Re: Bad Metric ... 1k = 1024 or 1000?

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Supertimer writes ...
> 
> 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.

     Agree. 1k bytes, Ohms, Volts, eggs, ... is, precisely speaking, 1000 of
them. That we expect "1k bytes" to be 1024 bytes is beside the point. The
accepted interpretation of "1k bytes" is that it is a term of convenience
which incorporates a roundoff.

     Similarly, the normal interpretation of 140k as the capacity figure for
a 5.25" 16-sector Apple II diskette side is that it is a nearest 10,000
roundoff designator. A similar sort of understanding exists for "4MB RAM".


     It is incorrect to label use of "1k" to describe 1024 bytes as stemming
from ignorance. From the earliest days of computer tinkering we knew very
well that "1k" was a slang approximation. It is, simply, a lot easier to say
"1k" instead of "1024", "4k" instead of "4096", ... . "1k" was always
understood to actually equate to exactly 1000. 

     Basically, the understanding that when talking about "4k RAM", etc. we
are using terms of convenience which are inexact has always been the
prevailing view. So, for example, it is understood that telling a user to
check a .dsk file download for a size of 140k is not adequate. You tell the
user to check for a file size of 143,360 bytes _because_ practically everyone
takes "k" size descriptors as rough approximations for 1000's of bytes.

     Notwithstanding the above, those who argue that, for memory, disk, file,
... size, "1k" is a standard unit = 1024 can find some support in the way
file size is reported by popular operating systems. For example, GS System
and Windows 95 both use 1k = 1024.

     The rationale for 1k = 1024 is obvious-- i.e. it's easier for a computer
to figure k's of memory (or whatever) using a simple hexadecimal unit than a
simple decimal unit. (Actually, today, it may not much matter; but, for a
time, using 1k = $400 instead of 1k = $3E8 saved a fair chunk of coding.)

     Whether or not GS System and Windows 95 say "1k" = 1024, the plain fact
is that nearly all OS users believe "1k" is 1000. More important, practically
all users think in decimal. Consequently, it is fair to label any OS which
reports file, memory, etc. sizes in 1024 k units as stupidly primitive and
needlessly user unfriendly.




Rubywand