5 ms·

It’s a shame we didn’t go with “long megabyte,” etc. instead of the god-awful binary unit prefixes.

by danaliv 6y ago

Skunkleton 6y ago
Mibi you just don't like them because they are new? You should gibi them a chance.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  I reabd thbis wholbe combment wib mby toumbge imb mby teebth Ebdit: whoebver downbvotes tgbis canb hear mbe sbpeakinbg it
  - ithkuil 6y ago
    Thou shalt not speak ebcdic!
lifthrasiir 6y ago
Knuth once suggested "large megabyte" (and so on) with a wicked abbreviation "MMB" (for "both binary-ness and large-ness").
- userbinator 6y ago
  He has also suggested https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-yllion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-yllion
sellyme 6y ago
Preferably "megabyte" and "short megabyte", because that will annoy HDD manufacturers more.
- mjevans 6y ago
  Maybe the prefix and separation: SI M B (SI for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units The International System of Units (SI, abbreviated from the French Système international (d'unités))) ((International System of Units) Mega) Bytes -- Edit, addition Additionally, I'd be willing to prefix my preferred units some variation of: Base Two M B (BTMB) Computer Science M B (CSMB)
mjevans 6y ago
The native base of our computing systems is base-2. Engineering prefixes for this base should thus also be based on natively divisible break points. It just so happens that some break points are usefully close (but not quite the same as) base 10 break points. 2^10 = 1024 ~~ (1 KB) ~~ 1000 Naturally given this 2.4% bonus to base 10, and failing upwards in being able to cleanly store the corresponding base 10 datatype, the natural thing to do is to favor the larger and also native unit. For me, KB will _always_ be 1024 bytes. In the context of computers this is what makes sense. Similarly I only ever want those to be the binary (base 2, also implied by bytes) base sizes for all other units of storage, data transfer speed, etc. The marketing fixation on providing less value by focusing on the non-native to the system human sizes that are smaller is the error. Counter-argument to anyone arguing otherwise. What is the size of the smallest addressable unit in any of the block based device storage you care about? Hard disks / flash? (512, 4096, or possibly some very large power of 2 for SMR). CDs/DVDs? (2048 bytes)
- earthboundkid 6y ago
  Sure, but megabytes and terabytes are just arbitrary numbers. There’s nothing where they correspond to a meaningful device limitation. KB should be 2^10 bytes and MB should be 1e6 bytes. There’s no reason to link them.
  - mjevans 6y ago
    2^28 bytes / 256 MB / CSMB (#1) is the size of current SMR spinning rust drives. The flash zone size used in more modern consoles (E.G. PS5 / Xbox whatever) might similarly be 128 MB / CSMB. #1 (256 Computer Science Mega Bytes) is the size of the minimum write zone for 'zoned storage' according to the Wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shingled_magnetic_recording#Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shingled_magnetic_recording#Pr... Edit + Update: I recalled incorrectly, 128 CSMB "Sony's patent proposes going way beyond 32kB chunks to using 128MB chunks for the FTL" https://www.anandtech.com/show/15848/storage-matters-xbox-ps5-new-era-of-gaming https://www.anandtech.com/show/15848/storage-matters-xbox-ps...
- jonsen 6y ago
gorgoiler 6y ago
Does anyone actually have a problem with kB meaning 1024 bytes and MB meaning 1<<20 bytes, etc? Sure, the kilo-, mega- etc prefixes might literally mean 10^x but as long as one is raised with the understanding that to do so is overly literal, then it’s never really a problem. base = 2 if context == computer else 10 Kibi and mibi feel like this generation’s centripetal force. Another popular and unsolicited explanation I get a lot is about equality vs equity. The distinction might be real but after being corrected for the nth time one feels like I am being corrected for the sake of it than for any real reason.
- exporectomy 6y ago
  People don't use it like you say. My SSD that says "500 GB" on the label is actually only 500e9 bytes or 465 gibibytes. If I see a file size listed somewhere, I never know which version of the unit it's using so I tend to think in terms of bytes anywhere that the difference matters.
  - mjevans 6y ago
    The shrinkage is all just Sales and Marketing ignoring engineering sensibilities in the quest for a bigger number on the box. The underlying storage cell arrangement is still (typically) 4096 bytes in size. (or 65536 (64KB) for many embedded devices). The device probably has about 10% of it's real storage capacity dedicated to ECC and other 'administrative' uses for provisioning the user facing storage.
    - exporectomy 6y ago
      It doesn't matter the reason. At the end of the day, it's used inconsistently so you can't just treat GB as meaning GiB when it's to do with computers and the units have become a confused muddle.
  - gorgoiler 6y ago
    Context is everything and I’m fine with that. I can handle the base2 / base10 problem by using context. I don’t need a clumsy new prefix. If someone on the street asked you how much memory your computer has, how would you answer? “Seven gigs”? “Seven gibs”? “Seven gibibytes”?
Asraelite 6y ago
In my opinion the most important factor by far is avoiding ambiguity. This means sucking up to the binary prefixes and using them in every scenario possible. A lot of people don't like how they sound, and would like for the standard prefixes to have one meaning, but the reality of the state of the world is such that you will create ambiguity if you don't use the binary prefixes.
- dividedbyzero 6y ago
  In my experience, they're just as likely to be read as a weird typo of mega/giga as not and I've seen SSDs advertised using the wrong prefixes a lot, so there's another layer of ambiguity we wouldn't have if those prefixes had been picked with relative laypeople in mind. Even people who should know about these use 1024 for a kilobyte, and I usually add (1024^3) or something like that if ambiguity is a potential issue. I've been burnt before by trusting that gibi will be understood. My particular set of anecdata would strongly suggest it's not a very successful standard so far. That "nearest power of two to decimal kilo/mega/giga" is a weird concept in itself doesn't help, and the chosen prefixes are completely non-obvious and alien to me and apparently others as well. I don't think it's going to take hold anytime soon. Besides, if ambiguity is all there is to worry about, just use 2^30 bytes. No ambiguity at all (I believe) – but it may be a lot less effective in actual communication in lots of situations.
dahart 6y ago
What’s bad about the binary prefixes? Does it help if you think about how it’s designed to be “MEga BInary” and “GIga BInary”? Or is that the problem? The talk of weird sounding binary prefixes and long scales reminds me of the British long scale for large numbers that has different names for what we know as ‘million’ and ‘billion’: “milliard” and “billiard” (not to be confused with pool.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales

It’s a shame we didn’t go with “long megabyte,” etc. instead of the god-awful binary unit prefixes.

Skunkleton 6y ago

Mibi you just don't like them because they are new? You should gibi them a chance.

eyelidlessness 6y ago
I reabd thbis wholbe combment wib mby toumbge imb mby teebth Ebdit: whoebver downbvotes tgbis canb hear mbe sbpeakinbg it
- ithkuil 6y ago
  Thou shalt not speak ebcdic!

lifthrasiir 6y ago

Knuth once suggested "large megabyte" (and so on) with a wicked abbreviation "MMB" (for "both binary-ness and large-ness").

userbinator 6y ago
He has also suggested https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-yllion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-yllion

sellyme 6y ago

Preferably "megabyte" and "short megabyte", because that will annoy HDD manufacturers more.

mjevans 6y ago
Maybe the prefix and separation: SI M B (SI for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units The International System of Units (SI, abbreviated from the French Système international (d'unités))) ((International System of Units) Mega) Bytes -- Edit, addition Additionally, I'd be willing to prefix my preferred units some variation of: Base Two M B (BTMB) Computer Science M B (CSMB)

mjevans 6y ago

The native base of our computing systems is base-2. Engineering prefixes for this base should thus also be based on natively divisible break points. It just so happens that some break points are usefully close (but not quite the same as) base 10 break points. 2^10 = 1024 ~~ (1 KB) ~~ 1000 Naturally given this 2.4% bonus to base 10, and failing upwards in being able to cleanly store the corresponding base 10 datatype, the natural thing to do is to favor the larger and also native unit. For me, KB will _always_ be 1024 bytes. In the context of computers this is what makes sense. Similarly I only ever want those to be the binary (base 2, also implied by bytes) base sizes for all other units of storage, data transfer speed, etc. The marketing fixation on providing less value by focusing on the non-native to the system human sizes that are smaller is the error. Counter-argument to anyone arguing otherwise. What is the size of the smallest addressable unit in any of the block based device storage you care about? Hard disks / flash? (512, 4096, or possibly some very large power of 2 for SMR). CDs/DVDs? (2048 bytes)

