking for myself and not for US, US DOE, FNAL nor URA.) (Product, trade, or service marks herein belong to their respective owners.) |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Malcolm Weir wrote: On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 19:45:37 +0000, Alun Saunders wrote: Alan wrote: In message , Alun Saunders wrote most OS's define it (correctly) as 1024*1024=1048576 bytes. Er, no. The 1000x1000 figure is correct It depends on your definition of "correct", I suppose. How about the SI units? Ever since I've been working in the computer field, which is getting for 27 years now, a kByte has been 1024 bytes and a MByte has been 1048576 bytes, at least for RAM, ROM and suchlike. True, and they've incorrectly been using SI prefixes all the time! You do know that a Kg is not 1024g, and a Km is not 1024m, right? I can't honestly say whether hard disks way back then (which were in the order of 5 or 10 MBytes) used that or the 10^6 version, and let's face it with capacities like that the absolute difference between the two is pretty small, but I still find it misleading to use one definition for memory and another for storage purposes, and historically I find the 1 MByte=1048576 bytes the more "correct" one. You can think what you like, however. How many bits per second can you send down a 1 megabit/sec line? It has *never* been anything than 1,000,000. Because frequencies (1MHz) have always been correct. Bzzt. If you are thinking about the same 1-megabit lines as the G.703/G.704 lines standardize (and common throughout Europe and with some availability in the rest of the world) i have to disappoint you. G.703 specifies the bit rate as 2048000 +/- 2 bits per second, and G.704 divides this into 32 timeslots of 64000 bits per second. All designed to transmit 8000 samples of 8 bits per second. A 1-megabit line has 16 timeslots for 1024000 bits per second. Still, in the early days, disk manufacturers sometimes quoted capacities in units of 2000 sectors, each of 512 bytes, i.e. 1024000 byes (also called "megabytes"). The correct prefix for the binary power is "Mebi", written "Mi", as in "Mebibytes" (MiB). Yeah, right. -- mrr |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Alan wrote: In message , Peter wrote I have three of these, all brand new. All show 488MB as the size when formatting them and this is matched by the size of the files that can be transferred to them from a PC. Even allowing for 1k being 1024 etc this is a very big shortfall. 1k is actually 1000 when referring to hard disks, and presumably SD cards. A computer may report 1k byte as 1024 bytes. M$ Windows reports both figures. Converting from the true figure to the alternative (approximate) form of reporting size gives (512 x 1000 x 1000) / (1024x1024) = 488 So when the computer salesman (it is usually a male) sold you 512 meg of storage for $0.1k, and you ended up with 488000000 bytes for $102.40. (sorry about old joke, just appropriate for the setting). -- mrr |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Standards are only useful when adopted.
Although very intelligent people define the standards to which we should adhere, the standards are ultimately set by the people who would use them. I understand the need for differentiating between 2^20 and 10^6, but you'll be hard pressed to find more than 1 in 10 computer "nerds" who are willing to refer to "Kilobits" as "Kibibits" or "Kaybee's" as "Kibee's." *cringe* Sometimes technically-oriented people overlook the real-world aspect of what they do. I think the lack of wide-spread adoption of this standard after seven years is saying something. I think that until the manufacturers, namely Memory Manufacturers, adopt this "new" standard, it's going to remain jargon that only the truly savvy understand. Until then, the rest of us are going to have to refer to the fine print if we want real numbers. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Announcement] FlashBoot - a tool to make USB Flash Disks bootable | PrimeExpert | General | 0 | February 6th 05 05:58 PM |
Booting w/ a flash drive | Jon Davis | General | 4 | May 22nd 04 06:14 AM |
bigger flash cards, more battery usage? | kony | General | 0 | August 29th 03 09:58 PM |
USB flash card reader jams up | larrymoencurly | General | 1 | August 22nd 03 08:02 PM |
About the 512MB Tinlex USB2.0 handy Flash drive | Some One | General | 0 | August 14th 03 04:07 PM |