This is incorrect

This is incorrect.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilo-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilo-#kilobyte
twitter.com/AnonBabble

No, it isn't. Go back to Sup Forums

>most influencal search engine in the web fucks logic of the world welcome to nwo

>thinking that "go to Sup Forums" is an insult on fucking Sup Forums

You need to go the fuck back to Sup Forums if you think it isn't

Those are Megabytes and Gigabytes, not Mebibytes and Gigibytes. Since Kilo/Mega/Giga are prefixes for the metric system it's perfectly accurate.

You're right it's actually 16.38 GB

WTF Sup Forums???!? why is duckduckgo so bad!?!!

fuck off, trying to rename shit like that
you're part of the problem, making things more co mplicated than they need to be

How is it complicated? Base 10 and 2 are two different numbering systems, it makes no sense for them to have same prefixes. We think in base 10 so it's simpler to say a kilobyte is 1000 bytes.

Who started this "..bibit" bullshit anyways

>megabit

no, it's correct

kilobyte equalling 1024 was incorrect from the beginning, kilo meant 1000 well before computers were a thing, it was reused for convinience and familiarity only

CS snowflakes because powers of 10 is too hard so lets use 2^10 instead

you think computers shouldn't use base2?

These. Fucking Americans spreading this "kilo = 1024" bullshit because they hate standardised measurement systems.

Standards organizations

Why do humans need to use base 2? Computers just measure to the exact byte anyway.

>Computers just measure to the exact byte anyway
But computers need to address bytes for storage, and every additional byte added to the address size multiplies the maximum number of addressable bytes by 2^8. Humans need to work with these addresses.

No one never said that, but when talking about computers and memory, 1024 makes more sense than 1000, since computers are base 2.

they can be made to give the impression of single-byte granularity, but this is very rarely what is actually happening

for example, lets say you have 8 data lines, and you add one more to it, did the range of values they can represent go up by one? nope, adding one more bit doubles the range of values it can represent 8 bit = 256, 9 bit = 512

No it isn't.

Programmers do. Normal users don't need to bother with that. Why confuse them with prefixes that aren't consistent with the metric system?

Thats actually correct.

>renaming shit like that
SI has existed longer than computers.

Yes, which is why you should use the binary prefixes kibi, mebi, gibi, etc when referring to computers and memory, and the decimal SI prefixes for other things

show us that decimal logic computer of yours

Except that's no the case. 'Kilo' is always means 1000.
IBM trying to pervert that in the 60s because they're dumb was never a good idea.

TOPKEK

why are you asking people against using metric prefix this?

>Why confuse them with prefixes that aren't consistent with the metric system?
Using "kilo" as "1024" isn't consistent with the metric system. If you want end users to be exposed only to properly used decimal metric prefixes, then just use them and use them correctly. Nobody is stopping you from correctly referring to 1000 bytes as a kilobyte.

this is true, there's nothing wrong with using "kilobyte", as long as you mean 1000 bytes

kilobyte has always meant 2014 bytes for as long as computers have existed, so no, faggot

>kilobyte has always meant 2014 bytes
hm

the kilo- prefix and word has meant 1000 well before computers existed
just because it was a common mistake doesn't make it correct

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilo-

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilo-#kilobyte

But we didn't have "kibi" or "mebi" back when computers were first made, but since 1000 is close enough to 1024 the terms were co-opted for computers.

This is fine since the context is quite clear, but now everyone can't agree and the whole thing is a fucking mess.

No it was 'clear' to a few people at IBM who have never left he united states and didn't care for international standards because 'AMERIKA STRONK!'

did you read into it? JEDEC standard originally uses kilo = 1024, but have since adopted the SI terms (kibi = 1024)

Quote from JEDEC Standard 100B.01, page 8:

The definitions of kilo, giga, and mega based on powers of two are included only to reflect common usage. IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997 states "This practice frequently leads to confusion and is deprecated." Further confusion results from the popular use of the megabyte representing 1 024 000 bytes to define the capacity of the 1.44-MB high-density diskette. An alternative system is found in Amendment 2 to IEC 60027-2: Letter symbols to be used in electrical technology – Part 2.

there is literally no standard left that says kilo = 1024

It would be even more clear if you stopped using two meanings for one prefix.

>Milibit
>t. Actual engineer

this
16384mb == 2.048E-8GB

Nobody uses SI terminology.

>there is literally no standard left that says kilo = 1024


try every single tech company when they describe system memory

>b-but marketing says!

I'd rather them be honest about what a GB is, they could be assholes about it and sell is 32,000 MB of ram and call it 32, when there's an extra 768mb that you can have.

...

>gets proven wrong
>greentexts

That's irrelevant, they're still using 1,024 = Kilo standards

>using "byte" instead of "octet"

>using an architecture with CHAR_BIT != 8

>mega(bit) : giga(byte)
faggot.

funny you say that, when "byte" has been used for architectures which doesn't use 8 bit bytes, while "octet" specifically means 8, and only 8 (it's derived from the word "octo", which literally means 8 of something)

How much is a word?

That's my point. Byte and octet are synonymous 99.99% of the time so you may as well just say byte. Plus "kilooctet" sounds ridiculous.

kibioctet*

kilo means thousand, retard.

so why doesn't your ram maker say it's selling 8.59gb of ram instead of simply 8gb?

bait
do not respond
i shouldn't need to tell you this