Messages in this thread | | | From | Olaf Titz <> | Subject | Re: GB vs. MB | Date | 28 Nov 1996 09:19:25 +0100 |
| |
Rob Hagopian <Rob.Hagopian@mailhost.vu.union.edu> wrote: > Linux shouldn't sucumb to such a low level. When I see MB come out of > linux, I expect it to mean MegaByte (2^20). When I see it in an ad, that's > when I expect it to mean MarketingByte (10^6 :-).
Let me second this notion. Traditionally, "kilo" means 2^10 and "mega" 2^20 for storage sizes. This is not consistent with standardized units, but it's consistent _within this special application_. So keep it consistent.
This question comes up every few months, there has even been a proposal to amend the SI specifications for 2^10-based prefixes to resolve the ambiguity... It doesn't help that "kilo" is 10^3 again when measuring network bandwidth, but for storage size it is well established.
As for hard disk sizes, I've gotten used to take the marketed size as an estimate only. ;-)
olaf -- ___ Olaf.Titz@inka.de or @{stud,informatik}.uni-karlsruhe.de ____ __ o <URL:http://www.inka.de/~bigred/> <IRC:praetorius> __/<_ >> Just as long as the wheels keep on turning round _)>(_)______________ I will live for the groove 'til the sun goes down << ____
| |