1 edit | reply to vernalex
Re: Computers do not use 2^10 base said by vernalex:
A standards body does not make standards.
I read that, and then realized that I should be free to ignore the entire rest of your post, as you obviously suffer from a sub-standard education. Sorry to hear that. Whatever point you might have attempted to make, has been lost on me.
said by vernalex:
He's a standards zealot but doesn't actually understand what a standard is. He thinks it is the thing that makes the most sense to him.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Yes? Clue? Obviously no. |
|
|
|
OZOPremium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2 | reply to OZO
Re: Windows OS is using wrong measurements Ok. Let's look at megabyte definition in Wikipedia as someone in this thread has pointed out. It begins with these words:
A megabyte is a unit of measurement for computer storage, memory and information; while its exact definition varies, it is in theory equal to one million bytes. (my bold and underscore).
Then site says that there are at least three definitions for megabyte are being used and puts them in the list.
Now what - pick up any one you wish and use it in format of your printing? Then three developers will implement it in different ways (as someone on this thread has mentioned) and user will make a guess what do they mean under those printings? It looks like it's quite acceptable here and others will be called standard zealots.
BTW, to all participants of this thread - thank you for sharing your thoughts here. Appreciate it.
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself... |
|
 _
@nrockv01.md.comcast. | reply to OZO
At least the microsoft numbers for free/used add up.
Let's go yell at linux.
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/hdb4 47G 8.5G 36G 20% /
Gee, that's a 50G partition...hey...wait...used + available = 44.5...where's the other 2.5G from the size!? and where's the other 3G? so before you go writing MS up as the bad guy...
Ok, so now linux *and* ms are evil. we all turn where? FreeBSD?
/dev/ad1s4d 72G 2.9G 64G 4% /usr2
I think it's pretty obvious that that's an 80G drive, and that 2.9G + 64G is NOT 72G, right?
if the only people to adopt a standard are the people who it would benefit(i.e. hard drive manufacturers) i would say it is safe to consider that standard dead.
or are you still going to try to write this off as MS being unethical blah blah? how does ms gain from it? not needing to replace all the GB in their code with GiB just to statisfy some little standard that nobody in their right mind adheres to? (look! not even the open source community listens, and they're all about bashing ms for not following standards. blah blah improper ACPI...blah blah non-standard clock expects local time zone....blah blah). i assure you, MS wasn't the first to use MB and KB. |
|
OZOPremium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2 | said by _:
not needing to replace all the GB in their code with GiB just to statisfy some little standard that nobody in their right mind adheres to?
May be some little standard (as you mention about International Standard) is better then nothing. Don't you agree?
(it's rather rhetoric - obviously, you don't).
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself... |
|
| reply to OZO
I think this thread may have ended up being a lot better if the troll who started it wouldn't have come right out with the "M$ bashing", especially since Microsoft wasn't the first, and is far from the only one using MB=1024 bytes.
Since this thread seems to be full of definitions, I'll add another one for standard: »dictionary.reference.com/search?···ard&r=67
said by dictionary.com:
5. Something, such as a practice or a product, that is widely recognized or employed, especially because of its excellence.
Notice that nowhere in the definition does it say "something that a standards body decided on". If something is used by 99.999999% of all operating systems on the planet, it is a standard. You can't argue it.
--
I do not trust Firefox. Spread anything besides that horrid piece of crap. |
|
| reply to OZO
said by OZO:
May be some little standard (as you mention about International Standard) is better then nothing. Don't you agree?
Nothing? A standard is in place, and everyone uses it exclusively, except the hard drive marketers. It's hardly nothing, except to zealot trolls like yourself.
--
I do not trust Firefox. Spread anything besides that horrid piece of crap. |
|
1 edit | reply to OZO
some things just dont/cant/will NEVER/ make since. I guess that makes us human...
WE logically dont fit:D |
|
_
@nrockv01.md.comcast. | reply to OZO
and those standards should be based on pre-existing usage, not some random crap. pre-existing usage, of course, would be the way MS and linux have this implemented. i have harddrives from pre-1998. a 2GB one and a 6GB one. old old drives, really. when partitioned and installed, they come up to....2GB and 6GB, so obviously before this standard was made up, drives where also sold on this basis that 1kb = 1024kb! and MB was truly standard! the confusion was INTRODUCED by the standard.
it's much easier to explain that 1KB = 1024 bytes and that 1MB = 1024kbytes when everybody uses those, this much is true. what is not true is that introducing this standard in 1998 was well thought out. standards change. W3 keeps changing and revising standards. instead of changing how the OS views it, i believe a more productive course of action would be to get this so called 'standard'(which is anything but a real standard) revised. just because an institution writes that it is standard does not mean it's a law. it's just that institutions opinion. in this case, an unpopular one. to be a true standard, it has to be widely used. and not just by hdd manufacturers. |
|
Fudus
join:2001-12-02
philippines | reply to OZO
The 1gb=1000mb for hard disks is an old old marketing trick. They've been doing it for ages to make it look bigger.
