You say megabyte, I say mebibyte

  • Thread starter Thread starter Grinder
  • Start date Start date
<snip>
It is
irrelevant that the prefixes mean something else in the
decimal system because computers don't use the decimal
system, it is only converted to that for the benefit of the
users.
oh boy
well, this aspect of your argument is unique to you. I would be
suprised if anybody else nodded in agreement to that. Looks like
mishmash. You said this sort of thing in the previous thread that I
mentioned.
Which part? <snip>
the part where you make use of words like binary, decimal, and number
system.
[snip]
The 2^20 prefix is a different prefix to the 10^6
prefix, even though both go by the same name of Mega.
That is where you all make your mistake. The prefix / term Mega does not
have 2 meanings. It has 1 meaning - 10^6 AKA 1 million. 2^20 is not
Mega -
it is commonly mistaken for Mega, but is not Mega.-
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Don`t play games and try to hitchhike your stupid argument onto
everything. You made your argument to me elsewhere in the thread, and
it is not relevant to what I wrote to Kony here. I responded to your
argument in this thread, when it was appropriate to do so. As did
everybody else. Fortunately for me, you repeatedly failed to even
write a response to me (no prizes for why I said "fortunately").
Don`t hijack other points and drop your crap on them. This is a
different subject. The subject is about Kony`s usage of the terms
binary, number system, prefix, together. It is one point I separated
from his post, I separated it because it is one thing that had nothing
to do with you/this stupid argument you have been repeating over and
over (so unless you want to contribute to  - for or against IT (IT
being the point I am making HERE), then don`t.
Click to expand...

Your so called change of subject contained an attack on me... "trying to
drill into GT's head.".
Click to expand...


The fact I insulted you there does not change what happened.

You still tried to hijack a post , as I described.
In my eyes this warranted a response from me and was
not, as you are trying to twist it, a response directly and solely to Kony..
It was also not a change of subject!
Click to expand...

it was not a response directly and solely to Kony. Anybody can
contribute. But you hijacked it with your very different nonsense, in
the way that I described.

Now, you may take "nonsense" as another insult, it is. So change the
word to "brilliance" if you want. But it is not what I was arguing
there.You hijacked it with your nonsense.

The reality is that the only reason why Kony has not cornered you and
turned you into a mashed potato, is because as right as his general
point is. He has not clearly defined his terms and concepts.
This entire thread has turned into an
argument about the prefix Mega and whether it is or is not a standard.
Click to expand...

Maybe between you and Kony it has.

If there is a standard saying it is 2^20 then it is obscure and not
well recognised, and irrelevant. As far as I know there isn't one, but
there may be.

My position is clear. You want to argue with me, then respond to where
I responded to you elsewhere, and dealt with your argument. Why should
I repeat it, it does not help anybody anymore for me to do that.


I
have yet to see a single reply (quoting Wikipedia indicates a lost
argument!) that supports your argument that Mega is 2^20.
Click to expand...

This is not a fact like 1+1=2.

A slightly better analogy is that those in britain say colour, and
those in america say color. And what is correct depends on context -
the context being your location (or, whichever rules you claim to
follow - british or american - though you would need some
justification for choosing the rules you have chosen). It is a poor
analogy, I am not playing games over analogies, so don't argue with my
analogy, and don't bring your nonsense in here. I responded to you
myself, elsewhere in the thread.
 
On 9 Feb, 19:29, "(e-mail address removed)"
If there is a standard saying it is 2^20 then it is obscure and not
well recognised, and irrelevant. As far as I know there isn't one, but
there may be.
Click to expand...

I retract that a bit. It would not suprise me if there was a formal
standard for Mega in the context of RAM . Nevertheless, it makes no
difference. The arguments against you have nothing to do with
requiring such a standard.

Even if there was, and it was well known and (if the standard i.e. per
se, was) accepted by masses, or a majourity of or all techies, it
would make no difference to anybody.

