To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Delgarde,
"It's not really a fix, though, because while 1kb = 1024b might be wrong, it was consistently applied."
That's not really true. For storage, while the sector size is a power of 2, the number of sectors doesn't need to be whether we're talking floppy/hd/flash/etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_disk#Sizes.2C_performance_and_c...
"For example, 1.44 MB 3 1⁄2-inch HD disks have the 'M' prefix peculiar to their context, coming from their capacity of 2,880 512-byte sectors (1,440 KiB), inconsistent with either a decimal megabyte nor a binary mebibyte (MiB). Hence, these disks hold 1.47 MB or 1.41 MiB."
Historically, we've never been consistent. 1k may mean 1024 or 1000, ethernet speeds were always speced using correct SI units. Hard disks might go both ways. RAM capacity is usually speced in binary units because it's one of the few cases where powers of 2 were technically advantageous/intrinsic.
"Once you start applying the fix, we have the situation where 1kb might be 1000b or it might be 1024b, and you have no way of knowing which one it is."
For one thing, "kb" implies kilobits, "kB" is for kilobytes, which is a different ambiguity all together.
The correct use of XiB units do nothing but remove ambiguity, it's illogical to argue otherwise. The more people who use them correctly, the better. It corrects the original mistake of having two meanings for one nomenclature. Ambiguity will continue to the extent that people refuse to adopt the XiB units, but honestly you can't say the XiB units caused this ambiguity.
Edited 2013-01-31 14:57 UTC




Member since:
2008-08-19
It's not really a fix, though, because while 1kb = 1024b might be wrong, it was consistently applied. Once you start applying the fix, we have the situation where 1kb might be 1000b or it might be 1024b, and you have no way of knowing which one it is. You've replaced "wrong" with "mostly wrong and completely confusing".