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

[Masterkit <masterkit@mediaone.net>]

Forget all that nitpicking.   If you know the difference, that's good enough.
For anyone who really thinks a k is 1000 bytes, you're wasting your time on
them.  They're decimal-only types.  They can't fathom binary and hex would be far
beyond their limits, as they can only count on ten fingers and they probably find
that challenging.

~M

Rubywand wrote:

> 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