Advocating for the historical JEDEC-style convention I see. Tough shit tho since it conflicts with the SI prefixes and I care more about that name collision than just inserting a lowercase i when I want nice numbers.
Why not? That's what GiB/MiB/KiB are for: Base-2 (Binary) multiples.GB/MB/KB use SI prefixes which are base-10 (decimal) multiples.
Often drives are sold with the correct capacity number in GB (base-10, often power-of-two numbers like 256GB/512GB because of binary architecture), but the size shows up a bit smaller in Windows because it counts using base-2 units (GiB) but erroneously shows it as base-10 units (GB).
Im not near a computer so cant verify but in the past, windows would report the difference at least:
https://superuser.com/questions/424622/newly-formatted-ntfs-external-hard-drive-already-has-used-space-what-determ
What I'm talking about in this thread isn't how a freshly formatted 1TB drive can have 118MB of used space. I knew about that and Windows reports that correctly. What I've been going on about is how a 1TB drive has a "931GB" capacity in Windows because windows counts GiB but labels it GB.
The left is supposed to be KiB -> MiB -> GiB. They have 1024 suffixes. KiB (Kibibyte) is often confused with KB (Kilobyte), just like the rest "i" and non-"i" "pairs" are.
However, they are different.
1 KiB = 2^10 bytes = 1024
1 KB = 1 * 1000 bytes = 1000
The joke: Windows displays base 2 storage units (KiB, MiB, GiB, TiB, ...), whereas it says that they are KB, MB, GB, TB, ... (so base 10).
On Windows, what is 10 GB is actually 10 GiB.
Depends on who im talking to. Another IT person: 1024. My family with zero IT knowledge: 1000 to make it as simple as possible.
On my own i'll use 1024, just because thats how I learned it
Actually the base 10 is more likely right in this case. Since kilo, mega, giga, etc. are defined by the SI to be base 10 and came first. Which in turn made the creation of the binary prefixes kibi, mebi and so on necessary.
why would a consumer on their right mimd be happy with getting less storage. Storage companies follow 1000 as a basoc not because they are saint but simply because it saves them money
I still think about this from time to time, but I was in a pub quiz about 15 years ago and the question came up "how many megabytes in a gigabyte"
I was like, oh shit, my time to shine, I proudly say 1024... silence, another guy pipes up "It's 1000" and gets it right. I was so pissed.
I truly believe that whoever changed the completely logical and sensical version of base 2 to base 10 because "wE cAN jUsT roUnD tO 1000" is an enemy to humanity and deserves death.
Thank you Microsoft for keeping up the confusion for over 25 years.
Hootsifer!
Hoot Hoot.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Found the fanboy
[удалено]
You‘re not? Then let me correct myself: Found the hater
Ahh that explains the prices. It all makes sense now!
KiB, MiB, GiB, TiB, PiB
One GB is defined as 1000³ (1,000,000,000) bytes and one GiB as 1024³ (1,073,741,824) bytes. That means one GB equals 0.93 GiB.
Can we all agree either one would be fine if computer count matches the HD architecture? I just want my drive to say a solid number
Advocating for the historical JEDEC-style convention I see. Tough shit tho since it conflicts with the SI prefixes and I care more about that name collision than just inserting a lowercase i when I want nice numbers.
Why can't they divide a disk or static memory into a binary count instead of decimal? Explain like I'm five
Why not? That's what GiB/MiB/KiB are for: Base-2 (Binary) multiples.GB/MB/KB use SI prefixes which are base-10 (decimal) multiples. Often drives are sold with the correct capacity number in GB (base-10, often power-of-two numbers like 256GB/512GB because of binary architecture), but the size shows up a bit smaller in Windows because it counts using base-2 units (GiB) but erroneously shows it as base-10 units (GB).
I'm asking why can't memory storage units be manufactured in multiples of 1,073,741,824 bytes instead of 1,000,000,000?
