1023
Only professionals use GiB. 👍
This is up for debate, with computer prefixes now technically 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, many 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 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!
In a way, 999 and 1023 are both correct.
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.
how dare you go against the nagus!
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.
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Nobody uses memory sized in GiB, and while people use MiB in a few contexts, that’s almost completely outdated by now too.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.
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!”).
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?