It would not break your argument any more than it already has been.

And given the stupid reasons you have given, you still would not
retract them. Because as you would rightly point out to defend your
stupid argument, the mathematical standard (with 10^6) for those
prefixes came first anyway.
 
kony said:
Except in the computer industry which uses it to describe a
binary, not decimal value.
Click to expand...

Nope. 500MB is not a binary value it is a decimal value!

So long as it still has the same numerical value this is
true. Since it does not, and the actual quantity is
necessarily based on binary true/false, on/off, 0/1 logical
design, not decimal. A decimal prefix is an invalid
expression in a binary system.


Except in the computer industry
Click to expand...

In every industry - its a *standard*!
Right, that's why it doesn't matter what NIST tried to
declare. That "standard" became a standard when the
computing industry made it their standard.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The standard is 10^6, the computing industry can't change that no
matter how hard you try.
Whether you feel they shouldn't have used the (roughly
equivalent) wrong value or not, they DID. However, no it
was not Microsoft that started it all, it was that computers
are inherantly binary - MS and windows were preceeded by the
industry standard using the binary value.



You don't seem to have the history right. When these
standards were first created, if you'd been around at the
time then you would have had an opportunity to plead your
case. After the industry established the standard - before
there was any "windows" at all, it is fairly irrelevant that
the prefix means something else in another field of study.
Click to expand...

None of us were aroung! The standard was formed long before any of us were
born. The standard is 10^6.
 
<snip>
It is
irrelevant that the prefixes mean something else in the
decimal system because computers don't use the decimal
system, it is only converted to that for the benefit of the
users.
oh boy
well, this aspect of your argument is unique to you. I would be
suprised if anybody else nodded in agreement to that. Looks like
mishmash. You said this sort of thing in the previous thread that I
mentioned.
Which part? <snip>
the part where you make use of words like binary, decimal, and number
system.
[snip]
The 2^20 prefix is a different prefix to the 10^6
prefix, even though both go by the same name of Mega.
That is where you all make your mistake. The prefix / term Mega does
not
have 2 meanings. It has 1 meaning - 10^6 AKA 1 million. 2^20 is not
Mega -
it is commonly mistaken for Mega, but is not Mega.-
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Don`t play games and try to hitchhike your stupid argument onto
everything. You made your argument to me elsewhere in the thread, and
it is not relevant to what I wrote to Kony here. I responded to your
argument in this thread, when it was appropriate to do so. As did
everybody else. Fortunately for me, you repeatedly failed to even
write a response to me (no prizes for why I said "fortunately").
Don`t hijack other points and drop your crap on them. This is a
different subject. The subject is about Kony`s usage of the terms
binary, number system, prefix, together. It is one point I separated
from his post, I separated it because it is one thing that had nothing
to do with you/this stupid argument you have been repeating over and
over (so unless you want to contribute to - for or against IT (IT
being the point I am making HERE), then don`t.
Click to expand...

Your so called change of subject contained an attack on me... "trying to
drill into GT's head.".
Click to expand...


The fact I insulted you there does not change what happened.

You still tried to hijack a post , as I described.
In my eyes this warranted a response from me and was
not, as you are trying to twist it, a response directly and solely to
Kony.
It was also not a change of subject!
Click to expand...

it was not a response directly and solely to Kony. Anybody can
contribute.



Then I shall.
 
On 9 Feb, 19:29, "(e-mail address removed)"


I retract that a bit. It would not suprise me if there was a formal
standard for Mega in the context of RAM.
Click to expand...

There is a formal standard for Mega in any context (including RAM) - its
10^6, or 'million'.
 
kony said:
Wanna bet? You might have some memory in your computer,
care to tell us how the manufacturer (following
international standards) rates it's capacity?
Click to expand...

