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

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

"Greg J. Buchner" writes ...
> 
> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Rubywand wrote:
> 
> > That, in 1999, OS's still commonly use 1024 for "k" just illustrates an
> > instance of sloppiness-- a flaw needing to be corrected.
> 
> I don't think it's going to change as long as block sizes on hard drives
> stay at 512 bytes (or whatever multiple thereof) and that block sizes that
> OSes use also stay at multiples of 512 bytes (Of the various HFS Plus
> partitions I have on various Macs, I have two that use 512 byte blocks,
> one that used 2048 byte blocks and two that use 4096 byte blocks.) Until
> this changes, which it won't, have 1000 byte logical blocks on drives
> that use 512 byte physical blocks just won't work.
>

     When it comes to reporting file size, the storage format doesn't need to
matter any more than, say, the kind of magnetic encoding employed matters when
you hex edit a file. 

 
> Also, most people (even my Dad) seem to grasp the fact that 1K=1024 on
> the computer when it's explained to them.

     Of course. It would not be difficult to grasp that 1k = 3333, either.
There is no end to the goofy conventions one might come up with. 


>  We shouldn't go around changing
> things just because of a lack of knowledge on some people's part.
 ....

     The point is that users already have knowledge about what "1k" means. The
definition has been around for many years, taught in schools for eons, and,
best of all, it fits nicely into our base-10 culture.

     Today's machines have no problem dealing with decimal quantities at high
speed. There is no excuse for attemps to rationalize nonsense standards and no
justification for forcing users to jump through hoops to figure out how big a
file 'really is'. File size should be reported in the established units
everyone uses.



Rubywand