My old "8.4" GB drive showed up as 7.9 to software, so this is most definitely not a new thing.
I am glad to see that people don't like the new naming convention too. Kibi? it sounds as if you've got a speech impediment when you speak it, and it looks ugly in writing. Another problem is that they're rather new systems, introduced in 1998. IBMs were made in 1981 so they're naturally different. |
|
OZOPremium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2 | reply to _
said by _:
i believe a more productive course of action would be to get this so called 'standard'(which is anything but a real standard) revised. just because an institution writes that it is standard does not mean it's a law.
Well, it's reasonable and productive way to deal with it.
Second, it's not an institution. It's "International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), the leading international organization for worldwide standardization in electrotechnology". This organ is responsible for makeing standards. You may participate in the process of making or revising standards, but if they're in place - it would be beneficiary for everybody to adhere to them. Don't you agree?
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself... |
|
 Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
kudos:2 | reply to OZO
Even Better Idea(tm) Since Ozo is pissed off that 1024!=1000, and a 160GB drive only shows up at 149GB... I have an even better idea.
The JISB (Jerm International Standards Board) has universally decided that the term "Gigabyte" is now outdated and we must all call it "JermByte"! Please note I will now search for every thread on BBR and track down all "offenders", and argue for hours until they switch to the new "standard".
/sarcasm off
Anyway, it really comes down to this. A Gigabyte has always been 1024 megabytes, which has always been... etc you get the idea.
You can't change the standard now! And that "standards board" should have never created GiB - because GB is already the accepted definition for the same thing.
Ozo, go take some CS classes, and see how you like arguing with your professor about GiB vs GB - and see how far you get.
(LOL - note the BBR spell checker doesn't recognize GiB as a valid, hmm!)
--
Want an OC3? Go to college! Washington State University OC3 MRTG |
|
Fudus
join:2001-12-02
philippines | reply to Mr Anon
Re: Windows OS is using wrong measurements said by Mr Anon:
...Some MFG actually still hold true and count 2^x0 and most computer uses love them for it....
There are still HD makers using the binary measurement system? What are they? All the ones I know use the decimal system. |
|
 uther
join:2001-12-04
Saint Louis, MO | reply to OZO
Hey OZO, if you don't like the false advertising from HD manufacturers.. sue the HD manufacturers.
They're the ones who are making 1gb = 1000mb instead of 1024mb.
You're getting ripped off by the HD manufacturer, not your operating system.
Launch a lawsuit against all HD manufacturers who do the deceptive marketing.
And let this conversation come to a close.
Thanks
Uther |
|
 tcp1Premium
join:2000-04-17
Herndon, VA
 ·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | reply to OZO
"It's really strange to me why m$ creates this mess with size measurements in Windows OS. What is the point to mislead users?"
Are you on crack? This is the stupidest "M$" conspiracy theory I think I have ever heard.
What freaking benefit would MS get from using 1000 vs 1024 as a megabyte?
This whole anti-MS crap is getting ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. You people are nuts. |
|
tcp1Premium
join:2000-04-17
Herndon, VA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
2 edits | reply to Rhobite
"After about 12 computer science classes, I'm pretty sure that I understand "math using different bases." In computing, we use powers of 2 to represent storage. This is how it's been done traditionally and I see no reason to change it now."
EXACTLY. This is like people who try to change the spellings of words so they "make more sense" or are "easier to spell".
A kilobyte, has, and always has been, 1024 bytes. Of course, that's if you're using 8 bit bytes. Yes, kids, a byte isn't always 8 bits. But that's the accepted standard.
The industry does NOT use MiB and KiB. If anyone's wrong, it is the HD manufacturers - and they have a reason for that. They call it "GB" vs "Gigabytes", though, but it doesn't really much matter.
The OP was typical anti-MS crap from a young kid who has a pointless vendetta against the company because they dare charge for software.
MS has been in the software business a lot longer than you, OZO. My guess is they know a bit more about what they're doing than you do, and I highly doubt they're measuring "incorrectly" just to be ....evil!...
What's next, are you going to petition texas to rename the Ten Gallon Hat the 8.3271 Gallon hat, because the correct unit to use is Imperial Gallons?