Bet accepted:
The label suggests that this DIMM should be capable of holding 1GB, which as
we know from th SI units is 1x10^9, or 1,000,000,000 Bytes. However the DIMM
actually holds 1,073,741,824 Bytes, or 1.07 * 10^9 (or GB). The label is
unfortunately under-stating the capacity of the DIMM by 7%.
 
kony said:
Except in the computer industry.
Click to expand...

No, in every industry - it is a *standard*.
To someone not in the computer industry and thus, ignorant
of the correct terms.
Click to expand...

Which you clearly are!
Except in the computer industry.
Click to expand...

No, in every industry - it is a *standard*.
The evidence is
staggering, all around us. Even those who claim we should
use different terms are already conceding we are supposed
to "change" the standard way of expression to their new way
that they feel is more philosophically correct. There'd be
nothing to change if they weren't trying to mess with
standard definitions.
Click to expand...

Absolutely - there should be nothing to change. The standard SI terms have
been around for decades, centuries - you should just accept the standard SI
terms and stop moaning that they don't quite apply to the computing industry
and therefore stop trying to 'bend' them and just use the correct terms!
 
kony said:
Show us any evidence of a person using the term megabyte by
the definition you claim is correct prior to, oh let's pick
a date out of thin air like 1968, 40 years ago. Actually I
don't think you can find anyone using your defintion prior
to '98, a full 30 years later except after the hard drive
manufacturers switched... and by the way there have been
several class action lawsuits about their doing so since a
hard drive is a binary storage medium.

IF you can't find one example of someone using the terms
before they were considered a standard (decades ago) you
have no evidence there was even any minority, let alone a
majority decimally-defined value for megabyte.
Click to expand...

Several points here:
1. 10^6 for Mega is not my definition - its a standard.
2. It doesn't matter how many people get it wrong, the standard is there -
live with it.
3. All of the law suits you quote were thrown out of court and the people
trying to claim that 1024 = 1000 were laughed at.

Finally, will you please stop trying to bamboozle everyone by saying that a
hard drive is a binary storage mechanism. This is true, but irrelevant - you
are getting confused between contained values and quantity! I have asked you
this question many times and you always refuse to answer because it blows
your argument out of the water...

A coin toss is a binary result - head or tail. Therefore, by your logic, I
have to wait for 1024 tosses before I can use the SI prefix K, which means
1000a K tosse

Kony, please tell everyone how many coin tosses (binary results) are there
in 1K toss? According to the SI unit K, there are 1000, but it is a binary
value that I am counting.
There was no majority defining megabyte the way you insist
we should. Never. once you tack byte on the meaning is a
very specific one.
Click to expand...

The majority in question is the rest of the world, past and present. Mega is
defined as 10^6. You can tack any unit on the end of mega and you have a
'mega' of those things. 1 Mega byte is therefore a mega (10^6) bytes. End of
story. Anything else is wrong.
 
There is a formal standard for Mega in any context (including RAM) - its
10^6, or 'million'.
Click to expand...

ok.. since my post has been there for a while, Kony has been given
ample time to respond. And clearly you are not able to respond to an
older post. So now I will go along with you changing the subject back
to your point.

Standards are not Law.

I accept that SI notation standard. I even accept it the way it was
intended. It was intended to make it easier for mathematicians to
specify large numbers. And of course they intended that there
needn`t be confusion amongst mathematicians or logical people, as to
how they are presenting their numbers.

The notation became ESTABLISHED. Not because it was a standard, but
because it was widespread and people accepted it. And because it
still is.


Suppose Joe Bloggs comes up with a standard, then are you bound by it?
Or if Linus Torvalds or IBM come up with a crap standard about how we
use certain words. Are you bound by it? Or can you choose whether you
want to accept it? Many consider the newer standard you quote about
Kibibytes, to be crap. And clearly others like it. So that is the way
it is.

