Opinions: Kibibytes

ohwell, as long as you write 'kb' (don't nail me on caps) no one sees any diff..

and as if that is nothing....

B = byte (normally an octect (IIRC), but can't be sometimes, some times is 7 bits or 9 bits .... (in comunications))
b = bit

so

all convinations is valid Kb KB kB kb.... jejejeej be care writing documents......

Flyguile

considering that 8bits are one byte we can see the problem.We do not create bytes decimaly,example a byte does not have 10 bits but only 8 and we use power of 2.The same thing goes to the hard disks.When you say that you have 150gigabytes decimally then in windows it may appear less than 150 gigabytes.That thing happens because a kilobyte is NOT 1000 bytes but 1024.It's the same storage.

I can't understand why hard disk manufacturers use decimal way of saying that one hard disk has n bytes of data.

2^10=
1
2
4
8
16
32
64
128
256
512
1024

If now we make the common mistake of saying that kilobytes are 1000 then we seem to have more data but this is not true.

In Decimal number 21 becomes 15 in hexadecimal.15 may seem less decimally but since we are in another system that does not have 1,10,100 but instead 1,16,256,4096,65536 and etc we know that 15$=21Decimal

Now kibi is not correct.We should send to the fire all those that make such mistakes.

The prefix kilo was defined to mean 1000 in 1795, and in use even before that.
Only a relatively short time ago it has become practice to use kilo for 1000 or 1024, depending on the unit that is qualified.
This usage gives strange results like: To send 1 kbit with a speed of 1 kbit/s takes 1.024 s.
Extending this practice to mega, giga only makes the ambiguity worse.
Therefore it is best to have distinct prefixes for powers of 1000 and powers of 1024.
To use anything else than kilo for 1000 would flush centuries of tradition down the drain, so a new prefix for 1024 had to be invented, and the IEC came up with kibi (symbol Ki). See also wikipedia page for kibibyte.
It's not pretty, but at least it is unambiguous.

And while we are at it: we, should call the C=64 the C=65,536 in the future, and scratch out all the 64/128/256 kbyte logo's from all our computers and replace it with "the right numbers". We should also replace the MSX2 boot secuence in BIOS, so it gives the right numbers.... NOT!!!

Thank God it's only a bunch of nitwit-nerds that do this, and that "the rest of the world" never ever heard of it or really isn't interested in this bull. As long as these nerds stay confined to their Wikipedia and sourceforge communities, it shouldn't become a real problem