You actually can’t be mad about this one. This is effectively binary which you use all the time without knowing it. And even worse, proper SI notation has jacked up binary hardcore.
1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32… You won’t find a 1/12 or some other number.
Maybe that’s why I couldn’t tell if a gigabyte has 1000 megabytes or 1024. People keep telling me one or the other. Others keep telling me that there’s 1024 mebibytes in 1 gibibyte, but those names absolutely suck.
The confusion comes from the fact that Microsoft in Windows calls 1024 bytes a kilobyte, which makes no sense whatsoever, since that word has a meaning and that ain’t it.
When MS first launched MS-DOS maybe made sense (maybe), but right now it’s only creating confusion. Calling kilobyte a kibibyte is around a 2% error, but with terabyte it’s more than 9%, which is a pretty big deal when you buy a 1TB disk and only shows up as 900 and something GB
The confusion comes from the fact that Microsoft in Windows calls 1024 bytes a kilobyte
And storage… and networking… This isn’t actually a MS spawned problem, and it existed in media before MS put their hands in it. But it is probably fair to say that MS emboldened storage and networking companies to not change their stance. It doesn’t help that it’s in their benefit as they’re providing actually less product because of the confusion.
Afaik for storage it’s exactly what it says on the tin: a 1GB drive is exactly 1,000,000,000 Bytes. Then you put it in the computer and Windows, who thinks that 1GB = 1,073,741,824 Bytes says, well that’s a 0.93 GB drive, aka 930MB. So you start asking yourself where those 70MB went, while in reality windows is telling you that the drive is 930MiB, which is equal to 1GB.
As for networking, last I checked we use Megabits and Gigabits for that, which are a whole different can of worms and use a small b instead of a big B. 8 Mb = 1 MB
I’ve never seen anyone use Mebibit, if it exists, which I’m not sure it does.
And as for benefit, I’m not sure whose benefit it is to create this confusion. In my opinion, no one’s, as the drive makers get accused of false marketing while at the same time Windows gets accused of being a broken OS (fair)
Afaik for storage it’s exactly what it says on the tin
Right… the problem is the discrepancy from RAM and CPU where GB is 1024. There’s a disjoint between hardware where most hardware is base 2… then some other parts just aren’t. That’s my point. HDD/SSD manufacturers benefit from not getting onboard since they’re able to offer less and still be “technically” correct.
I’ve never seen anyone use Mebibit, if it exists, which I’m not sure it does.
It does exist, but it’s so fucking dumb to say (I always feel like I’m stuttering when I say the words) People probably just do everything they can to skip saying the words outright.
Hmm, never heard that before. Idk how to link to a specific section of a page, but what I’m talking about is there too, one section down.
An alternate system of nomenclature for the same units (referred to here as the customary convention), in which 1 kilobyte (KB) is equal to 1,024 bytes,[38][39][40] 1 megabyte (MB) is equal to 10242 bytes and 1 gigabyte (GB) is equal to 10243 bytes is mentioned by a 1990s JEDEC standard. Only the first three multiples (up to GB) are mentioned by the JEDEC standard, which makes no mention of TB and larger. The customary convention is used by the Microsoft Windows operating system[41][better source needed] and random-access memory capacity, such as main memory and CPU cache size, and in marketing and billing by telecommunication companies, such as Vodafone,[42] AT&T,[43] Orange[44] and Telstra.[45]
For storage capacity, the customary convention was used by macOS and iOS through Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard and iOS 10, after which they switched to units based on powers of 10.[34]
Yes, you’re right that 1024 bytes was a kilobyte and in fact it was that way for several decades. However, as the differences between powers of two and powers of ten increase as we see larger sizes, it’s become common to differentiate them.
Depends for what. Still better than random scales like 3, 12, 1760 and units that don’t mean anything like hundredweight, which isn’t even one hundred anything, unless it is because you live in another part of the world where the same word means a totally different thing.
I don’t agree. It might sometimes be cool, but with a numerical system in base 10, having a unit system in base 12 becomes really hard to manage. Let’s take meters:
To make a base 12 system work, you’d need to change the numerical system also, by adding two new digits, like we do for hexadecimal numbers, so you’d have …8-9-A-B-10, where A = 10 and B = 11 (in 10 base), so that 1m = 10dm = 100cm but in base 12.
Anyway, good luck trying to pass that, I’ve seen people who can barely count on their fingers, let alone understand a new base 12 numerical system. And for what?
To make a base 12 system work, you’d need to change the numerical system also, by adding two new digits, like we do for hexadecimal numbers, so you’d have …8-9-A-B-10, where A = 10 and B = 11 (in 10 base), so that 1m = 10dm = 100cm but in base 12.
Yes exactly. It’s equally as easy to do both. Counting to base 10 isn’t easier than doing it to base 12 or base 6. But 10 is just a kind of shitty number. That’s why imperial tends to use 12 because its better. They just changed the wrong thing. Metric should use base 12.