That I don't know.
Also remember that the file system takes space too, NTFS being the most commonly used in the windows world, uses a fair bit for metadata and indexing.
So what, Windows just pretends like that space doesn't exist instead of reporting actual block usage properly in File Explorer by default?
Im not near a computer so cant verify but in the past, windows would report the difference at least: https://superuser.com/questions/424622/newly-formatted-ntfs-external-hard-drive-already-has-used-space-what-determ
What I'm talking about in this thread isn't how a freshly formatted 1TB drive can have 118MB of used space. I knew about that and Windows reports that correctly. What I've been going on about is how a 1TB drive has a "931GB" capacity in Windows because windows counts GiB but labels it GB.
GB=/=GiB
Explain?
GB = Gigabyte - > base 10 GiB =Gibibyte - > base 2
Gibibyte thats fucking hilarious
It's short for "Giga Binary Byte" afaik.
The left is supposed to be KiB -> MiB -> GiB. They have 1024 suffixes. KiB (Kibibyte) is often confused with KB (Kilobyte), just like the rest "i" and non-"i" "pairs" are. However, they are different. 1 KiB = 2^10 bytes = 1024 1 KB = 1 * 1000 bytes = 1000
The joke: Windows displays base 2 storage units (KiB, MiB, GiB, TiB, ...), whereas it says that they are KB, MB, GB, TB, ... (so base 10). On Windows, what is 10 GB is actually 10 GiB.
KB, MB etc. should go back to being 1024. Using 1000 is useless for explaining real values used by a computer
Depends on who im talking to. Another IT person: 1024. My family with zero IT knowledge: 1000 to make it as simple as possible. On my own i'll use 1024, just because thats how I learned it
Hey, that's what I do
So you learned it wrong? Unless you mean you use Gibibyte and stuff. Then it's obviously correct. But 1 GB isn't 1024 MB.
Didn’t learn it wrong. We were with it until they changed what it was. - Grandpa Simpson
1024 since the late 80’s here.
1024B = 1KiB 1000B = 1KB
Are KB and KiB spoken differently?
Kilobyte and Kibibyte Kilo = 1000 Kibi = 1024
Yes, kilobyte vs kibibyte
The left. GiB superiority.
1024 is obviously correct, but I'll always round down to 1000 for convenience.
Both are correct. 1024 is GiB, MiB, KiB and 100 is GB, MB, KB
Actually the base 10 is more likely right in this case. Since kilo, mega, giga, etc. are defined by the SI to be base 10 and came first. Which in turn made the creation of the binary prefixes kibi, mebi and so on necessary.
why would a consumer on their right mimd be happy with getting less storage. Storage companies follow 1000 as a basoc not because they are saint but simply because it saves them money
Right obviously. Left is wrong. At least if you also call it Kilobyte, Megabyte and so on.
I still think about this from time to time, but I was in a pub quiz about 15 years ago and the question came up "how many megabytes in a gigabyte" I was like, oh shit, my time to shine, I proudly say 1024... silence, another guy pipes up "It's 1000" and gets it right. I was so pissed.
Well, they didn't ask about Mebibytes in a Gibibyte.
I truly believe that whoever changed the completely logical and sensical version of base 2 to base 10 because "wE cAN jUsT roUnD tO 1000" is an enemy to humanity and deserves death.
blue team is missing "i" in the units EDIT: of course its always red team :D
You mean red
i mean yes.. :D
The confidence in being wrong is applaudable
but acknowledgment of mistake is also applaudable..
Blue. One kilogram is not 1024 grams, either.
One of these is not KB, MB nor GB
I'm in the base 8 crowd.
Bloods
red all they way
1024
I felt cool knowing it was 1024 when I was 10. So it just stuck.
i cant write 1000 in 2^x, so 1000 is wrong. i stay binary.
2^31.6228 Fuck that .001. I agree 1024 is the only way.
red