3 ms·
I actually don't find this pragmatic at all. The current scenario is that storage numbers are consistent in software (base 2) and consistent in hardware (base 1
by andrewvc 17y ago
I actually don't find this pragmatic at all. The current scenario is that storage numbers are consistent in software (base 2) and consistent in hardware (base 10).
The end result of this is that storage numbers will be inconsistent in software, and consistent in hardware. How is that an improvement?
- derefr 17y agoI don't know where you're getting the "consistent in software" bit. OSX already switched to base 10 seven months ago with 10.6—this is, like with the window caption buttons thing, probably where Ubuntu got the idea. Now the only one doing it differently (that non-technical users are aware of) is Windows—and I'm guessing they'll be right along in W8.
- andrewvc 17y agoWow, I had to idea OSX did that, I only use Linux and Windows. Well, I guess things aren't as constant as I thought they were. I still think the overwhelming majority of software uses base 2, and that base 2 for that reason alone should be the standard. Neither standard is really better than the other, the more popular one should win.