size in kbytes?

[Jordan Abel]

Sounds like a good QA guy to me. He read the requirements and
constructed a test based on his reading of them. If you believe
that no reasonable end users (and many end users are not
reasonable) would interpret the documentation as the QA guy did,
well, I think you are wrong. I've had bugs assigned to me by
QA I thought were based on bizarre reading of requirements docs,
but this one wouldn't make me blink. No call to say he is an idiot.

It's still not a bug. I hope that the response was to put a clarifying
sentence in the documentation, rather than to change the installer to
use 1000000 instead.

 

[David Resnick]

It's still not a bug. I hope that the response was to put a clarifying
sentence in the documentation, rather than to change the installer to
use 1000000 instead.

I believe it is a documentation bug (at least where I work, we can
and do file defects against documentation). I also think it was
maybe a bug not to pad the required disk space a bit more, which
would have made the 4% difference moot, as any other process
mucking with the disk during the install could quite easily push
the thing over the edge.

-David

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

What would you use and why? What's "normal" ?

I think 1024 is more correct...?

"kilo" officially means 1000; the official prefix for 1024 is "kibi".
However, common use is to use the standard prefixes to mean powers of 2 for
things measured in bytes (except hard drive packaging) and powers of 10 for
things measured in bits. This is officially incorrect, but it's pervasive.

So, Ethernet is 10Mb/s, which is 10,000,000 bits/sec, whereas 16MB of RAM is
16,777,216 bytes. However, a "300GB" hard drive will be 300,000,000,000
bytes (roughly), not the 322,122,547,200 bytes most consumers expect, though
your OS will report the size as 279GB (following common use).

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin

*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

 

[Jordan Abel]

"kilo" officially means 1000; the official prefix for 1024 is "kibi".
However, common use is to use the standard prefixes to mean powers of 2 for
things measured in bytes (except hard drive packaging) and powers of 10 for
things measured in bits. This is officially incorrect, but it's pervasive.

So, Ethernet is 10Mb/s, which is 10,000,000 bits/sec, whereas 16MB of RAM is
16,777,216 bytes. However, a "300GB" hard drive will be 300,000,000,000
bytes (roughly), not the 322,122,547,200 bytes most consumers expect, though
your OS will report the size as 279GB (following common use).

S

To summarize: Don't use "K". If you use "k", use 1000. Don't use 1000.
Use 1024. If you use 1024, use "Ki" and NOT "k". Don't use "b", that
means bits. "%lu KiB",(unsigned long)(x/1024) is the right way, "%lu \
kB",(unsigned long)(x/1000) is the wrong way, and none of the other ways
make any sense at all.

Any disagreement?

 

[Mark McIntyre]

"kilo" officially means 1000;

indeed. Except in computing, where, since the dawn of time, it has
meant 1024.

the official prefix for 1024 is "kibi".

That is absolutely the very first time I've ever heard anyone claim
that and be serious. I'm aware of the IEC attempt to standardise, but
frankly nobody in the world uses these aburd francisations.

And by teh way given Wikipedia's record on correctness, the only way
I'd rely on it now is if I could cross check against a copy of the
Encyclopedia Britannica...
gd&r

Mark McIntyre

 

[Mark McIntyre]

To summarize: Don't use "K". If you use "k", use 1000. Don't use 1000.
Use 1024. If you use 1024, use "Ki" and NOT "k". Don't use "b", that
means bits. "%lu KiB",(unsigned long)(x/1024) is the right way, "%lu \
kB",(unsigned long)(x/1000) is the wrong way, and none of the other ways
make any sense at all.

Any disagreement?

Make mine a large one, barman.
Mark McIntyre

 

[Keith Thompson]

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:37:21 -0600, in comp.lang.c , "Stephen Sprunk"


That is absolutely the very first time I've ever heard anyone claim
that and be serious. I'm aware of the IEC attempt to standardise, but
frankly nobody in the world uses these aburd francisations.

And by teh way given Wikipedia's record on correctness, the only way
I'd rely on it now is if I could cross check against a copy of the
Encyclopedia Britannica...
gd&r

Ok, quoting the Britannica article on "byte" (Encyclopaedia Britannica
2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD):

Because a byte contains so little information, the processing and
storage capacities of computer hardware are usually given in
kilobytes (1,024 bytes) or megabytes (1,048,576 bytes). Still
larger capacities are expressed in gigabytes (about one billion
bytes) and terabytes (one trillion bytes).

It's true that the metric system claimed the "kilo", "mega", et al
prefixes as powers of 10 before they were used in computing. It's
also true that, in most computing contexts, it's far more useful to
work with powers of 2 than with powers of 10. If there's blame to be
assigned for the resulting confusion, it probably goes to the computer
science folks who started mis-using the existing prefixes.

I did hear 65536-byte memories being referred to as "65K" in the late
1970s; these days, I think they'd almost universally be referred to as
"64K".

The "kibi" "mebi" et al prefixes seem like a reasonable way to deal
with the conflict, but the use of "kilo" for 1024, "mega" for 1048576,
etc., is probably too entrenched to be eliminated -- so we'll probably
just have to deal with the confusion until the end of time.
(Introducing an improved standard in 1999 seems not to be best way to
have it catch on.)

 

[Jordan Abel]

Ok, quoting the Britannica article on "byte" (Encyclopaedia Britannica
2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD):

Because a byte contains so little information, the processing and
storage capacities of computer hardware are usually given in
kilobytes (1,024 bytes) or megabytes (1,048,576 bytes). Still
larger capacities are expressed in gigabytes (about one billion
bytes) and terabytes (one trillion bytes).

