2 ms·
You mean 200 terabytes. This usage of bits over bytes, to make the number go higher and therefore sound better, has always been a big issue with speed measurem
by LoganDark 3y ago
You mean 200 terabytes.
This usage of bits over bytes, to make the number go higher and therefore sound better, has always been a big issue with speed measurements of network hardware, and I would like not to see the same misleading pattern used in headlines for references to storage media, which has always used bytes (1000 vs 1024 notwithstanding).
- nullsmack 3y agoI'm not sure why they'd bother, 200TB is extremely impressive on its own. I just wish these would be a real thing that I could really buy one day.
- LoganDark 3y agoI guess being able to use petabytes as a unit was important to them. And ditto. Even if it's write-only, I have tons of data (i.e. disk images of childhood computers) that I would love to preserve forever, but don't currently have the disk space to store.
- earthling8118 3y agoBut that's the issue: they aren't using petabytes as a unit, they are using petabits
- LoganDark 3y agosorry I was more referring to the peta- prefix, the bytes/bits thing is exactly why I'm upset about this. They shouldn't have inflated the figure to bits just so they could put peta in front of it. This is a 200TB storage medium. It shouldn't ever be called peta-anything.