Grow up. |
|
tcp1Premium
join:2000-04-17
Herndon, VA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | reply to VirtualLarry
"I find it interesting that the persons that disagreed with my reply, totally ignored commenting about the fact that I mentioned datacomm speeds are expressed using decimal KB/MB, and they have been all along. So not every KB/MB used in computers is measured in binary."
That's right. Datacomms measurement is different and arbitrary in a different way. Why don't we have 60,000 bps modems? Why not 25,000? Why 33,600? Tell me why and I'll give you a cookie. You seem to think you're making a point by this, but you're not. There's a reason for just about everything done in computing. It's not just pulled out of the air. So, tell me why 33,600. I know. Do you? And the reason is completely valid.
I agree, for programmers, especially dealing with RAM sizes, powers-of-two make perfect sense. I think that's where some of MS's "laziness" (if it were truely that) came from, since on the early 8088 and 8086 CPUs without FPUs.. Blah blah..
It has nothing to do with programming, and it has nothing to do with laziness. Modern computers store 8 bits in a byte, and use 16, 32, 64, or 128 bit addressing, because that is the word size of the processor. Memory sizes are directly related to the addressing scheme, buddy. Why can't we have 1000 MB RAM chips? Because that would make no technical sense and would be more difficult to build.
The addressing range of a 16 bit memory bus, on a 16 bit processor - such as the 80286 is from 0 to 2^16. BASE TWO.
So, it can address up to 65536 bytes. Not 65000. The top address offset, which is a physical limitation of a two-state processor - not an arbitrary pick because someoene thought it was cool is binary 10000000000000000, or hexadecimal 10000, which just happens to be decimal 65536.
Creating a storage system based in decimal would create more difficult addressing and would *always* involve wasted space or "partial" addressing pages at the limits of the system.
You folks are missing the point that this stuff is NOT arbitrary.
... but I think it is much clearer if you use the proper, explicit, units abbreviations. Just because the majority is stupid, doesn't mean that you have to follow their lead.
And the proper units are in powers of two. Using base 10 measurements in computers MAKES NO SENSE. Addressing in memory or storage in base 10 MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL.
Using YOUR system is dumbing things down to a more stupid level because people refuse to understand even the slightest, simplest details of how a computer works.
PS. CPU clock speeds are in decimal units as well, and always have been.
This is absolutely not true, first of all. The 8088 ran at 4.77MHz. Your 33Mhz 486 actually ran at 33.333Mhz, and your 266 MHz DDR ram runs at 266.666 MHz.
Oh, and look at those numbers! For decades, the progression of cpu speeds were as such: 16, 33, 66, 133, 166, 200, 266, 333.. Only around then did we start seeing "500" and "600" being more common; but this was simply due to the fact that the original basic 66Mhz Pentium bus was increased by 33 to 100Mhz, and CPUs worked off the multiplier of the front side bus.
See! Reasons! Not just to make it easy for you. CPU speeds, as you erroneously stated, have almost never been in even decimal units.
Learn a little bit and you wouldn't be making this argument. |
|
tcp1Premium
join:2000-04-17
Herndon, VA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
3 edits | reply to OZO
Re: Computers do not use 2^10 base Professional? Computer classes? Dude, where did you take your classes? Please don't tell me you have a CS degree. Your school should be de-accredited.
Computers do not use 2^10 base in calculations.
Oh really? News to me! I think the Russians tried a tertiary system in the 70s, and failed miserably.
They use data units (known as data types, I'm getting more professional here because it's obvious that several computer classes is not enough to get it right).
Oh boy. You are so wrong. First of all, that is not what a data type is. You're so off base here it's not even funny.
The closest two data types are - byte (it uses 2^8 base) and in Win32 it's integer (it uses 2^4*8 base). 2^8 base has 256 possible values, while 2^32 has 4294967296. Neither one is close to 2^10 which represents 1024 possible values.
(off topic.. Win32 doesnt have a byte data type, only integer? That's news to me.)
Computers, in hardware, only use one "data type". One. That is the bit. Nothing else. What you are talking about is implementations and representations of human based systems in programming languages, as compilers interpret them to convert them to machine language - which again, is always, ALWAYS, only using bits.
"Data Types" in programming languages are not how the "computer makes calculations". Go take an assembly language class. You'll learn a lot.
There is no difference at all between a "byte" data type, an "integer" data type, and even a "character" data type, save for the limits the compiler places on the variables to use when allocating memory - and they are again in base two because the compiler needs to allocate memory to a memory address, which is based on the address lines of the processor - which is again, always a base two multiple - since processors must work in, and can only work in binary!!!!
