GiB vs. GB

[Michael Pyne]

On Friday 02 November 2007, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Friday 02 November 2007, Jerome Yuzyk wrote:
> > Well, in the kilobyte and megabyte days I would have agreed, but now that
> > we're into giga and now tera, doesn't the difference increase (1000^n vs
>
> the point is that regardless of whether we are measuring using 1000^n or
> 2^N (1024^N if you prefer), using the term GiB in the UI is simply not
> useful. those of us who know the difference understand, and those who don't
> have little idea what a "GiB" is. so by putting GiB there instead of GB,
> regardless of how we actually measure it, we only do a disservice to the
> less technical (the overwhelming majority of people).
>
> we can measure using the binary definition (GiB) but i'd really prefer to
> see use the *commonly* understood unit abbreviation of GB(KB/MB/TB/etc).

I agree (and to be clear, I'd prefer the standard abbreviations of 
GB/KB/MB/etc., taken to mean the appropriate power of 1024).  The whole GiB, 
MiB etc. mess came about because hard disk manufacturers decided to start 
misrepresenting what MB meant on their boxes.

Plus if we start using MiB/GiB etc. that means we must use it everywhere 
because then GB/MB means the power of 10 version, which is so confusing as to 
be ludicrous.  Imagine the tech support requests.  "How much free memory do 
you have?" "It says 11.2 MB" "Is that decimal MB or binary MB?"  "HUH?"

Regards,
 - Michael Pyne
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://mail.kde.org/mailman/private/kfm-devel/attachments/20071102/78b11194/attachment.sig>