| Revision as of 12:50, 8 June 2024 editDondervogel 2 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,352 edits →Background information← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 23:36, 12 December 2024 edit undoDondervogel 2 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,352 edits →Background information |
| (17 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 5: |
Line 5: |
|
* In computer science the units ], ] and ] (symbols kB, MB and GB) were ] in this standard ] to mean 1,000 and 1,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 bytes, respectively. In symbols: 1 kB = 1000 B; 1 MB = 1000<sup>2</sup> B; 1 GB = 1000<sup>3</sup> B. |
|
* In computer science the units ], ] and ] (symbols kB, MB and GB) were ] in this standard ] to mean 1,000 and 1,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 bytes, respectively. In symbols: 1 kB = 1000 B; 1 MB = 1000<sup>2</sup> B; 1 GB = 1000<sup>3</sup> B. |
|
* However, in modern use (and depending on the context), the same three symbols sometimes have a ]. The binary definitions of these three symbols are 1 KB = 1024 B; 1 MB = 1024<sup>2</sup> B;<ref>] even has a third meaning, equal to 1000 KiB or 1,024,000 B</ref> 1 GB = 1024<sup>3</sup> B. In this context it is customary to use an upper case "K" instead of the SI prefix "k", for kilo. |
|
* However, in modern use (and depending on the context), the same three symbols sometimes have a ]. The binary definitions of these three symbols are 1 KB = 1024 B; 1 MB = 1024<sup>2</sup> B;<ref>] even has a third meaning, equal to 1000 KiB or 1,024,000 B</ref> 1 GB = 1024<sup>3</sup> B. In this context it is customary to use an upper case "K" instead of the SI prefix "k", for kilo. |
|
*The computer itself does not account for the number of bytes using binary prefixes, but someone in the 1980s decided to report memory, file and HDD size in this manner. As such, the use of binary prefixes is only a convention. Altering this convention to agree with SI Prefixes such as in and could have been done at any time; however, it just stuck this way for much of the computer industry.<ref></ref> |
|
*The computer itself does not account for the number of bytes using binary prefixes, but someone in the 1980s decided to report memory, file and HDD size in this manner. As such, the use of binary prefixes is only a convention. Altering this convention to agree with SI Prefixes such as in and could have been done at any time; however, it stuck this way for much of the computer industry.<ref></ref> |
|
* For many applications (primarily the storage capacity of ]s and ]s for telecommunications), the decimal convention is retained, whereby one kilobit is exactly one thousand bits and one megabyte is exactly one million bytes.<ref>According to the from the website of the International Disk Drive Equipment and Materials Association , there are 1,000,194,048 bytes (1,953,504 logical blocks x 512 bytes/logical block) per nominal gigabyte of hard drive storage.</ref> |
|
* For many applications (primarily the storage capacity of ]s and ]s for telecommunications), the decimal convention is retained, whereby one kilobit is exactly one thousand bits and one megabyte is exactly one million bytes.<ref>According to the from the website of the International Disk Drive Equipment and Materials Association , there are 1,000,194,048 bytes (1,953,504 logical blocks x 512 bytes/logical block) per nominal gigabyte of hard drive storage.</ref> |
|
* There are many WP articles in which the same symbol (eg MB) is used with two different meanings, often jumping between them in the same paragraph or section, sometimes even in the same sentence. This dual use creates confusion and a corresponding need to disambiguate. |
|
* There are many WP articles in which the same symbol (eg MB) is used with two different meanings, often hopping between them in the same paragraph or section, sometimes even in the same sentence. This dual use creates confusion and a corresponding need to disambiguate. |
|
*These ambiguous usages are common beyond Misplaced Pages and have led to]. |
|
*These ambiguous usages are common beyond Misplaced Pages and have led to]. |
|
* Problems get successively worse with higher values prefixes ] (1000<sup>4</sup> vs 1024<sup>4</sup>), ] (1000<sup>5</sup> vs 1024<sup>5</sup>), etc. The highest value SI prefix is ], meaning 1000<sup>8</sup>. The binary prefix yobi- means 1024<sup>8</sup> (≈1.21×10<sup>24</sup>), which differs by 21 % from the conventional decimal interpretation of yotta-. |
|
* Problems get successively worse with higher values prefixes ] (1000<sup>4</sup> vs 1024<sup>4</sup>), ] (1000<sup>5</sup> vs 1024<sup>5</sup>), etc. The highest value SI prefix for which a binary counterpart has been defined is ], meaning 1000<sup>8</sup>. The corresponding binary prefix yobi- means 1024<sup>8</sup> (≈1.21×10<sup>24</sup>), which differs by 21 % from the conventional decimal interpretation of yotta-. |
