4 ms·
I'm not sure how I feel about this. It's a lofty wish, but I'd prefer that drive manufacturers switch to base 2. Since it's the basis of digital logic and all.
by Mongoose 17y ago
I'm not sure how I feel about this. It's a lofty wish, but I'd prefer that drive manufacturers switch to base 2. Since it's the basis of digital logic and all.
- cperciva 17y agoDo you also think a 2.5 GHz CPU should run at 2.5 * 2^30 clock cycles per second? How about making redefining Gbps ethernet to run at 2^30 bits per second instead of 10^9 bits per second? There is some justification for measuring RAM in GiB rather than GB: The design of RAM chips makes this far more convenient. But there's no reason for anything else to be measured in "binary" capacities.
- profquail 17y agoWell, I could see why they used base 10 for magnetic hard drives (since there aren't a power-of-two number of storage spaces available), but what about SSD's, which are best accounted for in base 2? Also, the GPU and ethernet argument is off base (no pun intended); CPU speed (in Hz) is based in units of s^-1, so it wouldn't make any sense to redefine that in base 2. Ethernet speeds should probably have been measured in base 2, but the numbers are so widespread now it would be confusing to change it.
- gojomo 17y agoBecause SSDs compete with spinning HDs, and are already at cost-per-byte and available-sizes disadvantages, they're unlikely to embrace a different unit that makes them look even smaller and more expensive in comparison to HDs.