Again, computer is working with binary presentation of data and only when the data needs to be readable by human eye - in this case it transfer it into a decimal form, or into a kibi-like form (distorted decimal form).
And to do THIS would be misleading, not the other way around.
You will NEVER have a 10000000 bit file on a disk. Never. Go ahead, please try it! This is because sector sizes must be... base two! This is because file addressing must be.. base two! You can't write out half a byte on any filesystem I've known since CP/M. On many file systems, the smallest of -anything- you can write will be based on the sector size, which again, will be base two!
For example. I just created a new text file on drive C:\ of my system.
I entered the number 1 4000 times into into the file and saved it. It is 4000 bytes of data.
Then I look at the space taken up on disk:
Size: 4000 bytes (4000 bytes)
Size on disk: 4.00KB (4,096 bytes)
What's this?!?! Crazy, you say! Allocation slack aside, that number will NEVER be 4,000 bytes. It CANNOT be. So, if the 4.00 KB meant 4000 bytes, it would be wrong, because a file of that size on an NTFS disk CANNOT EXIST.
So, using your solution, the file that takes up 4000 characters, or 4 "KiB", would really be 4.09 "KiB". Oh, great, now a whole new arbitrary number issue!
And my initial question was/is - why Windows Explorer shows it in more difficult for human format based on 2^10, instead of using plain decimal format (where 1KB = 1000 bytes)?
Because:
A) Computers do not work in decimal.
B) The amount of space taken up on any disk, in bytes, will always be a base 2 multiple.
C) The term "Kilobyte/KB" and "Megabyte/MB" are as old, arbitrary, and properly defined as the term "byte" itself. Your argument is the same as suggesting that bytes be 10 bits.
They just aren't. |
|
tcp1Premium
join:2000-04-17
Herndon, VA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to OZO
Re: Windows OS is using wrong measurements Ok. Let's look at megabyte definition in Wikipedia as someone in this thread has pointed out. It begins with these words:
Wikipedia is not a primary source for industry computer information. It's an open encyclopedia, for chrissakes. The folks who wrote the Wikipedia article are WRONG, as they are clearly not experts in the subject.
The definition is incorrect.
A kilobyte is 1024 (2^10) 8-bit bytes.
A megabyte is 1024 (2^10) kilobytes.
This was the case when my mom programmed on the Univac in 1968; this was the case through all of my CS classes; this is what we use in industry every day at my work; this is the case today.
I know it's hard for a lot of you anti-MS zealots to look outside your glass house and realize that there is a world that came before open-everything and freaking wiki-wikis and "moin-moin" and Linux. Hell, I'm sure most linux zealots would raise an eyebrow at your claim of "M$" (btw DROP THE M$/WINBLOZE CRAP. IT IS NOT CLEVER ANYMORE..) "misleading" people by using the PROPER units.
You don't only show a great lack of knowledge by just ignoring everyone's lucid arguments here - you are limiting yourself by refusing to understand the history and technical basis for the way things are in computing. |
|
 danzaPremium
join:2002-08-23 | reply to OZO
This reminds me of the Intel vs AMD debate I had with someone a while ago. How intel's P4 2400Mhz cpu is slower than AMD's XP 2400Mhz, and how terrible the celeron 3000Mhz is compare to the two I just mentioned...
You just have to know what you are buying  |
|
tcp1Premium
join:2000-04-17
Herndon, VA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | This reminds me of the Intel vs AMD debate I had with someone a while ago. How intel's P4 2400Mhz cpu is slower than AMD's XP 2400Mhz, and how terrible the celeron 3000Mhz is compare to the two I just mentioned...
Although one processor may be faster in floating point operations than another, and one may be quicker with a different memory subsystem than another..
This is a little different, since there is no one single measure of processor speed as it relates to computing performance, because computing tasks differ so much.
MHz is used, because it is the physical differentiator of the speed that can be physically measured.
I can tell you that there absolutely ARE processes in which the 3000mhz celeron will be faster than both the AMD 2400 and Intel 2400 - processes in which only one instruction can be executed per clock cycle on all three processors agnostic of their architecture - and let me tell you, there are plenty of such operations.
Computers are not "fuzzy". They're so black and white it's not even funny.. Things have become so large, fast, and complex that it gives the illusion that things are kinda "iffy" and subject to debate on human terms.. but they really aren't.
Base two, O(N), MHz and addressing ranges will always apply!
This is why a kilobyte will never be 1000 bytes! |
|