Changing it would be a ball ache. 12 is better than 10 though.
Not really that obvious. The imperial system is not used in base 12. It’s used in base 10 like everything else, therefore, if it were consistent with its units (which it isn’t) it would be more like 12 -> 144 -> 1728.
Since changing how we count is honestly not realistic, the prospect of having to deal with a system that’s not based on 10 is kinda scary.
Because a lot of imperial measurements revolved around being able to be divided by 4, and occasionally 3 at times.
For instance the cooking unit of measurments are in 4’s or base 2 in a way (e.g 1 gallon = 4 quarts = 8 pints = 16 cups = 128 ounces)
We still see 4s or 3s irl regardless of measurement system. Doughnuts are often prepared in dozens and virtually never in 10s. Do we walk around claiming why bakers hate 10 step counting?
Time is the example of something designed around 3/4 and didn’t change. 60 is divisiable by both 4 (15) and 3 (20) and is not base 10, but people can accept that.
Time is the example of something designed around 3/4 and didn’t change. 60 is divisiable by both 4 (15) and 3 (20) and is not base 10, but people can accept that.
Using 12 and 16 makes for easier maths (pre-calculators). It’s easier to divide and get an integer. With easy access to calculators and highly precise measurements (especially digital systems) metric makes more sense and is easier to interpret quickly.
The damn imperial system and its weird 1/16 measurements. Why do you people hate 10 step counting?
You actually can’t be mad about this one. This is effectively binary which you use all the time without knowing it. And even worse, proper SI notation has jacked up binary hardcore.
1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32… You won’t find a 1/12 or some other number.
Maybe that’s why I couldn’t tell if a gigabyte has 1000 megabytes or 1024. People keep telling me one or the other. Others keep telling me that there’s 1024 mebibytes in 1 gibibyte, but those names absolutely suck.
Mega is 10^6 , Mebi is 2^20 aka 1024^2 bytes
Edit:
The confusion comes from the fact that Microsoft in Windows calls 1024 bytes a kilobyte, which makes no sense whatsoever, since that word has a meaning and that ain’t it.
When MS first launched MS-DOS maybe made sense (maybe), but right now it’s only creating confusion. Calling kilobyte a kibibyte is around a 2% error, but with terabyte it’s more than 9%, which is a pretty big deal when you buy a 1TB disk and only shows up as 900 and something GB
And storage… and networking… This isn’t actually a MS spawned problem, and it existed in media before MS put their hands in it. But it is probably fair to say that MS emboldened storage and networking companies to not change their stance. It doesn’t help that it’s in their benefit as they’re providing actually less product because of the confusion.
Afaik for storage it’s exactly what it says on the tin: a 1GB drive is exactly 1,000,000,000 Bytes. Then you put it in the computer and Windows, who thinks that 1GB = 1,073,741,824 Bytes says, well that’s a 0.93 GB drive, aka 930MB. So you start asking yourself where those 70MB went, while in reality windows is telling you that the drive is 930MiB, which is equal to 1GB.
As for networking, last I checked we use Megabits and Gigabits for that, which are a whole different can of worms and use a small b instead of a big B. 8 Mb = 1 MB
I’ve never seen anyone use Mebibit, if it exists, which I’m not sure it does.
And as for benefit, I’m not sure whose benefit it is to create this confusion. In my opinion, no one’s, as the drive makers get accused of false marketing while at the same time Windows gets accused of being a broken OS (fair)
Right… the problem is the discrepancy from RAM and CPU where GB is 1024. There’s a disjoint between hardware where most hardware is base 2… then some other parts just aren’t. That’s my point. HDD/SSD manufacturers benefit from not getting onboard since they’re able to offer less and still be “technically” correct.
It does exist, but it’s so fucking dumb to say (I always feel like I’m stuttering when I say the words) People probably just do everything they can to skip saying the words outright.
That makes sense.
It’s 1024 because 1 bit is either a 1 or a 0, and a byte has 8 bits in it.
No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte#Units_based_on_powers_of_10
Hmm, never heard that before. Idk how to link to a specific section of a page, but what I’m talking about is there too, one section down.
An alternate system of nomenclature for the same units (referred to here as the customary convention), in which 1 kilobyte (KB) is equal to 1,024 bytes,[38][39][40] 1 megabyte (MB) is equal to 10242 bytes and 1 gigabyte (GB) is equal to 10243 bytes is mentioned by a 1990s JEDEC standard. Only the first three multiples (up to GB) are mentioned by the JEDEC standard, which makes no mention of TB and larger. The customary convention is used by the Microsoft Windows operating system[41][better source needed] and random-access memory capacity, such as main memory and CPU cache size, and in marketing and billing by telecommunication companies, such as Vodafone,[42] AT&T,[43] Orange[44] and Telstra.[45]
For storage capacity, the customary convention was used by macOS and iOS through Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard and iOS 10, after which they switched to units based on powers of 10.[34]
Yes, you’re right that 1024 bytes was a kilobyte and in fact it was that way for several decades. However, as the differences between powers of two and powers of ten increase as we see larger sizes, it’s become common to differentiate them.
deleted by creator
10 isn’t the best base and I’m sick of pretending it is.
