Page 1 of 1

Is MB really MB, and what is GiB and MiB and KiB? Find out!!

Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 11:51 pm
by Rescator
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html

Read that, it wasn't until recently I noticed this, even tough it's been a standard since 1998 :shock:

I'll quote some of the info here so you know what it's all about:
Historical context*
Once upon a time, computer professionals noticed that 210 was very nearly equal to 1000 and started using the SI prefix "kilo" to mean 1024. That worked well enough for a decade or two because everybody who talked kilobytes knew that the term implied 1024 bytes. But, almost overnight a much more numerous "everybody" bought computers, and the trade computer professionals needed to talk to physicists and engineers and even to ordinary people, most of whom know that a kilometer is 1000 meters and a kilogram is 1000 grams.

Then data storage for gigabytes, and even terabytes, became practical, and the storage devices were not constructed on binary trees, which meant that, for many practical purposes, binary arithmetic was less convenient than decimal arithmetic. The result is that today "everybody" does not "know" what a megabyte is. When discussing computer memory, most manufacturers use megabyte to mean 220 = 1 048 576 bytes, but the manufacturers of computer storage devices usually use the term to mean 1 000 000 bytes. Some designers of local area networks have used megabit per second to mean 1 048 576 bit/s, but all telecommunications engineers use it to mean 106 bit/s. And if two definitions of the megabyte are not enough, a third megabyte of 1 024 000 bytes is the megabyte used to format the familiar 90 mm (3 1/2 inch), "1.44 MB" diskette. The confusion is real, as is the potential for incompatibility in standards and in implemented systems.

Faced with this reality, the IEEE Standards Board decided that IEEE standards will use the conventional, internationally adopted, definitions of the SI prefixes. Mega will mean 1 000 000, except that the base-two definition may be used (if such usage is explicitly pointed out on a case-by-case basis) until such time that prefixes for binary multiples are adopted by an appropriate standards body.

Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 2:38 pm
by Karbon
So standard that no one has ever heard of it :-P

Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:32 am
by Rescator
woa
noticed that 210 was very
somehing messed up the database?
I did a clean copy and paste and that number was 1024.
Just hope no other posts has similar data corruption.

Anyway. I'll start using GiB etc.
And mention it in the documentation somewhere.
I won't be using GB as there is no need, most data stuff uses GiB.
And I doubt many will notice the "i" sneaking in.
And if they do the docs will briefly mention why, and the IEEE standard.

Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 12:54 pm
by plouf
this theory sucks

for "practcal" reasons user knows that MB i holds more than KB and that enough, furthermore whatever the size ,as long as it fits its enough and its OK

this "standarization" seems too odd and very unpractical for everyone to get use for imho