Messages in this thread |  | | From | smwong@cs ... | Subject | Re: GB vs. MB | Date | Thu, 28 Nov 1996 21:45:56 +0800 (HKT) |
| |
> "Leonard N. Zubkoff writes" > |> > |> Let's face it -- the original fault with KB/MB is in using the same prefixes > |> that already had definitions for a different purpose. The scientific community > |> has used K for kilo = 1000 and M for mega = 1000000 for quite a long time. > > Leonard, > > you are slightly incorrect this time... To do my daily nitpicking, it was > the prefix "k", not "K" that was (and still is) used for 10^3. Capital K > was introduced by computing for 2^10. Unfortunately there is no way to > further capitalize a capital M ... > Same way we have to distinguish "B" and "b" for transfer rates... > Just my $0.00 worth. > -- > Steffen Grunewald | email steffen@gfz-potsdam.de | fax (+49)-331-8877 520
However, "K" stands for Kelvin in the science community! And the use of "K" to represent temperature should be a long way before we use computer, so, IMO, KB is even more awful than kb, let alone the 1024 vs 1000 war.
Personally, I prefer the standard usage of p, n, u, m, c, d, k, M, G in the decimal (physics') sense, coz' it's established longer.
Just for joking, how about to subscript, like k , M , G , etc. for binary 2 2 2 kilo, mega and giga, coz' we use that system to represent the base in log, like log , log , etc. 2 e
My 2 cents.
-- \////// Stephen Siu Ming Wong Internet: stephenwong@cuhk.edu.hk [ O O ] Dept of Computer Science smwong@cs.cuhk.edu.hk \_-_/ Chinese University of _| |_ Hong Kong Pager: 7229-4680 / \_/ \ ____________________________________________________________oOOO___OOOo__
|  |