Magnus Holmgren wrote: > I don't believe that to be true. There are other computer-related contexts > where SI prefixes aren't used for powers of two, although perhaps most of > them don't involve bytes. For an average user, knowing two sets of prefixes > should be easier than knowing exactly in which situations to interpret the SI > prefixes as binary prefixes. Drive manufacturers used the SI prefixes in the > correct, albeit unexpected way. The fact is that with the IEC prefixes, all > ambiguity is removed, so if someone claims that a storage device is 32 GiB > when it's in fact 32 GB, there can be no doubt as to the fact that they are > lying. Or what kind of tricks did you have in mind?
The kind of tricks that a company with a marketing department typically comes up with, not me. > > Also, the "ib" prefixes sound stupid. Furthermore, the "KiB" > > abbreviation wastes a lot more screen space than "K", while actually > > converying no additional useful information. Many programs use every > > available character in a nominal 80 column screen and would have to drop > > information, precision, or significantly change their display to use the > > "KiB" unit. > > You seem to fancy the K-is-1024--k-is-1000 convention No, I hate that convention. K and k should only ever refer to 1024. -- see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
