Bad Metric (Re: assistance with disk ][ and modern 1.2M floppies)

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

Patrick Schaefer <pa.schaefer@fz-juelich.de> wrote:

>Supertimer wrote:
>
>> >> 286k to be exact.
>> >
>> >Only if you define a "k" to be 1002.517482... bytes, which
>> >is a pretty strange definition if you ask me. 256 bytes times
>> >16 sectors times 35 tracks equals 140 kilobytes, exactly.
>>
>> "A single Diskware disk holds 143,360 (formatted) bytes
>> of information."
>
>143360 bytes ARE exactly 140kBytes. 140x1024. 
>The 'kilo' in 'kilobyte' is not metric, it means 2E10=1024 instead of
>1E3=1000. A megabyte equals 1024x1024=1048576 bytes.

You are right.  It is pretty crazy to call it "kilo" then, you
must admit.  What's all this "kilo" "mega" "giga" stuff.
Metric designations for a non-metric system.

dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:

>A "kilobyte" is 1024 bytes (2^10), not 1000 bytes.
>
>The sometimes quoted "143 kilobyte" figure is only valid if you regard a
>kilobyte as being 1000 bytes.  I don't.

The problem is the computer folks that started applying
metric designations to a non-metric system.  While I
agree that we should all be pretty familiar that 1024
bytes is a kilobyte now, the fact still remains.  Why did
they do it in the first place?  It is a lie.

"Mike Westerfield" <MikeW50@aol.com> wrote:

>Seriously, I hope this was a joke. I know that some people, though
>ignorance, believe 1K = 1000, 1M = 1,000,000, or that 2000 starts a new
>millennium, but ignorance is no reason to come up with a term like
>"mebibyte"!

There is a difference.  While the belief that 2000 starts
the new millenium might be ignorance, it is the
COMPUTER FOLKS who labeled 1024 bytes as 1k
who were ignorant.

Kilo, Mega, Giga are METRIC designations.  A kilo
is DEFINED as 1000.