| Revision as of 00:23, 23 February 2023 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,223 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Binary prefix/Archive 18) (bot← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:15, 25 December 2024 edit undoStevebroshar (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,706 edits →Multiple of a unit of measurement by an integer power of two??: ReplyTag: Reply |
| (27 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| |
| ⚫ |
<!-- Please make your edits below the TOC line, or better yet, add a new section --> |
|
|
{{WPMeasure|class=B|importance=Mid |
|
{{WikiProject Measurement|importance=Mid |
|
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = yes |
|
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = yes |
|
| b2 <!--Coverage and accuracy --> = yes |
|
| b2 <!--Coverage and accuracy --> = yes |
| Line 9: |
Line 9: |
|
| b6 <!--Accessible --> = yes |
|
| b6 <!--Accessible --> = yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProject Computing|class=B|importance=high|software=yes|hardware=yes|hardware-importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Computing|importance=high|software=yes|hardware=yes|hardware-importance=high}} |
|
|
}} |
|
⚫ |
<!-- Please make your edits below the TOC line, or better yet, add a new section --> |
|
{{Selfref|For guidelines on using binary prefixes on Misplaced Pages, see ].}} |
|
{{Selfref|For guidelines on using binary prefixes on Misplaced Pages, see ].}} |
|
{{archives|index=/Archive index}} |
|
{{archives|index=/Archive index}} |
| Line 32: |
Line 34: |
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Multiple of a unit of measurement by an integer power of two?? == |
|
==JEDEC has not standardized any prefixes or units== |
|
|
In an edit today in the lede of the article it was asserted that JEDEC "has standardized the binary interpretation", which is a statement completely unfounded. JEDEC does not standardize any unit, and explicitly states that the binary interpretation is deprecated, pointing to the proper standards bodies for reference. They explicitly state that the units are only LISTED because of traditional practice. ] (]) 21:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You can quibble about the wording but it remains a fact that ]. It is also a fact that it does not define higher order prefixes. The contested edit should be reinstated IMO. ] (]) 22:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::JEDEC ''lists'' the usage, per their own explanation, this does not constitute a definition, just an explanation of common usage, and that without references, btw. Why do you insist on the phrasing ''define''. Going further JEDEC does not ''standardize'', they do the opposite here; they deprecate the usage. Clearly they stopped updating the listings, because they had already deprecated their usage and the higher ones were not common. So there is no justification for that phrasing. And why are these limited JEDEC listings so important to you, to anyone, When the common behavior is to use these unit meaning beyond G? Why don't you want to list the rest? There are certainly references for that that are far more meaningful than the JEDEC papers. ] (]) 22:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::*I use the word "define" because defines '''kilo (K) (as a prefix to units of semiconductor storage capacity)''' as ''A multiplier equal to 1024 (210)'', and similarly for mega and giga. That is not a list. |
|
|
:::*JEDEC is not important, but it is what the template currently uses. Acceptable alternatives include 'Computer memory', 'Deprecated' and 'Legacy'. Use of any one of those would mean we could populate the table to higher orders, which would IMO be more useful for the reader. |
|
|
:::] (]) 23:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::'Deprecated' and 'Legacy' are not acceptable because they are neither deprecated by the industry, nor are they legacy prefixes. Customary would be fine however if we want to expand the table to cover more than just the JEDEC entries.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 01:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::*You might not like it but '''Deprecated''' is accurate (the JEDEC use is deprecated universally by international standards - that's what the word means) and '''Legacy''' is accurate (the JEDEC use remains the norm - that's what the word means). In fact Legacy was used (and stable) for a period of 10 months. |
|
|
:::::* '''Computer memory''' is an option if the table includes decimal prefixes, but would not work in a reduced table, with only binary interpretations. |
|
|
:::::* What is the objection to '''JEDEC''' (stable for years, before the consensus changed to Legacy)? |
|
|
:::::] (]) 09:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The word deprecated does not mean deprecated by standards body no one listens to, it means deprecated IRL. And IRL, they aren't deprecated at all. Legacy is also not accurate, because these aren't legacy units at all. They are the modern units everyone save an ''extreme'' minority use.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 10:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::{{tqq|You might not like it but '''Deprecated''' is accurate (the JEDEC use is deprecated universally by international standards - that's what the word means)}} The problem is that a standards body deprecating something when the real world does not puts us in a position of using Misplaced Pages's voice to say something is '''Deprecated''' when it is still in regular and wide use. '''"Deprecated"''' (note the quotes) would be the more accurate shorthand, if and only if we wanted to give these international standards bodies that much weight (a question for ] I'd say considering, again, how rarely used the "standards" are in this instance). {{tqq|What is the objection to '''JEDEC'''}} It incorrectly implies only RAM/memory manufacturers use the terms, when ''many'' other industries still do as well. —] • ] • ] 15:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It might be advisable at this point to avoid getting into the minutia of details as to what exactly JEDEC has or hasn't specified until we decide the broader issues regarding the disputed table. ] (]) 22:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:As long as JEDEC appears in the template it should be described in the lede so I am going to restore it with the word "defines" instead of "standardized." Details such it was by JEDEC deprecated can be in the body. ] (]) 22:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
WRT "A binary prefix is a unit prefix that indicates a multiple of a unit of measurement by an integer power of two". Is it? Or is it a power of 1024? Yes, they are all powers of 2, but calling them that seems misleading. That they are power of 2 doesn't seem like the most central defining property of this set of multiples. ] (]) 20:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Maybe the lede now has it backwards - didn't JEDEC just define the terms as used first by semiconductor memory and then picked up by the OSes? So maybe we should resequence the sentence and lead with JEDEC?] (]) 22:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: If we had names for other powers of two, they too would be called binary prefixes. The fact that we find only a certain subset of these prefixes convenient enough for general use to create a name does not mean that we should necessarily use the smallest (obvious) category that contains this subset. And no, it is not misleading: it is predicated on the practicality of implementing memory sizes as powers of 2, not of 1024. When the prefixes 'centi', 'deci', 'deca' and 'hecto' fall into disuse, will it be misleading to call the remaining prefixes (all of which are powers of 1000) "decimal prefixes"? (Actually, these are more commonly called "]es", but that is an even vaguer category.) —] 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
