Some of the comment that was deleted because it was too naughty addressed that, it’s not that it’s “made to anger me” it’s to rip people off by misrepresenting the amount they are selling and started much more recently than people think.
However it’s also true that most people who see the units assume it follows the same 1000-based system as literally everything else that uses those SI-prefixes does.
I somewhat doubt that all these international standards organisations are in the pockets of Western Digital and Seagate. It’s far more likely that they think “kilo means 1000, not 1024. Because that’s literally what kilo translates to.” Of course, the end result is still that it benefits storage manufacturers, but I highly doubt that’s what they set out to do.
Regardless of your opinion on the matter, getting that angry at people and dismissing them as bootlickers because they explain the GB vs GiB debate seems over-the-top to me.
In the past, that system was fine. After all, an additional 24 bytes or kilobytes is a tiny amount. But now that we’re getting into super huge data sizes, the gap is significant. 8 terabytes by the official scale is 8 trillion bytes, but by the traditional scale it’s 8.8 trillion bytes, a pretty sizable difference!
Yeah, the 0.8 trillion bytes that the manufacturer is ripping off the customer with.
Not really. The average person sees 8TB and assumes it means 8000GB. And… well… now it does.
Only a very small amount of people (tech nerds) could think it actually means 8192GB, and that each of those GB was actually 1024MB, and so on, and the people who know that also probably won’t be fooled by the misleading thing you say is happening.
Personally I’m fine with kilo/mega/giga/tera meaning kilo/mega/giga/tera, as opposed to kilo/mega/giga/tera plus some extra. Nobody is stopping you from measuring things in GiB and getting the numbers you desire.
Some of the comment that was deleted because it was too naughty addressed that, it’s not that it’s “made to anger me” it’s to rip people off by misrepresenting the amount they are selling and started much more recently than people think.
I can see that argument.
However it’s also true that most people who see the units assume it follows the same 1000-based system as literally everything else that uses those SI-prefixes does.
I somewhat doubt that all these international standards organisations are in the pockets of Western Digital and Seagate. It’s far more likely that they think “kilo means 1000, not 1024. Because that’s literally what kilo translates to.” Of course, the end result is still that it benefits storage manufacturers, but I highly doubt that’s what they set out to do.
Regardless of your opinion on the matter, getting that angry at people and dismissing them as bootlickers because they explain the GB vs GiB debate seems over-the-top to me.
Yeah, the 0.8 trillion bytes that the manufacturer is ripping off the customer with.
Not really. The average person sees 8TB and assumes it means 8000GB. And… well… now it does.
Only a very small amount of people (tech nerds) could think it actually means 8192GB, and that each of those GB was actually 1024MB, and so on, and the people who know that also probably won’t be fooled by the misleading thing you say is happening.
Personally I’m fine with kilo/mega/giga/tera meaning kilo/mega/giga/tera, as opposed to kilo/mega/giga/tera plus some extra. Nobody is stopping you from measuring things in GiB and getting the numbers you desire.
and how many people see a 1 tb hard drive and see that it only gives them 909GB and say “yeah, that’s cool”?