You mention Ubuntu
I don`t have a problem with Ubuntu documentation writers using it.
Maybe like other small minded people, they use it for the reason you
praise it for. It looks "good". Maybe so, from the perspective of
them showing off how much they know, to the ignorant, typically when
they know only a -little- more than their readers do. (in large
projects, documentation writers are often not the technical people,
not the programmers. Really they should be, and there is no good
reason why they shouldn`t be. But sadly many programmers cannot write
or communicate to people and do not like doing documentation).
Nevertheless.. If the kibibyte and the rest does become widesspread
and gain acceptance, all over the technical world, then fine. I am not
opposing that. I am just saying that it won`t happen, because it is
crap. Unnecessary crap.
 
news:72497e47-c9e1-4c72-aada-0eb1c119633d@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Click to expand...
<snip>
It is
irrelevant that the prefixes mean something else in the
decimal system because computers don't use the decimal
system, it is only converted to that for the benefit of the
users.
oh boy
well, this aspect of your argument is unique to you. I would be
suprised if anybody else nodded in agreement to that. Looks like
mishmash. You said this sort of thing in the previous thread that I
mentioned.
Which part? <snip>
the part where you make use of words like binary, decimal, and number
system.
[snip]
The 2^20 prefix is a different prefix to the 10^6
prefix, even though both go by the same name of Mega.
That is where you all make your mistake. The prefix / term Mega does
not
have 2 meanings. It has 1 meaning - 10^6 AKA 1 million. 2^20 is not
Mega -
it is commonly mistaken for Mega, but is not Mega.-
Don`t play games and try to hitchhike your stupid argument onto
everything. You made your argument to me elsewhere in the thread, and
it is not relevant to what I wrote to Kony here. I responded to your
argument in this thread, when it was appropriate to do so. As did
everybody else. Fortunately for me, you repeatedly failed to even
write a response to me (no prizes for why I said "fortunately").
Don`t hijack other points and drop your crap on them. This is a
different subject. The subject is about Kony`s usage of the terms
binary, number system, prefix, together. It is one point I separated
from his post, I separated it because it is one thing that had nothing
to do with you/this stupid argument you have been repeating over and
over (so unless you want to contribute to - for or against IT (IT
being the point I am making HERE), then don`t.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Your so called change of subject contained an attack on me... "trying to
drill into GT's head.".
Click to expand...

The fact I insulted you there does not change what happened.

You still tried to hijack a post , as I described.
In my eyes this warranted a response from me and was
not, as you are trying to twist it, a response directly and solely to
Kony.
It was also not a change of subject!
Click to expand...

it was not a response directly and solely to Kony. Anybody can
contribute.

Then I shall.-
Click to expand...

Listen, you illogical dumbo.. I said that anybody can contribute and I
gave the reason why I said you hijacked it. It was nothing to do with
who you are (or are not). It was to do with what you said. So stop
pretending it was because of who you are(or who you are not).

And don`t change the subject from the subject of the above paragraph.
 
Except in the computer industry which uses it to describe a
binary, not decimal value.
Click to expand...

for ****s sake,

and 1048576 is not a binary value.

If you don`t know what binary is, then don`t use the term. And you
don`t know what binary is.
 
Nope. 500MB is not a binary value it is a decimal value!
Click to expand...

Show us an example of anyone using the value 500MB to mean
the value you feel it does at a point prior to, oh let's say
1980? If nobody uses a term to mean what you claim, only
the binary based value, then what you claim isn't the
standard, the binary based value is!
 
for ****s sake,

and 1048576 is not a binary value.

If you don`t know what binary is, then don`t use the term. And you
don`t know what binary is.
Click to expand...

I wrote that it's used to describe a binary value, not that
as expressed (without MB, GB, etc) it is a binary value.

When used by the equipment, the value is used binarily. It
is only written in decimal for the benefit of the human
trying to understand it.
 
Very interesting, but I see nothing on there from any authority stating a
change in the standard SI terms, therefore your post re-inforces the point
that there is no change to that standard meaning of the SI unit Mega - mega
is 10^6.
Click to expand...