It's true that the metric system claimed the "kilo", "mega", et al
prefixes as powers of 10 before they were used in computing. It's
also true that, in most computing contexts, it's far more useful to
work with powers of 2 than with powers of 10. If there's blame to be
assigned for the resulting confusion, it probably goes to the computer
science folks who started mis-using the existing prefixes.

I did hear 65536-byte memories being referred to as "65K" in the late
1970s; these days, I think they'd almost universally be referred to as
"64K".

The "kibi" "mebi" et al prefixes seem like a reasonable way to deal
with the conflict, but the use of "kilo" for 1024, "mega" for 1048576,
etc., is probably too entrenched to be eliminated -- so we'll probably
just have to deal with the confusion until the end of time.
(Introducing an improved standard in 1999 seems not to be best way to
have it catch on.)

My solution is to abbreviate it as "Ki" but pronounce it as "kilo" in
the privacy of my own home. And/or abbreviate "KiB" further to "K".

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

To summarize: Don't use "K". If you use "k", use 1000. Don't use 1000.
Use 1024. If you use 1024, use "Ki" and NOT "k". Don't use "b", that
means bits. "%lu KiB",(unsigned long)(x/1024) is the right way, "%lu \
kB",(unsigned long)(x/1000) is the wrong way, and none of the other ways
make any sense at all.

Any disagreement?

Personally, if it were my code I'd conform to popular usage (kilo=1024)
unless it were in a context where it actually mattered (it almost never
does), and then I'd add a config option for the pedants.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin

*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

 

[Richard Bos]

"kilo" officially means 1000; the official prefix for 1024 is "kibi".

Theoretically. I've never seen them used except by official publications
of engineers' associations and the writings of dorks who think they're
kewl.

Richard

 

[jjf]

indeed. Except in computing, where, since the dawn of time, it has
meant 1024.

Not true. I started in the industry long after the dawn of computing
time, but the first couple of machines I worked on were widely deployed
commercial systems which had memory counted and addressed in kilobytes
of 1000 bytes, They did their arithmetic in ASCII as well, but that's
another story.

 

[Spoon]

The oddest and perhaps most bletcherous abuse in this sad history of
wilful corruption is the "1.44 megabyte" floppy disk. Said disk does
*not* hold 1.44 megabytes using either the true SI "mega" or the
geekish two-to-the-twentieth "mega." What is actually holds is 1.44
"kilo" (SI) "kilobytes" (geekish), a truly bastardized unit unloved
by both parents.

i.e. 2880 512-byte sectors = 1,474,560 bytes

 

[CBFalconer]

indeed. Except in computing, where, since the dawn of time, it
has meant 1024.

That dawn is well within the memory of the present generation.

That is absolutely the very first time I've ever heard anyone claim
that and be serious. I'm aware of the IEC attempt to standardise,
but frankly nobody in the world uses these aburd francisations.

And, until relatively recently, nobody used kg, meters, etc. Now,
outside the US, nobody uses the FPS system. The length of Henry
VIIIs arm is no longer an accepted standard.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

 

[William J. Leary Jr.]

Except in computing, where, since the dawn of time, it has
meant 1024.

I don't know about that. Or maybe I should say I *do* know about that. I've
been in "the business" since '74 or so, and initially worked with rather older
equipment. More than a few systems I worked with used 1000 for K. In fact, it
was common for us to find out what the documents were using for K and write it
on the cover. I've probably left twenty or thirty manuals behind with notes in
the lower right corner saying either "K=1000" or "K=1024" or (in a few annoying
cases) "K=BOTH."

- Bill

 

[Jordan Abel]

That dawn is well within the memory of the present generation.

Which present generation? The one that had Apple II's at school and DOS
PCs at home?

 

[Mark McIntyre]

And, until relatively recently, nobody used kg, meters, etc. Now,
outside the US, nobody uses the FPS system.

Come over to the UK sometime, and after you drive the miles from the
airport, someone will buy you a pint of beer, I'm sure.

The length of Henry
VIIIs arm is no longer an accepted standard.

Grin.
Mark McIntyre

 

[Flash Gordon]

And, until relatively recently, nobody used kg, meters, etc. Now,
outside the US, nobody uses the FPS system. The length of Henry
VIIIs arm is no longer an accepted standard.

Never say nobody. I'm outside the US ans still use feet and inches, it's
what I grew up with so it's what I think in most easily. I somehow doubt
I am the only one in the UK still using imperial measurements.

Also, most people miss-use the IS units according to what I was taught
in school. The multiplies should be in upper case and divisors in lower
case. So any time you see "mb" it is a milli-bit not a megabyte, and
"mB" would be a milli-byte. These are probably not the most useful of
measurements.

All this is tremendously off topic, so this will be my only contribution.

 

[Ben Pfaff]

Also, most people miss-use the IS units according to what I was taught
in school. The multiplies should be in upper case and divisors in lower
case.

This is not uniformly true. "k" is a multiplier that should be
lowercase.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

Also, most people miss-use the IS units according to what I was
taught in school. The multiplies should be in upper case and
divisors in lower case. So any time you see "mb" it is a milli-
bit not a megabyte, and "mB" would be a milli-byte. These are
probably not the most useful of measurements.

mb and mB are probably quite useful when measuring the performance
of arithmetic compressors

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>