|
* In December 1998, in an attempt to resolve the ambiguity the ] (IEC) introduced a new set of prefixes ], ] and ] for the binary meanings, with symbols Ki-, Mi- and Gi- so that 1 KiB (one ]) = 1024 B, 1 MiB (one ]) = 1024<sup>2</sup> B and 1 GiB (one ]) = 1024<sup>3</sup> B. In the IEC standard, the prefixes kilo-, mega- etc are reserved for their original decimal meanings. |
|
* In December 1998, in an attempt to resolve the ambiguity the ] (IEC) introduced a new set of prefixes ], ] and ] for the binary meanings, with symbols Ki-, Mi- and Gi- so that 1 KiB (one ]) = 1024 B, 1 MiB (one ]) = 1024<sup>2</sup> B and 1 GiB (one ]) = 1024<sup>3</sup> B. In the IEC standard, the prefixes kilo-, mega- etc are reserved for their original decimal meanings. |
|
* In March 2005, the IEC prefixes were adopted by the ] (IEEE) after a two-year trial period. |
|
* In March 2005, the IEC prefixes were adopted by the ] (IEEE) after a two-year trial period. |
| Line 15: |
Line 15: |
|
*The binary prefixes defined by the IEC are now incorporated in the ] (ISQ). |
|
*The binary prefixes defined by the IEC are now incorporated in the ] (ISQ). |
|
*The alternative (binary use of SI-like prefixes) is deprecated by the same standards bodies. |
|
*The alternative (binary use of SI-like prefixes) is deprecated by the same standards bodies. |
|
*Use of IEC prefixes in popular literature is rare, making them unfamiliar to many readers. Their use in scientific publications increased from fewer than 15 per year on first introduction to about 200 per year in the early 2010s, and about 500 per year in the mid-2020s: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; . |
|
*Use of IEC prefixes in popular literature is rare, making them unfamiliar to many readers. Their use in scientific publications increased from fewer than 15 per year on first introduction to about 200 per year in the early 2010s, and about 600 per year in the mid-2020s: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; . |
|
|
|
|
|
===Why Misplaced Pages should not deprecate the use of IEC prefixes=== |
|
===Why Misplaced Pages should not deprecate the use of IEC prefixes=== |
| Line 28: |
Line 28: |
|
# The main argument for not using IEC prefixes is the unfamiliarity of, for example, the mebibyte (MiB) compared with the megabyte (MB). The unfamiliarity is not disputed, but is not relevant to disambiguation. The point is that disambiguation is rare and therefore all disambiguation methods are unfamiliar. |
|
# The main argument for not using IEC prefixes is the unfamiliarity of, for example, the mebibyte (MiB) compared with the megabyte (MB). The unfamiliarity is not disputed, but is not relevant to disambiguation. The point is that disambiguation is rare and therefore all disambiguation methods are unfamiliar. |
|
#Alternative disambiguation methods are either cumbersome (i.e., exact numbers of bytes), difficult and time-consuming to implement in a manner that is clear to the reader (i.e., footnotes)<ref>This problem is illustrated by , which includes the confusing disambiguation footnote "Transistorized memory, such as RAM and cache sizes (other than solid state disk devices such as USB drives, CompactFlash cards, and so on) as well as CD-based storage size are specified using binary meanings for K (1024<sup>1</sup>), M (1024<sup>2</sup>), G (1024<sup>3</sup>), ..."</ref> or unlikely to be understood (i.e. exponentiation). |
|
#Alternative disambiguation methods are either cumbersome (i.e., exact numbers of bytes), difficult and time-consuming to implement in a manner that is clear to the reader (i.e., footnotes)<ref>This problem is illustrated by , which includes the confusing disambiguation footnote "Transistorized memory, such as RAM and cache sizes (other than solid state disk devices such as USB drives, CompactFlash cards, and so on) as well as CD-based storage size are specified using binary meanings for K (1024<sup>1</sup>), M (1024<sup>2</sup>), G (1024<sup>3</sup>), ..."</ref> or unlikely to be understood (i.e. exponentiation). |
|
:'''In conclusion''', disambiguation is not easy, so it would be unwise to discard the simplest disambiguation tool at our disposal just because it is unfamiliar. The best disambiguation method has yet to be established, so it is premature to deprecate this one. |
|
:'''In conclusion''', disambiguation is not easy, so it would be unwise to discard the simplest disambiguation tool at our disposal just because it is unfamiliar to some readers. The best disambiguation method has yet to be established, so it is premature to deprecate this one. |
|
|
|
|
|
===See also=== |
|
===See also=== |