::This is not an article about JEDEC. The prefixes in question were in use before the standard concerned was created. Can we please not get involved in yet another discussion about matters not directly related to the article subject itself. Which is binary prefixes themselves, rather than one particular standard that describes them. Sort out the table question first, and maybe we'll get somewhere. ] (]) 23:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
To solve the issue, I would just remove the JEDEC column altogether. It is redundant. The template is named "Prefixes for multiples of bits (bit) or bytes (B)", not "All prefixes for multiples of bits (bit) or bytes (B)" - as discussed in the text, there were more nomenclature/prefix proposals over time, and if we were heading for completeness in a comparison table we'd have to list them as well - no. Seeing this from a pragmatic point of view, we would not even loose any information as the four entries in the JEDEC column are already present on the left side of the table. Yes, it's labelled "Decimal" there, but everyone who uses kilo to mean 1024 knows that this is "jargon" (though common and convenient) and that the SI strictly defines kilo to mean 1000 only (and never did differently). It's not as if there would be a genuine proposal of some alternative nomenclature to the IEC prefixes which we would have to list in the table - before the IEC prefixes there was just ad-hoc (ab)use of existing nomenclature - and this is discussed in the article already. So, someone looking up the table for a quick check of what was the next prefix in the row after giga, or tera, will still find the info and simply apply the binary meaning to the decimal prefix, like before. Adding the same info in a JEDEC column does not add anything, but create the invalid assumption JEDEC would (have) endorse(d) the usage of the decimal prefixes for binary usage, which they clearly do not (and never did). All the nitty-gritty details regarding JEDEC are (and should) still (be) explained in the body of the article. |
|
|
In addition to solving the issue, this would also remove the somewhat artificial break after tera, make the table somewhat narrower (better flow on mobile devices) and add some nice symmetry to the table, which makes it even easier to "grasp" without having to "decode" the meaning. |
|
|
: --] (]) 10:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::Exactly. I have been advocating for this for a long time. The column makes no sense, is factually wrong and misleading. ] (]) 17:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::{{ping|Stevebroshar}} has a valid point. ''Binary prefixes'' historically are defined in positive integer powers of 1024 and are likely to continue to do so. They go back to the approximate equivalence of 1,024 to 1,000 and unlike metric prefixes are not defined for each power of the base number to a maximum and not to a minimum at all. Whether the rarely used metric prefixes fall into disuse or not is irrelevant, they would remain defined. I think we would have to find an RS to change the article to state "positive integer powers of 1024" but with one I would support such a such a change. ] (]) 20:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Unfortunately for binary prefixes the IEC column is the outlier, presenting it in a table like this gives it undue weight on its own considering the overwhelming majority of our sources still use common terms like megabyte, gigabyte, etc. For a detailed look at what our sources say, see ]. —] • ] • ] 17:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::I agree with both of you to some extent. I agree that if there was a prefix that was binary and not a factor of 1024, it could be called a binary prefix ... as that is an accurate description. But, there aren't any. Is it reasonable to describe something that doesn't exist? And I think likely never will? ... Thing is, there's no RS for the current definition :o) This article seems to conflate a general definition of binary prefix with the IEC standard that defines powers of 1024. Is the article about the general definition? If so, what sources back that? If it's more strictly about the IEC standard prefixes, then I think it reasonable to highlight that they are powers of 1024, not 2. ] (]) 15:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Stop the utter nonsense. You are blind because you are prejudiced from the start. The metric usage of the SI prefixes has been the dominant use for decades, outside of some storage, and the IEC prefixes are an international standard now, and are the preferred units for operating system programming in the most widely distributed systems. Today any computer professional or just enthusiast encounters IEC prefixes in use almost hourly in different applications. The standards-correct usage of units is almost pervasive in new software and with open-source software we can actually evaluate this. ] (]) 17:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::WRT metric: this article is not about metric prefixes except from a historical perspective -- the binary prefixes were created since the metric prefixes are not suitable for (binary) computing. Therefore, what's true about metric seems to have little bearing on what these binary prefixes are. But, if you want go down that rabbit hole: Metric does have some sizes that are not factors of 1000, but in the context of computing, we only use the 1000-based guys. Metric has subdivisions of the base unit that the binaries don't. They are similar yet different animals. ... One might call metric 1000-based with a few exceptions. Along that line, it seems reasonable to simplify the definition of binary prefixes as 1024-based. ] (]) 15:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::Odd, I haven't seen them in roughly 2 years in any software, and I modified that script to display download speeds in MB/s instead of MiB so it matched every other piece of software I use (also by the definition of MiB it was using it wrong, although I don't like it so I would have deleted it anyway). |
|
|
:::<blockquote>the preferred units for operating system programming in the most widely distributed systems.</blockquote> |
|
|
:::Yes, units, the things you famously need to program operating systems in.] (]) 08:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
WRT "A binary prefix is a unit prefix that indicates a multiple of a unit of measurement by an integer power of two". Is it? Or is it a power of 1024? Yes, they are all powers of 2, but calling them that seems misleading. That they are power of 2 doesn't seem like the most central defining property of this set of multiples. Stevebroshar (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
