On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 03:51:53PM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
i wrote:
> It is a classic that programs talk mixed about GB and GiB while not
> clearly distinguishing them.
Michael Stone wrote:
This is basically never an issue in conversational usage as the difference
is less than the margin of error or real-world precision. If you're planning
for a million dollars worth of storage, yeah,
But what about a 25 cent DVD-R which is labeled "4.7 GB" and only can take
4.377 GiB (4482.625 MiB, 4,700,372,992 bytes) ?
If the difference matters you want the exact size in bytes. If you're
willing to round off that many significant digits you weren't that
worried about the exact size anyway. In 2020 assume you'll need more
than one and let the computer figure out how to split it.
Since we know that 1.5Gbyte/s SATA
doesn't exist we've clearly identified that there was confusion when reading
the original spec
There could also have been confusion about SATA and NVMe, at least.
Occam's razor suggests not. No need to look for additional remote
possibilities until the most likely explanation has been ruled out.
