Page 4 of 4

Re: GB vs GiB

Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:18 pm
by JPG
Now "i" is the 'giveaway'. It redefines "K" as 1024. Ditto M(1048576),G(1073741824) T(10995116277726) . . .

Re: GB vs GiB

Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2020 12:03 pm
by wa2crk
I am just glad that CPS was changed to Hertz. I don't think that I could handle KiloMarconies or MegaMarconies.
Ah the good old French. Thanks to them for the FIA too. They even designed a car that was so ugly that no one knew what it was so they painted "le Car" on the side so it could be identified
Bill V

Re: GB vs GiB

Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2020 12:38 pm
by JPG
IIRC the common term/usage was Kc, not Kmarconies.

Re: GB vs GiB

Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2020 1:47 pm
by DLB
Another ambiguous term is ton. Sometimes it's clear by context, other times not. So the smart(er) people dealing with this uncertainty leave 'ton' alone, remains ambiguous unless clear in context. The terms 'short ton,' 'long ton,' and 'metric ton' (perhaps others) are used when clarity is needed. (Preceding a noun with an adjective, go figure.) I point this out because it strikes me as a far more reasonable solution than the one applied to KB, MB, etc.

Computer memory (RAM, specifically) size was/is generally referred to using the binary versions of K, M, and G. A quick scan of RAM modules on Amazon confirmed to me that this remains true. Perhaps there is a plan that this community will adopt the new terminology, hopefully all using the same term with the same meaning with a reasoned break-in point (DDRn+1, where I'm not up on the current value of n unless it is 5 as in DDR5). (And unlike the OS community in every sense.) Products in the marketplace containing RAM also follow that convention, computers are described as having XX GB RAM, but also YYY GB HDs or SSD. It seems to me that universal adoption of the IEC definitions is for some future time. The Windows OS, RAM suppliers, and sellers of products containing RAM have a commanding presence,

Here is a current PC description quoted from Amazon, 20+ years after IEC gave us these clear definitions: "(Intel i7-10700F 2.9GHz, NVIDIA GTX 1660 Ti 6GB, 16GB DDR4 RAM, 240GB SSD, 1TB HDD, Wi-Fi ready, Windows 10 Home)" 4 occurrences of GB or TB. Some meet the IEC definitions, others evidently do not. Fundamentally unchanged from 40 years ago, n'est-ce pas?

- David

Re: GB vs GiB

Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2020 1:54 pm
by JPG
Old 'habits' die slowly.

Ask any nun.

Re: GB vs GiB

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:35 am
by rjent
I have images of an old barber shop, wood fire in a Franklin stove, a couple of spitoons on a sawdust floor and some old farts having a discussion. I was in the computer industry for over 40 years and I always just did the "adjustment" in my head LOL.
Methinks a bureaucrat has become involved .... :D

Re: GB vs GiB

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:41 am
by JPG
rjent wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:35 am I have images of an old barber shop, wood fire in a Franklin stove, a couple of spitoons on a sawdust floor and some old farts having a discussion. I was in the computer industry for over 40 years and I always just did the "adjustment" in my head LOL.
Methinks a bureaucrat has become involved .... :D
I dare say the IEC has an overabundance of 'them'.