Kibi vs Kilo - Socoder

-=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- (c) WidthPadding Industries 1987 0\|352\|0 -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=-
Socoder -> On Topic -> Kibi vs Kilo
Sat, 08 Sep 2012, 08:44
shroom_monk	So I was writing a quick bit of code for a larger system to convert a given value in bytes into a more sensible unit (kilobytes, megabytes, etc), when I ran into the problem of deciding whether to use the 'old' way of expressing multiples of bytes, or the 'proper' new way. See here if you haven't come across this before. So my question is, which do people prefer? 'Proper' kilobytes, 'proper' kibibytes, or the 'old' way where 1 kilobyte = 1024 bytes? Personally, since I grew up with the last option, I innately prefer that, but I suppose I should really use the modern standard way. What does everyone else think? -=-=- A mushroom a day keeps the doctor away... Keep It Simple, Shroom!
Sat, 08 Sep 2012, 08:55
Jayenkai	It should be 1024. It's just the cheapskate drive manufacturers that have made up the kibi bullshit, just to skimp on drive space a bit. People will Whinge. They always do. If you can set it as an option, do that. -=-=- ''Load, Next List!''
Sat, 08 Sep 2012, 10:14
rockford	I'm not bothered by the whole 1MB=1000/1024kb thing. What I really hate is broadband providers using Mb (meaning Megabit) but inferring/implying that it's MB (Megabytes). I know Nintendo and Sega both did that for their cartridges years ago, but you still got what you were expecting. Broadband providers just use it to make it look like you'll get much better speeds than they are actually providing.
Sat, 08 Sep 2012, 17:01
9572AD	I think it's asinine to have to differentiate, but since it has happened, an official differentiation isn't undesirable. -=-=- All the raw, animal magnetism of a rutabaga.
Sat, 08 Sep 2012, 19:21
JL235	It is a real hassle with ISPs doing it, especially when all downloaders and updaters will use megabytes instead of bits. Since it's also what their filesystem uses, it's also the number people are ultimately interested in. I also don't mind having units in 1024 instead of 1000. Decimalisation is also no more standardised than using other bases; no where in maths does it say things have to be base 10. Some have even pointed out that it's worse than other bases, because simple divisions often lead to a decimal number. What really annoys me though, is the occasional use of Mb for MiB, as it reads just like MB. The case difference is just too small of a difference to often notice.
Sun, 09 Sep 2012, 13:25
spinal	For reasons of sanity, it HAS to be 1024 because that is how computers work, it's no good changing it all just for fun, what the hell is wrong with just telling people than 'this is how computers count' and leaving it at that? argh!!!! [off topic] Dear chrome coders, please grab hold of the same spellchecker that the rest of your organisation is using and stop using this crap. chaning = chanGing, not chaining, chafing, chasing, craning or caning. A much better spellchecker can assume that you didn't press a key properly! [/offtopic] -=-=- Check out my excellent homepage!
Sun, 09 Sep 2012, 14:04
JL235	No, it doesn't have to based around 1024, because that isn't how computers have to work. It's how pretty much all modern PC's are organized, in units of 1024, along with 8 bits to a byte. However it's not how it has to be, and in the past there have been lots of alternatives, for example 6 bits to a byte. For example we could build PC hardware, and the software running on top, being built on blocks of 1,000 instead. Although it would probably be a little slower, as it would need a little more logic to switch from base 2 to base 10. However other powers of 2 are also just as valid, such as 512 or 2048. 1024 is only picked out of convention. That is actually why many standards avoid the term 'byte' on it's own. Instead they use 'octet', '8 bit byte', or define what a byte is at the start.
Mon, 10 Sep 2012, 00:17
spinal	I only went with 1024 as an example. But my point stands. Anyone who has anything to do with computers, especially storage, be it RAM, flash or disk, should have the decency to count it the same way that a computer counts it. Anything else is making a fool of those who don't know and ripping off those that do. -=-=- Check out my excellent homepage!
Mon, 10 Sep 2012, 03:32
shroom_monk	While I personally agree with that, it is still at odds with how standard units for other things are calculated, hence the alternative 'kibi' units. I suppose whichever one you use, there has to be some degree of compromise... -=-=- A mushroom a day keeps the doctor away... Keep It Simple, Shroom!