earthboundkid 6y ago
Sure, but megabytes and terabytes are just arbitrary numbers. There’s nothing where they correspond to a meaningful device limitation. KB should be 2^10 bytes and MB should be 1e6 bytes. There’s no reason to link them.
- mjevans 6y ago
  2^28 bytes / 256 MB / CSMB (#1) is the size of current SMR spinning rust drives. The flash zone size used in more modern consoles (E.G. PS5 / Xbox whatever) might similarly be 128 MB / CSMB. #1 (256 Computer Science Mega Bytes) is the size of the minimum write zone for 'zoned storage' according to the Wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shingled_magnetic_recording#Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shingled_magnetic_recording#Pr... Edit + Update: I recalled incorrectly, 128 CSMB "Sony's patent proposes going way beyond 32kB chunks to using 128MB chunks for the FTL" https://www.anandtech.com/show/15848/storage-matters-xbox-ps5-new-era-of-gaming https://www.anandtech.com/show/15848/storage-matters-xbox-ps...
jonsen 6y ago

gorgoiler 6y ago

Does anyone actually have a problem with kB meaning 1024 bytes and MB meaning 1<<20 bytes, etc? Sure, the kilo-, mega- etc prefixes might literally mean 10^x but as long as one is raised with the understanding that to do so is overly literal, then it’s never really a problem. base = 2 if context == computer else 10 Kibi and mibi feel like this generation’s centripetal force. Another popular and unsolicited explanation I get a lot is about equality vs equity. The distinction might be real but after being corrected for the nth time one feels like I am being corrected for the sake of it than for any real reason.

exporectomy 6y ago
People don't use it like you say. My SSD that says "500 GB" on the label is actually only 500e9 bytes or 465 gibibytes. If I see a file size listed somewhere, I never know which version of the unit it's using so I tend to think in terms of bytes anywhere that the difference matters.
- mjevans 6y ago
  The shrinkage is all just Sales and Marketing ignoring engineering sensibilities in the quest for a bigger number on the box. The underlying storage cell arrangement is still (typically) 4096 bytes in size. (or 65536 (64KB) for many embedded devices). The device probably has about 10% of it's real storage capacity dedicated to ECC and other 'administrative' uses for provisioning the user facing storage.
  - exporectomy 6y ago
    It doesn't matter the reason. At the end of the day, it's used inconsistently so you can't just treat GB as meaning GiB when it's to do with computers and the units have become a confused muddle.
- gorgoiler 6y ago
  Context is everything and I’m fine with that. I can handle the base2 / base10 problem by using context. I don’t need a clumsy new prefix. If someone on the street asked you how much memory your computer has, how would you answer? “Seven gigs”? “Seven gibs”? “Seven gibibytes”?

Asraelite 6y ago

In my opinion the most important factor by far is avoiding ambiguity. This means sucking up to the binary prefixes and using them in every scenario possible. A lot of people don't like how they sound, and would like for the standard prefixes to have one meaning, but the reality of the state of the world is such that you will create ambiguity if you don't use the binary prefixes.

dividedbyzero 6y ago
In my experience, they're just as likely to be read as a weird typo of mega/giga as not and I've seen SSDs advertised using the wrong prefixes a lot, so there's another layer of ambiguity we wouldn't have if those prefixes had been picked with relative laypeople in mind. Even people who should know about these use 1024 for a kilobyte, and I usually add (1024^3) or something like that if ambiguity is a potential issue. I've been burnt before by trusting that gibi will be understood. My particular set of anecdata would strongly suggest it's not a very successful standard so far. That "nearest power of two to decimal kilo/mega/giga" is a weird concept in itself doesn't help, and the chosen prefixes are completely non-obvious and alien to me and apparently others as well. I don't think it's going to take hold anytime soon. Besides, if ambiguity is all there is to worry about, just use 2^30 bytes. No ambiguity at all (I believe) – but it may be a lot less effective in actual communication in lots of situations.

dahart 6y ago

What’s bad about the binary prefixes? Does it help if you think about how it’s designed to be “MEga BInary” and “GIga BInary”? Or is that the problem? The talk of weird sounding binary prefixes and long scales reminds me of the British long scale for large numbers that has different names for what we know as ‘million’ and ‘billion’: “milliard” and “billiard” (not to be confused with pool.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales