Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 30th Jan 2013 00:38 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems Marco Arment: "Everyone should play by the same rules. A proposal: storage capacities referenced or implied in the names or advertisements for personal computers, tablets, and smartphones should not exceed the amount of space available for end-user installation of third-party applications and data, after enough software has been installed to enable all commonly advertised functionality. With today's OSes, iPads could advertise capacities no larger than 12, 28, 60, and 124 GB and the Surface Pros could be named 23 and 83 GB." Wholly agreed. When I buy a box of 100 staples, I expect it to contain ~100 staples - not 50 because the other 50 are holding the box together.
Permalink for comment 550912
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
ssokolow
Member since:
2010-01-21

"due to concerns that the old "everybody knows kilo- means 1024 in the context of computers" attitude was proving problematic as computers became a more and more generally-used tool.


This is total bull$hit. There is almost no situation where knowing the number of bytes in a MB/GB is required in order to successfully use a computer.
"

I already said they were focusing on business, research, and standards. Situations where a confusion in terminology could be expensive. (eg. If you pay for a supercomputer or space probe to be built and get less memory/storage/bandwidth than you intended or you're forced to go over budget because they specced more than you intended.)

Standards bodies, I think, overstepped their bounds. While they are responsible for setting standards, they should have sought the opinion of the major stakeholders before making the change they did. And if it transpired they could not at least get a majority YES vote, then it should not have happened.


Computer scientists overstepped their bounds in arbitrarily re-defining the meanings of the SI prefixes. This is just fixing the problem.

Reply Parent Score: 4