I don't see the problem. As long as you are specifying bytes or bits it is
obvious. The only reason hard drive manufactures use a 1000 mutiplier is
because one of the earily ones started doing that, and the others clained
they had to follow suite or lose business because the comsumer thought their
drives were smaller. AFAIK, harddrive manufactures are the only ones in the
computer industry using kilobyte as 1000. When you format your drive it
looks smaller because FORMAT and FDISK report bytes time 1024. Of course
standards organizations get their rocks of changing terminology for BS
reasons (How many million rental cars is that radio station broadcasting
at?).

Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: Just printed the test pictures from the *ist D...


> Hi,
>
> Saturday, August 9, 2003, 9:55:28 PM, you wrote:
>
> > That probably true because I'm pretty sure
> > 1 kB =1024 bytes Thus 1000kB = 1.024 million bytes.
>
> In the metric system 'kilo' is 1,000 and 'mega' is 1,000,000. It is only
> the computer world that has confused things by treating kilo as 1024
> and mega as 1024 x 1024 (or sometimes 1024 x 1000). This use in computing
> has no official definition or standing, unlike the metric system.
>
> If somebody sold you a disk which they claimed held 100 megabytes and
> you found it held only 80 bytes, you would have no standard definition of
> 'megabytes' to fall back on if you tried to get your money back.
>
> There is an international standard which is supposed to replace the
> use of kilo- to mean 1024 and mega- to mean 1024x1024. One million
> Nerdie points to anyone who can tell us what the new terms are.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>  Bob                            mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 8/4/03


Reply via email to