On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 19:56 -0500, Mark Reitblatt wrote: > On 6/11/07, Alex Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Fine. Stick with Kilobytes, but strictly define it as 10^3 bytes. Just > > choose one over the other and be consistent. > > That's not "consistent". Kilobyte has always meant 2^10 bytes. "kilo" > in "kilobyte" is not an SI prefix. SI prefixes only apply to SI > measurements, of which "byte" is not a member.
Then why bastardise an SI prefix? This surely serves only to confuse people. Why don't we invent a new word? Should we call it the "thousandbyte"? It is simply a convenient accident that 2^10 ~= 10^3. As I'm sure you're well aware, this approximation starts to become way off as you approach tera-. In fact, that's about 10% error, which is simply unacceptable. It's time to move on and accept that the approximation fails with big numbers. > There is no confusion; > the only place where a kilobyte != 2^10 bytes is in hard drive > manufacturer's advertising materials. This is the way it has been for > decades, and it is a perfectly acceptable and desirable standard. And I suppose you think that differences such as that between the American and the English ton are acceptable and desirable. Let it be known that I strongly disagree with you here. :) -- Alex Jones http://alex.weej.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
