3 ms·

It used to be that we used k, M, G, etc as power of 2s in computing without any confusion because that was the norm. But, somehow, at some point I believe that

It used to be that we used k, M, G, etc as power of 2s in computing without any confusion because that was the norm. But, somehow, at some point I believe that hard drive manufacturers started to use "GB" as meaning 10^9 bytes and the confusion started from there.

vbezhenar 3y ago
Why should "kilo-" in programming be different from "kilo-" in physics? It used to be a wrong approach and now people started to unwrangle the mess. SI was invented for a reason.
- fl7305 3y ago
  In the 1980s and 1990s, no-one thought this was a problem. All computer stuff is based on binary numbers, therefore 2^(10*n) makes a lot more sense than 10^n for us. Do you buy 64 GB of RAM for a new computer? Or is it 68.719476736 GB? It was only the hard drive manufacturers that wanted to inflate their numbers, and started pushing the 10^n scheme. This is coming from someone who grew up with the SI system, which makes a ton of sense for physics and mechanics. Not so much for computer memory.
soneil 3y ago
This is a myth. The very first harddrive was 5,000,000 characters - in the 1950s. The first PC harddrives came in 10 & 20MB. Harddrives have always been base10. Linespeed has always been base10. Clock speed has always been base10. It's RAM that's the odd one out. I believe that where the disconnect has occurred, is that when home computing started - RAM is pretty much all you had. We didn't have megabit networking, we didn't have harddrives, if we were lucky we had cassettes. So the binary prefixes were absorbed in isolation.
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  No, 10MB or 100MB, etc. was measured using powers of 2. It's not true that it was always based 10. It made a big stir when they reached GB range and changed to powers of 10. I remember it.
  - soneil 3y ago
    To quote Jerry, show me the money? For example, https://www.ebay.com/itm/225315397038 https://www.ebay.com/itm/225315397038 The label of this drive gives us CHS figures for three different models: cyl * h * s * B 127MB = 919 * 16 * 17 * 512 = 127,983,616B (124MiB) 170MB = 1011 * 15 * 22 * 512 = 170,818,560B (162MiB) 340MB = 1011 * 15 * 44 * 512 = 341,637,120B (325MiB) So we're at 127MB and they're already base10. For some reason everyone remembers it, but no-one's been able to show me.

vbezhenar 3y ago

Why should "kilo-" in programming be different from "kilo-" in physics? It used to be a wrong approach and now people started to unwrangle the mess. SI was invented for a reason.

fl7305 3y ago
In the 1980s and 1990s, no-one thought this was a problem. All computer stuff is based on binary numbers, therefore 2^(10*n) makes a lot more sense than 10^n for us. Do you buy 64 GB of RAM for a new computer? Or is it 68.719476736 GB? It was only the hard drive manufacturers that wanted to inflate their numbers, and started pushing the 10^n scheme. This is coming from someone who grew up with the SI system, which makes a ton of sense for physics and mechanics. Not so much for computer memory.

soneil 3y ago

This is a myth. The very first harddrive was 5,000,000 characters - in the 1950s. The first PC harddrives came in 10 & 20MB. Harddrives have always been base10. Linespeed has always been base10. Clock speed has always been base10. It's RAM that's the odd one out. I believe that where the disconnect has occurred, is that when home computing started - RAM is pretty much all you had. We didn't have megabit networking, we didn't have harddrives, if we were lucky we had cassettes. So the binary prefixes were absorbed in isolation.

mytailorisrich 3y ago
No, 10MB or 100MB, etc. was measured using powers of 2. It's not true that it was always based 10. It made a big stir when they reached GB range and changed to powers of 10. I remember it.
- soneil 3y ago
  To quote Jerry, show me the money? For example, https://www.ebay.com/itm/225315397038 https://www.ebay.com/itm/225315397038 The label of this drive gives us CHS figures for three different models: cyl * h * s * B 127MB = 919 * 16 * 17 * 512 = 127,983,616B (124MiB) 170MB = 1011 * 15 * 22 * 512 = 170,818,560B (162MiB) 340MB = 1011 * 15 * 44 * 512 = 341,637,120B (325MiB) So we're at 127MB and they're already base10. For some reason everyone remembers it, but no-one's been able to show me.