You see every listing of memory chips in the industry
standard terms based upon the binary values not your 10^6
value. The standard is based upon the USE of the term, all
along, not what some 3rd party comes along and says it means
later. Also, you still haven't shown any example of anyone
using the term to mean what you claim before a few years
ago, making it awefully funny to suggest the standard is
what nobody was using.
 
Bet accepted:
The label suggests that this DIMM should be capable of holding 1GB, which as
we know from th SI units is 1x10^9, or 1,000,000,000 Bytes.
Click to expand...

Nope, as we know based upon the standard used for years,
it's a respresentation of a binary value.

However the DIMM
actually holds 1,073,741,824 Bytes, or 1.07 * 10^9 (or GB). The label is
unfortunately under-stating the capacity of the DIMM by 7%.
Click to expand...

Nope, memory is based on binary values, read the actual chip
spec sheets and you will see this.
 
No, in every industry - it is a *standard*.
Click to expand...

You don't know what a standard is. As already stated, the
standard is what those actually using the terms settled on,
and kept using for decades.

Again I ask for an example of someone using the terms (which
they'd have to, for it to be the standard) more than a few
years ago in which the use agrees with your definition.

You are essentially trying to claim everyone using the term
did it wrong up until recent years when a few people wanted
to _change_ the term. Whether you feel it was wrong or not,
that it was the industry's accepted and vast majority use is
what made it the standard.
 
Several points here:
1. 10^6 for Mega is not my definition - its a standard.
Click to expand...

Nobody declared Mega a valid prefix for -bits, -bytes, until
the computer industry had already standardized the terms to
be representations of binary values, in a binary number
system where base 2, not base 10, determines the values.

2. It doesn't matter how many people get it wrong, the standard is there -
live with it.
Click to expand...

That's not what a standard is. A standard doesn't wait for
some group to invent it, when it has already been used for
many years. Nobody used the term to mean what you suggest
because those using the term realized it is a decimal
representation of a binary value.

Because you don't understand that it is a decimal
representation, you don't understand why it is necessary it
be a specific binary value not based on powers of 10. It
was clearly the standardized way to express values long
before NIST tried to step in and muddy the waters. Nobody
was using the term as you suggested until recently, doing so
contrary to the majority use for many years, making it
impossible that the standard is actually what you claim.

It does matter, it was all the people using the term,
including scientists who realized it was a decimal
representation of a binary value, for decades that made it
the standard when nobody was using the term the way you
insist must be the standard.

How long have people called dogs, "dogs"?
We don't need to know the exact date this began, but we see
it is a fairly standard term. There is a more scientific
name for a dog too, but if some group demanded that from now
on, the term "dog" means a horse, does that change what the
term means? No.
 
I wrote that it's used to describe a binary value, not that
as expressed (without MB, GB, etc) it is a binary value.

When used by the equipment, the value is used binarily.  It
is only written in decimal for the benefit of the human
trying to understand it.  
Click to expand...

10101010110110101010101010101010 (base2)
IS A VALUE WRITTEN IN BINARY

I personally would not use the term "binary value". You could invent
a definition, but what is the point. Perhaps TRUE,FALSE are "binary
values" in that they are 1 of a choice of 2. (people call them
BOOLEAN values, meaning true/false, 1/0). In that sense, a binary
digit has a binary value. Binary can be used in a general term like
that. As those quotes I gave from my discussion with Rod Speed in the
first post i did in this thread show, people talk of a "binary prefix"
- nothing to do with being written in binary. Or being "in binary" in
any way. Or in a certain base.

You have to define "Binary value". If you are making up your own
definition then don`t expect anybody else to accept it. And it is
pointless to do so.

If I define Hoobeedoobee as 16^2 (i.e. 256). Then
100 Hoobeedoobees is not a "Hexadecimal value".
 
Back
Top