Storage is measured in base 2. I don’t give shit what salesperson sold courses to which moron.
Hard drive manufactures would beg to differ lmao.
“One TB? You mean 657GB?”
1 TB (tera, si prefix 103*4) is 0.9095TiB (tebi, 210*4) or 931.3 GiB
That’s not what I’m talking about.
I’ve never seen a drive that’s actually smaller than advertised*, and I’ve seen a lot of drives believe me.
* except scammy flash drives with “2TB” firmware and 2GB flash chips
1023
Only professionals use GiB. 👍
1000 is technically correct. The best kind of correct 🙃 It’s hard to explain in a short sentence because the situation is a bit of a mess. If you have a few minutes and want to go down the rabbit hole you could check out this: https://zeta.one/kilobyte-is-1000-bytes/
This is up for debate, with computer prefixes now officially aligned with the standard SI prefixes.
You’ll often see a GB meaning 1000MB, and a GiB (gibibyte) meaning 1024MB.
The ISQ (International System of Quantities) and IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) refer to it that way, and so do many others.
But then again, some keep the more traditional 1024MB is a GB system, and maintain that the SI prefixes shouldn’t count in computing because the base 2 1024 is close enough and it’s the way we traditionally did it. I think Microsoft still does, for example.
In the past, that system was close enough. 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!
In a way, 999 and 1023 are both correct. But 999 is technically the standard, and has been for a while.
This is why my band is called 953 Mebibytes.
Great summarized, especially the “close enough” part. If you think about it this situation never would’ve happened if we would have based the majority of the computer designs on ternary instead of binary. https://zeta.one/kilobyte-is-1000-bytes/
I’m old and did not know this. Huh.
Still 1024 in my heart.
Programmers like 1024, because that’s how binary works when you keep doubling bits, and it’s cleaner and more intuitive when you’re working with low level code. Normies like 1000.
Nowadays most programmers don’t need to care about working with bits directly. And in general, it’s much better if the system is aligned with literally every other measurement unit in meaning. I also think it’s oftentimes deceiving exactly because it’s so close to 1000 that you just behave like it is, untill it actually starts making a difference at larger scales.
I think that for most people in 99% of usecases it would be better for MB to actually mean mega, and for the 1% you can clarify with MiB that it’s 1024.
I suppose if you’re staying in a high level like JS, yeah, but if you’re sitting there defining the width of your types with stuff like uint16_t or int32_t, you probably want to be using the former system.
how dare you go against the nagus!
It’s just Rom getting used to throwing his weight around, too polite to be any other.
But they stole our beloved kB, MB, GB etc and we have to live with the stupid kiB, MiB etc.
Hum… I have some news for you.
Those words never actually meant what you think they meant, and we have to live with stuff like k(ki)B and M(ki)B. Nobody actually uses MiB or GiB.
I have no idea wtf you’re trying to say here. “M(ki)B”?
“Nobody actually uses” the actual correct terms?
“Those words” - you didn’t even clarify which words you’re talking about.
Nobody uses memory sized in GiB, and while people use MiB in a few contexts, that’s almost completely outdated by now too.
People use “millions of kibibytes” and “thousands of kibibytes” a lot. But thinking of that again, people also use “thousands of mibibytes” and “millions of mibibytes” too.
“Nobody” uses memory marketed as GiB maybe. But it IS sized in GiB. And why are you distinguishing between units here in this context anyway? What does “use” even mean here? Are you talking what people actually say, or physically use? Because they physically use all of these terms everyday.
People may not say the correct terms in everyday speech, but even today, regular, non computer people kinda think any word ending in some version of “byte” is more like a magic spell used to invoke the meaning they’re intending.
People only use any of the “iB” words/abbreviations for conversations between computer enthusiasts. In general, they’re still just now learning the difference between a bye and gigabyte. They know some sound bigger than others, but that’s about all they know typically.
I’m not even sure when these words started tbh. I knew the difference between what they meant in different contexts, but I had literally never heard of any of the iBs until about 4 years ago or so, even being a nerd who used the one term in different contexts. It was such a relief to come across a word that meant what I was trying to say.
Either way, using the "ibi"s (there’s gotta be a catchier word for the collective term in not thinking of) is anything but outdated. Being correct will never be outdated.
Those measurements still exist, they’ve just been renamed into the somewhat more awkward KiB, MiB, GiB, etc. I’m aware changing the terminology – while resolving the inconsistency with other things that get measured with SI-prefixes – creates issues, though.
Well, I say they’ve been renamed, it’s actually a bit of a shit show.
Take a USB drive and plug it into a Windows PC and everything appears a different size compared to on Mac, because they define MB/GB/TB/etc differently to one another.
Linux of course depends on your distro and desktop environment, but virtually all of them pick either GB or GiB and actually mean what they say they mean.
It’s because decimal is a terrible number system. If we had gone with dozenal numbers instead everything would be perfect. Instead we have a shitty counting system that leaves tons of headaches.
So, to my limited knowledge, all digital storage is still based on the idea of a switch indicating a 0 or a 1. So, in terms of data storage, you’re using those switches and base 2 is imposed.
You technically cannot build 1000MB of storage because your entire storage system is based 2. Being off by 24 isn’t great, but manageable. However…
Let’s call a KB 1000 bytes, and 1MB 1000 KB: we end up 1MB as 1,000,000 bytes, and 1GB as 1,000,000,000 bytes rather than 1,073,741,824 bytes, ~7.4% off! This error compounds as we go up in units, and quickly leaves one so far from physical hardware as to question one’s sanity!
The real reason for the change is likely to be a little darker - 1.1TB sounds better than 1TB when trying to sell storage (“we give 10% more!”).
You absolutely can build 1000MB storage, literally almost all SSDs to my knowledge use SI units for storage (meaning 1TB = 1000GB). E.g. here, first link I found https://www.crucial.com/ssd/t705/CT2000T705SSD5
under footnote 6. 1 GB = 1 billion bytes
Good point, I was thinking in terms of addressing being base 2 - (so when you call a memory address you’re working in base 16 normally).
Also that rather affirms the idea - selling less while disguising it as more seems a more likely genesis.
Removed by mod
Well, well, aren’t you polite.
yeah , hide behind politeness.
I am outraged by your comment and I believe you to be siding with the opressors that are harming us with doublespeak and lies, and ripping us off. I hope this time it doesn’t get flagged by rule 2 , because I am disgusted by this way of thinking and bowing down.
There, no swear words.
Well ok, I’m sorry you feel that way.
I hope you realise that international standards organisations aren’t setting standardised prefixes specifically to anger you.
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.
GB, not GiB
1,073,741,824 bytes
1,073,741,824 moments so big
1,073,741,824 bytes
How do you measure, measure a gig?