Depends for what. Still better than random scales like 3, 12, 1760 and units that don’t mean anything like hundredweight, which isn’t even one hundred anything, unless it is because you live in another part of the world where the same word means a totally different thing.
Fancy a pint?
12 is much better than 10 and I will die on this hill.
If there was a vote to change everything to base 12 counting I would.
How is 12 not better than 10?
I don’t agree. It might sometimes be cool, but with a numerical system in base 10, having a unit system in base 12 becomes really hard to manage. Let’s take meters:
1m = 10dm = 100cm = 1000mm VS 1m = 12dm = 144cm = 1728mm
How many mm is 15 dm in each system?
To make a base 12 system work, you’d need to change the numerical system also, by adding two new digits, like we do for hexadecimal numbers, so you’d have …8-9-A-B-10, where A = 10 and B = 11 (in 10 base), so that 1m = 10dm = 100cm but in base 12.
Anyway, good luck trying to pass that, I’ve seen people who can barely count on their fingers, let alone understand a new base 12 numerical system. And for what?
That’s obviously not what I’m talking about.
Yes exactly. It’s equally as easy to do both. Counting to base 10 isn’t easier than doing it to base 12 or base 6. But 10 is just a kind of shitty number. That’s why imperial tends to use 12 because its better. They just changed the wrong thing. Metric should use base 12.
Changing it would be a ball ache. 12 is better than 10 though.
Not really that obvious. The imperial system is not used in base 12. It’s used in base 10 like everything else, therefore, if it were consistent with its units (which it isn’t) it would be more like 12 -> 144 -> 1728.
Since changing how we count is honestly not realistic, the prospect of having to deal with a system that’s not based on 10 is kinda scary.
I would pick base 12. Which would you prefer?
Base 12 crew represent.
base 60 Babylonian gang where you at
Base 60 has too many symbols for the digits
Base 12 you only need two more symbols to follow 9
Yeah but it doesn’t have the same schwag as base 60
I mean base 60 would be cool and all, but it would be unwieldy
skill issue
Indeed. I think you don’t want a number system that children can’t use
Base twelve already works great in our number names, with eleven and twelve being individually named unlike the teens
Base 60
Base six
https://www.seximal.net/
Base 12 has some aweful divisions, like 1/5th and 1/7th
Hexadecimal is always best.
It doesn’t divide by 3
Granted, but it divides by two multiple times. Take a good, round number like 1024 and you can halve it 10 times in a row.
The metric system handles thirds by just using multiples. Like, you buy a 1200 wide benchtop and then you can fit a three 400 drawers under it.
You could technically do the same in hex and the base numbers are all (x^y + x^(y+1)) which represent well.
Decimal thirds suck. One gets 33c the second gets 33c the third gets 34c
We’re just lucky that 1c is negligible
All the bases are 10
12 would have been a better base.
The only thing going for 10 is that’s how many fingers you have if you can only count in ones
There are a total of twelve segments on the four fingers of each hand (thumb excluded) making it just as easy to count to 12.
Or you can count in binary, and get to over 1000 on ten fingers
Because a lot of imperial measurements revolved around being able to be divided by 4, and occasionally 3 at times.
For instance the cooking unit of measurments are in 4’s or base 2 in a way (e.g 1 gallon = 4 quarts = 8 pints = 16 cups = 128 ounces)
We still see 4s or 3s irl regardless of measurement system. Doughnuts are often prepared in dozens and virtually never in 10s. Do we walk around claiming why bakers hate 10 step counting?
Time is the example of something designed around 3/4 and didn’t change. 60 is divisiable by both 4 (15) and 3 (20) and is not base 10, but people can accept that.
The French tried decimal time for a few years…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_time
Using 12 and 16 makes for easier maths (pre-calculators). It’s easier to divide and get an integer. With easy access to calculators and highly precise measurements (especially digital systems) metric makes more sense and is easier to interpret quickly.
16 is a power of two. Half, quarter, eighth, sixteenth.
The main problem is they reduce the goddamn fraction. Let me have my 8/16th wrench.
If you start a new job in a garage you will absolutely be asked to go get one.
I always liked to send new guys to the parts crib for a spool of flight line. Sometimes they’d come back with safety wire.
Because shut up. That’s why.
Why do you people feel the need to be able to convert between the thickness of a human hair and the distance between cities?
Ah yes, this bolt is .000001 kilometers wide. That’s a very useful thing you guys did. Definitely need that in every day life.
Stop, you’re making us Americans look even stupider.
Let them be! I deserve a chuckle every now and then :)
Yeah, that’s why nobody does it that way, but that strawman you got there looks mighty fine…