Talk:Data-rate units

message: Seriously, what. Who has the authority to retroactively redefine a standard that's been in place for 50+ years? A Kilobyte has ALWAYS been 1024 bytes and a Kilobit has ALWAYS been 1000 bits. Adding a third corrupt (and ridiculous sounding) standard to the mix just because hard drive manufacturers are getting sued because they wrongly define their drives in Megabytes instead of Megabits isn't a reason to change the entire basis of space measurement in computing. Hard drive manufacturers need to change, the world doesn't revolve around them.
Most operating systems use 1024 = kbyte and 1000 = kbit and have been doing so forever. I surely hope that people don't start catering to drive manufacturers just because they try and corrupt a standard. Ggigabitem (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is another perspective: "kilo" has always meant 1,000. Then some computer people start using "kilo" for 1,024 and that is just incorrect and they should not use it incorrectly, the world does not revolve around them. - 193.84.186.81 (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this. 

message: The whole world knows that there are two predominant counting systems we have to contend with - the decimal and the binary systems.  Everyone also knows that disk drive manufacturers cheat - these manufacturesers know that binary bytes do not fit into 'decimal' drive space. But this is turning into a silly debate!  Some people are even turning it into a techno jargon discussion of 'start bits/stop bits/parity/bits per byte"... come on! Stop all this silly debate. Surely, when we talk of TRANSMITTING or STORING DATA, we should be using the binary system?  And whether us computer guys like it or not, 'they' (the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)), a standards organisation which is supported by just about every country in the world that matters, renamed our "50-year-old" computer jargon from Mega to Mebi, etc. Ggigabitem, you will be surprised (and maybe saddened like I was) to find out a Kilobyte (1024 bytes) is now called a Kebibyte.  Go look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte.  That is a good start to this article.  The standards bodies have spoken! Fix your terminology and there will be no confusion! --41.135.6.245 (talk) 06:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take a Pause 

message: This page was created to merge all the articles like kilobit per second and mebibit per second.  A merge was discussed a few times on pages like Talk:Bit_rate#Merge_of_bit.2Fs_articles and Talk:Kilobit_per_second#Merge_into_Bit_rate.3F and was supported, but no one got around to it.
I think it's important that, no matter how we arrange this page, clicking a link like kilobit per second should take you directly to a definition of the unit (through a redirect to an anchor link in the merged page).  Whether that anchor link is a section header or part of a table, though, is up for discussion. — Omegatron 02:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page creation 

message: The page currently seems to suggest using b/s as an abbreviation for bit/s.  That is a serious mistake, as it invites confusion with Byte/s.  The case difference is not enough in practice.
The most usual way to give data rates (bit rates) is bit/s, kbit/s, Mbit/s, etc. (or bps, kbps, Mbps, for those who would still rather write cps instead of Hz).
This avoids any confusion with bytes and makes it clear that k, M, G are SI prefixes and not multiples of 1024.
This needs to be fixed.
: Fixed,
:MahatmaWatcher (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviations 

message: Instead of listing examples here, should we just link to List of device bandwidths?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omegatron test account (talk • contribs) 06:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bandwidths 

message: This section currently describes 8 Megabits per second as equal to 8 Megabytes per second.  I'm wondering if that should be so, because this other page says:
1 MBps (megabyte per second) = 8 Mbps (megabits per second)
Which is a ratio of 8 Megabits (Mb) to 1 Megabyte (MB), which I would expect, since 8 bits = 1 byte.  In other words, whatever a Megabyte per second is, a Megabit per second should equal a Megabyte divided by 8, shouldn't it?  If that's so, 1 Megabyte being 1,024,000 bytes, that divided by 8 should equal 128,000 bytes, so that 1 Megabit per second = 128 Mega bytes per second.  Yes?
An admitted novice here, but unless I'm missing something, the figures in the article don't line up. --Narfnarfsillywilly (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 1 Megabyte is 1,000,000 byte, divided by 8 is 125,000 byte. TechControl (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks for spotting this – millibit per second would be rather slow... --Zac67 (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Megabit per second

message: There seems to be a mixup in the conversion formulas, in "kbps -> MBpm". "MBpm" isn't previously mentioned, but "MBps" is, so I assume it should only differ a factor 60.
The page says:
A kilobit per second (kbit/s or kb/s or kbps) is a unit of data transfer rate equal to 1,000 bits per second, and
A Megabyte per second (MB/s or MBps) is a unit of data transfer rate equal to 1,000,000 bytes per second
But then in the formula, it says:
To convert between common denotations:
kbps -> MBpm 	((((n * 1000) / 8) / 1024) / 1024) * 60 = m''
To be consistent with the definitions above, the two 1024's should be 1000, right?  
- 213.132.100.2 (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conversion formulas

