• Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    10 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
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 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.