Kilobyte poll - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Jan Audio
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2019, 03:00:28 pm
content: Lets see what a kilobyte is in reality.Please vote to save the planet.

author: SL4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2019, 07:59:11 pm
content: Neither.While, i’m old school, 1024 is my leaning, but if something so trivial is slowing the world down, we deserve Donald Trump.KiBiByte =KiloBinaryBytesIt’s not hard, let’s get on with life!

author: Yansi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2019, 08:02:17 pm
content: It was trivial, until IEC decided to make a mess out of it together with HDD manufacturers, who just wanted to scam people.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2019, 08:52:49 pm
content: Did you write Kilobyte and not kilobyte on purpose?

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2019, 09:03:37 pm
content: Term "kilobyte" has similar issues as "lead": the meaning depends on the context.While "lead" can be pronounced differently, "kilobyte" can be written in unambiguous format.Both 1 kB = 1000 B, and 1 KiB = 1024 B, are called "kilobyte" in typical spoken English; which one, depends on the context.

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2019, 10:18:58 pm
content: It's 1000, no question.I'm absolutely comfortable with using it to imply 1024 in any context where it's clear that the logical necessity is a power of two, such as in registers, cache, ROM or RAM in a computer with binary addressing. KiB can fuck right off.In contexts outside the CPU such as serial communications (e.g. internet) or mass disk storage it is and should be 1000 and this is not a conspiracy by disk manufacturers or your ISP.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2019, 10:21:28 pm
content: Quote from: Jan Audio on September 01, 2019, 03:00:28 pmOur opinion is irrelevant. That’s how facts work, although many are confused by this.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2019, 10:43:30 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on September 02, 2019, 10:21:28 pmA "kilo" is defined as 1000 (10^3) units in the normal human base 10 numbering system but in modern digital computers everything is based on a base 2 numbering system (binary) so in computer terms a kilo is 1024 (2^10) units and a kilobyte means 1024 bytes. But a number of unscrupulous manufacturers took/take their memory size or disk drive capacity and divided by 1000 instead of 1024 so that they ended up with a larger numeric number. In their (mis)usage "kilo" means 1000 and not the normalcomputer related1024.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2019, 10:45:06 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on September 02, 2019, 10:21:28 pmYou do realize that we are discussing language, idiom, and common-usage, right?

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2019, 11:11:21 pm
content: Quote from: fourfathom on September 02, 2019, 10:45:06 pmIt’s all fairly well defined. Our feelings on the matter are irrelevant.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilobyte

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2019, 11:28:06 pm
content: Without "feelings" anyhumanlanguage would be meaningless so obviously feelings DO matter. It's only because the differences in human interpretation of the meaning of the kilo prefix that its meaning becomes confused. There are a great many words in English and in other languages that have multiple meanings. In this case "kilo" means 1000 in normal usage but 1024 in computer storage/memory related usage, for reasons that I already explained. It's worth noting that even in the computer field "kilo" in regards to frequency, such as a CPU frequency, still means 1000 and not 1024.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2019, 12:04:15 am
content: Pretty soon we’re going to need a kilobyte safe space where definitions don’t matter but feelings do.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2019, 01:00:42 am
content: Pretty soon is already here!

author: rhodges
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2019, 01:44:45 am
content: One kilobyte is 1024 bytes of RAM. This is at least four decades old.A megabyte of RAM is 1024 kilobytes. That was defined three decades ago.RAM is always, as far as I know, 2^N in size. So it makes sense to make one KB == 2^10 bytes.Hard drive storage is different. There is no natural sizing. If Seagate states that their ST??? drive is 20 megabytes, we can hope that it is 20 million bytes, maybe more.In communication, one kilobit is exact. A DS1 line is 1.544 megabits/second, with 1.536 usable (BZ8s). A DS3 and OC3 line have specific bit rates.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2019, 01:50:26 am
content: Quote from: rhodges on September 03, 2019, 01:44:45 am'kilo' is a multiplier of 1000. This is more than 220 years old.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2019, 03:42:36 am
content: I stopped counting on my fingers in early grade school. At this point I would be happy if we switched to base-8 and used 9 bit bytes although that presents problems with multiplexing. It never ends. Base-16 anybody?

author: TJ232
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2019, 03:59:03 am
content: For modern computing, at least since 1993, we have always 8 bits to a byte -> ISO/IEC 2382-1:19931 byte = 8 bits.1 kilobyte (K / Kb) = 2^10 bytes = 1,024 bytes.1 megabyte (M / MB) = 2^20 bytes = 1,048,576 bytes.1 gigabyte (G / GB) = 2^30 bytes = 1,073,741,824 bytes.In the last revised ISO/IEC 2382:2015 it didn't change to much:--------------------------------------------------2121333bytestring that consists of a number of bits, treated as a unit, and usually representing a character or a part of a characterNote 1 to entry: The number of bits in a byte is fixed for a given data processing system.Note 2 to entry: The number of bits in a byte is usually 8.Note 3 to entry: byte: term and definition standardized by ISO/IEC [ISO/IEC 2382-1:1993; ISO/IEC 2382-4:1999].Note 4 to entry: 01.02.09 (2382)[SOURCE: ISO-IEC-2382-1 * 1993 * * * ]---------------------------------------------------

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2019, 07:17:25 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on September 02, 2019, 11:11:21 pmQuoteRemember that this is a free "encyclopedia" that anyone and his dog can edit and it's notoriously full of bullshit as a result.In this case, SI's definition of 'kilo' is irrelevant because SI prefixes only apply to SI units and SI doesn't define 'byte'.Meanwhile other standards define 'kilo' as either 1024 or 1000 when referring to bytes. The latter kind of standards should of course be abolished.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2019, 07:49:07 am
content: Quote from: magic on September 03, 2019, 07:17:25 amIt was obviously a matter of time before someone started targeting Wikipedia instead of addressing what it says. I'll spare people the effort by referring to the EC 80000-13:2008 standard devised by the International Electrotechnical Commission and also NIST. We trust and covet NIST traceable calibrations so I gather we also trust how they define common terminology. In NIST we trust.https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2019, 09:03:29 am
content: The voting options of either 1024 or 1000 are polarizing and don't reflect the reality. As already explained in the other thread, the number of bytes depends on the standard applied (or context). The best solution is to have an unambiguous prefix since it can be hard to figure out the standard applied. Take datasheets for hard disks for example. The storage size is noted as TB (IEC multiplier of 1000) and the cache as MB (JEDEC multiplier of 1024). And both sizes aren't followed by "(IEC)" or "(JEDEC)" to indicate the standard. It's a mess.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2019, 09:43:04 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on September 03, 2019, 07:49:07 amExcuse me?I quoted garbagepedia and explained exactly what is wrong with their claims this time around.Don't want to be called out for using shitty sources, don't use shitty sources.Notice that NIST doesn't falsely claim that SI has any business standardizing kilobytes.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2019, 10:07:44 am
content: Quote from: magic on September 03, 2019, 09:43:04 amExcellent, more distraction plus an insult to ensure the bait is taken. Notice that Wikipedia never claims what you say it claims but the claim is providing an excellent diversion. Good show, back to the factual situation.

author: Jan Audio
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2019, 12:18:24 pm
content: Quote from: SL4P on September 02, 2019, 07:59:11 pmA byte is always binary right.It is the same as LCD display.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2019, 12:29:23 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on September 03, 2019, 10:07:44 amThe biggest insult to wikipedia is their content. If they don't think that SI has anything to do with standardization of the kilobyte then why even mention SI at all in an article about kilobyte?This is some distraction.And of course the factual situation is that there exist two competing standards of "kilobyte" and a third standard of "bibibyte" has been created to reduce confusion.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2019, 12:35:34 pm
content: Quote from: magic on September 03, 2019, 12:29:23 pmDid you notice how the NIST page says "The NIST Reference on Constants, Units, and Uncertainty" and just below that "International System ofe Units (SI)" and below that "Prefixes for binary multiples"?

author: Jan Audio
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2019, 12:41:37 pm
content: Anyone can write wikipedia, and google gives the results.Maybe it is a joke.Here the solution :Lesson 1 : bytes are binary.Lesson 2 : a kilobyte is 1024 bytes.Now you dont need to mention bytes are binary.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2019, 12:49:40 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on September 03, 2019, 12:35:34 pmThat's very unfortunate and misleading, but it results from their page about binary prefixes being shoved into the general category of units.They clear up the confusion in the following paragraph:Quote from: NISTMeanwhileQuote from: lolpedia

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2019, 01:36:05 pm
content: Quote from: magic on September 03, 2019, 12:49:40 pmAll attempts at diversion aside, NIST's position is pretty definitive. Now that's sorted I have another question. Is the Josephson constant KJ-90= 0.4835979 GHz/μV or is it KJ= 483597.84841698... GHz⋅V−1?

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2019, 03:22:06 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on September 03, 2019, 07:49:07 amI stopped trusting NIST when they revealed themselves as complicit with the NSA in undermining encryption standards.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2019, 04:41:15 am
content: For revealing it or for collaborating?

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2019, 11:00:12 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on September 04, 2019, 04:41:15 amThey were told so should have known the standard was compromised when they promulgated it. So they knowingly collaborated whether this amounted to deliberate ignorance or something more.

author: FreddieChopin
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2019, 07:21:40 pm
content: IT people worry about perfection to a single byte, engineer know that no component is perfect and just applies +/- 10-20 percent tolerance. Same deal like with screws. You don't calculate screw to be "just right" because in real world it would be overloaded or tightened too much. Instead you just multiply by safety factor (depending on how critical machine is).

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2019, 08:28:13 am
content: Quote from: FreddieChopin on September 10, 2019, 07:21:40 pmI've asked Microsoft to state the safety factor of their bytes. No answer as of yet.

author: Jan Audio
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2019, 02:18:21 pm
content: You expect answer ?, forget it.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2019, 02:43:51 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on September 11, 2019, 08:28:13 am

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2019, 03:38:52 pm
content: This is a true story:Last night I was designing some product and was looking for RAMs. The catalog showed capacity in kibibytes! I was astounded, but realized that the change was happening.Then I woke up. It was a dream.Yes, I dream about engineering

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2019, 03:41:31 pm
content: Quote from: fourfathom on September 11, 2019, 03:38:52 pmAt least you dream of a better future.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2019, 04:49:26 pm
content: Quote from: FreddieChopin on September 10, 2019, 07:21:40 pmAnd I thought this thread was a bit dull.So here, we have a statement that exact numbers in engineering are not NEEDED, because we have to deal with uncertainty. So let's buy a RAM chip with 32KBytes capacity +/-20%. Who cares about exact figures? They are for the birds!After all, there's "only" a difference of about 2% between 1k and 1K(i). Make that almost 5% between 1M and 1Mi. Now that"s almost 7% between G and Gi. But who cares?Just use a conservative 80% of the rated capacity of your memories, whatever unit it is given in. You're all set.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2019, 04:53:55 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on September 11, 2019, 04:49:26 pmDon't forget the uncertain number of bits in your bitfield.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2019, 07:16:53 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on September 11, 2019, 04:53:55 pmNow we're getting into quantum computing territory...