message: raw data for http://area23.brightbyte.de/csv2wp.php
name;symbol;b/s;B/s;example
bit per second;b/s;1;1/8;
byte per second;B/s;8;1;
kilobit per second;kb/s;1000 = 10^2;125 = 10^2/8;
Kibibit per second;Kib/s;1024 = 2^10;128 = 2^10/8;
kilobyte per second;kB/s;8000 = 8*10^2;1000 = 10^2;
Kibibyte per second;KiB/s;8192 = 8*2^10;1024 = 2^10;
TechControl (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  table 

message: I removed these sections from the page. The expanded the conversion table covers this first table IMO. However, adding some practical "how much my media download will take over my broadband" type of example calculations might be useful to the readers (something like this second table with proper formatting). --Kuteni (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion formulas 

message: This page was tagged with:
But there's no explanation as to what is wrong and it was added by a user who only made this one edit so I've removed it to here. Feel free to put it back and explain here why if there is something to be disputed. Smartse (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed tag from article (again). --Kvng (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy 

message: Is it worth noting that the conversion between bits and bytes isn't always 8 to 1? For example a serial link using one start bit and one stop bit needs 10 bits to transmit each 8-bit byte of data.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkball (talk • contribs) 08:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bits per byte 

message: In the PROBLEMS section, I fixed a couple grammatical errors, tried to make the paragraphs flow better and sound more up-to-date (although the outcome of this law-suit probably needs to be investigated and included), and I struck the entire last paragraph because it seemed to be completely opinion, and not well written either.
- Screaming Monkey -
(I really should sign-up)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.140.188.38 (talk) 06:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrected some grammatical errors + last paragraph of section... 

message: What's going on here? It's like the article is confused about the confusion. Also no inline citations, refs are broken. Binary prefix covers it very in depth. Instead of all the hullabaloo, couldn't there just be a main article link to Binary prefix under what is now "Avoiding confusion" or a see also link under "Problems"? The SI prefixes are vaguely contextual, but does the (now) nonstandard usage really apply so explicitly to data rates? There's also an elaborate conversion formula table, but all examples below it use the bit/s standard convention. A hat-tip is warranted, but the article jumps through a lot of hoops to make room for exceptions that are actually pretty irrelevant to the actual topic. Radiodef (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone is confused about what the units mean except hard drive buyers and file sharers. Radiodef (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yikes 

message: Hi Guys!
Can we put a row in the "Examples of bit rates" table with human eye stats? Research suggests that the human retina transmits data to the brain at the rate of 1E+7 bits/sec, which is close to the [Gigabit Ethernet] speed. This is an interesting comparison to make, and if the article was less confusing, it would add value. But if not here, then where?
dbabbitt (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 107 bits/s is the speed of classic Ethernet 10BASE2, 10BASE5, 10BASE-T, two orders of magnitude less than Gigabit Ethernet. Zac67 (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

text: That's not really correct, in my opinion, and a wrong comparison. A network cable have ONE core for data (maybe two). But you have between 770,000 and 1.7 million nerve fibers. Optic nerve --Lastwebpage (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  And if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 07:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

text: I've added a dubious tag to that particular claim. First of all, the linked source is a writer's interpretation of the study, not the study itself (even the key point, "We quantify the patterns and work out how much information they convey, measured in bits per second" is not explained in a credible / verifiable fashion in the linked source). Second, even at a cursory glance, it's apparent that the analogy is dubious at best (neurons are massively parallel, essentially analog as timings between firings are what counts, etc.). Third, the credibility of said "researchers" is not addressed, for all we know it's just some poorly conducted / misguided PhD dissertation by somebody strapped for ideas and in a rush to graduate. I'm going to remove that line at some point in the future if these issues aren't addressed and nobody objects; it's not particularly useful anyways. --24.47.169.22 (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Retina Transmission Rate for Comparison 

message: If used in this article, the abbreviation "MBps" needs to be explained.  Does it mean 1000^2 bytes per second or 1024^2 bytes per second? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Prior to the capitalization of the B in the "mega" section, this question was not raised in this, or in the "mega" bit section.  Why do you feel it becomes important when it is capitalized, but not lower cased? 107.5.192.79 (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see MBps used in the lede but nowhere else. I do not see Mbps anywhere. What do they mean? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please check out What Is the Difference Between Mbps and MBps?. 107.5.192.79 (talk) 01:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  My interpretation of the ling you provide is 1 MBps = 1 MB/s = 1 million B/s and 1 Mbps = 1 Mbit/s = 1 million bit/s.  Is this correct? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  Thanks, 107.5.192.79 (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

