Prev: How to C++ exe without installing C++ Redistributable Package
Next: Which Visual Studio for 64 Bit Apps
From: Jackie on 1 Jun 2010 18:20
On 6/1/2010 23:22, nki00 wrote:
>> Even while I studied electronics in collage, I had to teach my own teacher
>> that HDD manufacturers measures kilo as 1000 and not 1024 (and that's why
>> the number on the label is different from what you see in Windows). So
>> it's not easy. :(
>
>
> In the case of HDD manufacturers measuring memory in a decimal form is pure
> economics that has nothing to do with electronics -- it is much more easy to
> sell a 1.5 TB hard drive versus 1.36 TB one. And for the general public it
> doesn't make any sense to argue about the difference between GB or GiB
> either (I'm sure 90% of the population never even heard of the GiB
> notation). It matters only when the most inquisitive ones look up a drive's
> specs in My Computer and call up a customer service... but that is a
> diffeent issue.

I wasn't really implying anything, but we had computer classes as well
but they had nothing to teach me -- more the opposite. Just the fact
that I had to teach my own teacher tells a bit how confusing this can be. :)

> Guys, I'm going to drop the original problem, i.e. the difference between
> reported 3.96GB and the actual 4.00 GB. I will simply round it up if the
> difference is less than 0.05. That seems what MS is doing in the latest OS's
> anyway.

Okay. I am not sure I could sleep without knowing I did it perfectly,
though. Haha. If you open the Resource Monitor, and go to the Memory
tab, you have "Hardware reserved" there. Does it add up if you use that
value? If not, I really have no idea what they are doing. It's a pretty
wild guess I am making that maybe it has something to do with it.

> Thanks everyone who contributed, and especially Jackie.

Thank you and you're welcome. :)
From: Leslie Milburn on 1 Jun 2010 18:42

"Leo Davidson" <leonudeldavidson(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> Using "KiB" only resolves half the ambiguity. People still have to use
> context and guesswork to understand what someone means when they say
> "KB" (unless they've seen the same person use "KiB" somewhere else).

Leo,

I agree with you but really the solution is for the disk manufacturers to
actually be honest about the true size of a drive. Resorting to KiB is
helping to cover up dishonest marketing and should not be supported at all.


From: Bob Masta on 2 Jun 2010 08:01
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 05:38:49 -0700 (PDT), Leo
Davidson <leonudeldavidson(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jun 1, 12:29=A0pm, Jackie <Jac...(a)an.on> wrote:
>
>> HDD space is measured in base 10, meaning kilo is 1000 instead of 1024.
>> It can cause quite some confusion for people when it's calculated
>> differently here and there. That's why I say KiB (kibibytes - kilo
>> binary bytes) like others also are doing, but I am not sure if it is a
>> standard (it was not at the time I learned about it, I think). So if the
>
>Using "KiB" only resolves half the ambiguity. People still have to use
>context and guesswork to understand what someone means when they say
>"KB" (unless they've seen the same person use "KiB" somewhere else).
>
>That's why I can't get behind the "KiB" movement. It's advocated by
>people who want to reclaim the SI suffixes at any cost; not by people
>who want to actually resolve the ambiguity. In fact, the "KiB"
>movement is *adding* ambiguity not taking it away. (Until recently, if
>you saw "KB" in a user interface, and it wasn't measuring raw disk
>size or network throughput, you could be pretty sure it was a multiple
>of 1024. Now you can be less sure what it means in any context. The
>contexts where "KiB" is actually used were almost all unambiguously
>multiples of 1024 when "KB" was used in the past, so that hasn't
>helped much either. Not that it wasn't an unfortunate problem
>originally, but it's been made worse, not better.)
>
>If the "KiB" movement had also advocated new suffixes for the
>multiples of 1000 in computing contexts, with the aim of never using
>the ambiguous SI-style suffixes at all when discussing byte sizes,
>then I might have joined them.

An older method (that I had thought was accepted
by now) is to use "kB" for 1024 and "kb" for 1000
bytes. Similarly, MB = 1024^2, GB = 1024^3, etc.
Same SI prefix letters, but different
interpretation of size based on 'B' or 'b' case.
But even aside from the logical inconsistency, you
were never quite sure what was really intended
when you saw any given value floating around in a
spec.

Some manufacturers used to write out the full size
like "536,870,912 bytes", but with today's drives
having so much higher capacity, it would be pretty
cumbersome.

Best regards,




Bob Masta

DAQARTA v5.10
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
DaqMusic - FREE MUSIC, Forever!
(Some assembly required)
Science (and fun!) with your sound card!
From: David Schwartz on 2 Jun 2010 08:18
On Jun 1, 2:22 pm, "nki00" <lukkycha...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> In the case of HDD manufacturers measuring memory in a decimal form is pure
> economics that has nothing to do with electronics -- it is much more easy to
> sell a 1.5 TB hard drive versus 1.36 TB one. And for the general public it
> doesn't make any sense to argue about the difference between GB or GiB
> either (I'm sure 90% of the population never even heard of the GiB
> notation). It matters only when the most inquisitive ones look up a drive's
> specs in My Computer and call up a customer service... but that is a
> diffeent issue.

It's a "race to the bottom" effect. If your competitor is selling "1.5
TB" drives, you don't want to be selling "1.36 TB" drives for the same
price. The same thing happened with UPSes being rated in VA instead of
watts and their run time being quoted at 50% load.

DS
From: Leo Davidson on 2 Jun 2010 09:24
On Jun 2, 1:01 pm, N0S...(a)daqarta.com (Bob Masta) wrote:

> An older method (that I had thought was accepted
> by now) is to use "kB" for 1024 and "kb" for 1000
> bytes.

At least in some contexts, lowercase 'b' means bits and uppercase 'B'
bytes.

It's like the people who thought up the size names and suffixes made
them confusing on purpose. :)
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Prev: How to C++ exe without installing C++ Redistributable Package
Next: Which Visual Studio for 64 Bit Apps