text: I might be a decade late to this discussion, but I haven't seen usage of MBps for megabytes per second. The common convention seem to be MB/s, so what is the authoritative source for the usage of MBps? Wikitra (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  "ps" is a common but non-standard expression for "/s". WP generally uses the latter, SI way: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Specific units. --Zac67 (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  what does "MBps" mean 

message: On that account, this article is one of the poorest I've ever had the misfortune of reading. QuintBy (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of the principal purposes of Wikipedia is to orient the reader to the subject matter of the article 

message: PCI defines 33 and 66 MHz operation. PCI-X raised the bar to 133 MHz (and subsequently 266 & 533 MHz) while at the same time doubling the bus width to 64 bit. So what's PCI 133? It's got to be PCI-X 133 MHz which transports up to 1067 MB/s (64 bit). Zac67 (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well of course you can feel free to WP:BEBOLD and change it yourself if you find it incorrect. The table does already have PCI-X examples so if original PCI was 33/66MHz then feel free to change it to that. PCI isn't something I personally know a lot about but I do know that errors like this can surface just as an editing artifact as small changes are constantly made all over. I would suggest taking a look at List of device bit rates#Computer buses ("main article") and seeing if that confirms your suspicion. Radiodef (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  PCI 133? 

message: This article seems to be about 50% bigger than it needs to be.  Is there a reason for that?  I doubt that even those not "technically knowledgeable" don't need the examples to be expanded for each possible combination.  When I get bored later I'll write up a draft for a condensed version.
BTW, my input for the decimal and binary powers debacle...  Not that I or the conventions really care for the other's authority, but if one thinks of the prefixes as powers of the base, with kilo- being *10^3, a binary-based system really should reflect the change in the base when considering names for powers/orders of magnitude:  1000 is not factor of 2.
What I'm saying, IMHO, is that the whole argument is meaningless and counter-productive, so to speak.
ahem.  Sorry if I sound elitist.  JamesEG (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloat 

message: This article should not be this complicated - it goes too much into theory (which can be an unlimited area...), instead it should be more concentrated on the practice - and that list of examples toward the end of the article (provided that it is accurate) shows it more clear than the whole rest of the article: in the all important practice when there's talk of data transfer rates (e.g. kilobits per second (kbit/s) or megabits per second (Mbit/s) etc.) units are almost always in the decimal (the standard) system of measurement (e.g. 1 kbit/s = 1000 bit/s exactly, not 1024 bit/s; 1 Mbit/s = 1,000,000 bit/s exactly, not 1,048,576 bit/s) - that information is what most people come here for - so: it would be useful to put that information at the very beginning of the article - data transfer rates are almost always stated in decimal system of measurement (units are multiplied by 1000 not 1024). Actually: can a byte of transferred data be fragmented or not - if not then all the stated data transfer values should be divisible by 8 - right - because there are eight bits in a byte.
Additionally, for clarification, it may also state that on the other hand in that same, all important, practice data capacity of memory media is generally, for practical reasons, reported in a binary system of measurement (e.g. 1 kB = 1024 Bytes (2^10); 1 MB = 1048576 Bytes (that's 1024x1024; 2^20); etc.), but there apparently exists a strong enough movement which insists that where binary system is used the old MB should from now on be written as MiB, kB as kiB etc. Also, the introduction part of the article should hint that (what it boils down to) - forcing such change actually implies that data capacity of media should (just like data rates) be interpreted in decimal system of measurement - which would give false specifications regarding the past devices (at the least...) - which is problematic and riddled with issues.
(there is an inherent practical problem with decimal system in (binary) computer science: memory chips and memory media are binary matrices by their nature, and even physical structure and construction - so it complicates matters and makes it impracticle (and even comedic) because, for example: physically there's exactly 67,108,864 bytes in 64 binary megabytes (64 b.MB; 64 MiB) and if a manufacturer would decimally state that his device has 64 MB that would mean that there's only 64,000,000 bytes on the memory media - which is false; on the other hand they could say that their device has 67.108864 MB of memory - down to the last decimal - but that would sound comedic in a commercial and incorrect if it was truncated to 67.1 MB, or if someone was to interpret 67.108864 MB as 70368744.177664 bytes both comedic and incorrect, or if they say e.g. 500 MB HDD and there's somehow actually only 476.837158203125 MiB then it's fraudulent, comedic and incorrect - confusing in any case)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.153.239 (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The issue of Practice vs theory 

message: Table itself seems dubiously useful, but I could see it being useful to some. However, the "formula" columns seem entirely redundant, unhelpful, and unnecessary. Can we remove them? (And, really, can we remove the whole section? There's a lot of overly detailed tables here and examples here.) --24.47.169.22 (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data Rate Conversion Table 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Data rate units. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090403051731/http://www.iec.ch/zone/si/si_bytes.htm to http://www.iec.ch/zone/si/si_bytes.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified