• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

What's a 'Gibibyte,' Anyway?

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
No, that’s not a typo, it’s a gibibyte. Not long ago the PCWorld Lab guys got together with the guys from MacWorld Lab, some strange happenings were reported. No goats were involved :p

We wanted to use identical test files, regardless of whether we were testing on a Mac or a PC, so we compromised on a new 2GB data set packed with photos and Johnny Cash albums. But when we started running the new storage tests, what looked like 2GB in Snow Leopard OS X 10.6 turned out to be only 1.85GB in Windows 7.
Click to expand...
 
The article makes it sound like Windows is doing it backwards, when in reality Apple is doing it backwards. Computers operate in powers of 2, and every single file cluster on a hard drive is a power of 2. Computers won't stop working in binary just because Joe User is used to dealing with powers of 10.

I do like the idea that my PC's hard drive calculates in GiB's though. Makes it sound more... meaty. :D
 
Personally i think its wrong for a gigabyte to be 1000mb. Thats just marketing by harddrive manufacturers to claim their drives are larger than they really are so we pay more for less. A gigabyte was 1024mb long before hard drives hit that size.:mad:

Even flash memory sticks/cards have fallen into this bullshit nowadays. I have a compact flash cart in my old digital camera which is marked as 256mb. If i format it in windows i get 256mb. Same with a 512mb cheapo no-brand usb drive i have kicking about. Format it in windows and i get 512mb. Then i got a corsair 1gb usb stick. Windows formats it as 984mb.

The same shit will happen with RAM next. Imagine getting a 4gb memory kit and finding windows only has 3.9 to play with.

Its always been one of my pet hates.
 
They're trying to brainwash everyone that GigaByte = 1000, and GibiByte = 1024. This is so wrong. Whoever invented gibibibibiiibfsidggjkdhfklahglks's should be forced to use a manual non-electric typewriter for the rest of his life.
 
The 1000 vs 1024 issue was actually news to these people?

1000 megabyte gigabyte started in the late 90s when manufacturers were trying to make their drives look bigger than they actually were.
 
Our tests show OS X is simply more accurate than Windows when it comes to displaying storage capacity; much as America holds to an outdated imperial measurement system, Windows still clings to a binary counting convention in the face of a metric majority
Click to expand...
fc56260facepalm.jpg
 
And why didn't it happened before with Kilobytes or Megabytes.

What about terabytes, are they still 1024 or 1000?
 
What a bunch of ignorant tools these writers are. Anyone who knows rudimentary knowledge of hard drives and a gigabyte knows about this.Typical Mac enthusiasts, no just using a mac doesn't make you smarter than everyone else.
 
Stoly said:
And why didn't it happened before with Kilobytes or Megabytes.

What about terabytes, are they still 1024 or 1000?
Click to expand...

Kibibytes, mibibytes, tibibytes. Sounds like a Nickelodeon show in the making :D
 
Hard drive manufacturers like to think and tell you that 1000 1000 megabytes is a terabyte, when it is really 1024 1024 megabytes. So your 1TB drive formats to only 935GB. It's long past time to drop this crap and start selling drives on formated capacity.
 
Not surprised that there are idiot writers out there, but what the hell is this doing on the front page of HardOCP? Seriously, guys, is this news to you?
And for the record, I find it pretty annoying that there seems to be an attempt to adopt the silly kibi/mibi/gibi variants. We have been using powers of 2 for decades, just because nowadays everybody and their monkey uses a computer, do we really have to make it easier for monkeys?
 
It's just one of those quirks that we have to deal with for the rest of humanity I suppose.
Kinda like how when you draw a circuit diagram, you draw the electricity going from + to -, when in reality, electrons are negatively charged, so it should be - going to +.
 
Wasn't this reported months ago when OSX got the update that changed this calculation? I remember there being a bit of hoopla about it when it initially happened.

Technically SI prefixes like kilo, mega, etc. are meant to operate in powers of 10. It's just that we've historically applied those prefixes to mean jumps of 2^10 when dealing with binary. From a technological standpoint, powers of two are more accurate. Therefore, the most correct way to handle all this is to use powers of two, but switch to the gibi prefix to avoid confusion with SI prefixes.
 
:(

Measurement of data differs between storage and transmission:
  • When storing data (in memory or on disc) we use base 2 and get values like 1024 KiB (kibibytes) and 1024 MiB (mebibytes). If a manufacturer uses the incorrect units they need to stop.
  • When measuring transmission rates of data we use values like 1000 KB (kilobytes). Metric units. However, it is more common to measure transmission in bits anyway as the technologies used to encode, synchronize, and correct the data all count flat bits anyway.
 
m_isom said:
Hard drive manufacturers like to think and tell you that 1000 1000 megabytes is a terabyte, when it is really 1024 1024 megabytes. So your 1TB drive formats to only 935GB. It's long past time to drop this crap and start selling drives on formated capacity.
Click to expand...
There are lots of file systems to choose from and they all require different amounts of data to index, so that wouldn't really work.
 
When I saw the link went to PCWorld, I knew it would be another dumb Mac-oriented article. They should remit all claims to their name immediately and rename their site.

Our tests show OS X is simply more accurate than Windows when it comes to displaying storage capacity; much as America holds to an outdated imperial measurement system, Windows still clings to a binary counting convention in the face of a metric majority.
Click to expand...

Really? Majority? When did MacOS overtake the Windows market? Just because they want to call a frog a cat and get everyone to agree with them because they said it, doesn't make it true. What a bunch of assclowns.
 
Forcing a base-10 paradigm on a base-2 system is stupid and pointless. If we wanted power of ten we should have thought about that when we came up with the byte. It's too late.
 
bacon said:
What a bunch of ignorant tools these writers are. Anyone who knows rudimentary knowledge of hard drives and a gigabyte knows about this. Typical Mac enthusiasts, no just using a mac doesn't make you smarter than everyone else.
Click to expand...

this lol....

I was reading that article thinking, omg they are just figuring this out?
 
I'll never again question why someone would buy a crApple product...

A fool and their money are soon parted...
 
SDraconis said:
Wasn't this reported months ago when OSX got the update that changed this calculation? I remember there being a bit of hoopla about it when it initially happened.

Technically SI prefixes like kilo, mega, etc. are meant to operate in powers of 10. It's just that we've historically applied those prefixes to mean jumps of 2^10 when dealing with binary. From a technological standpoint, powers of two are more accurate. Therefore, the most correct way to handle all this is to use powers of two, but switch to the gibi prefix to avoid confusion with SI prefixes.
Click to expand...
Didn't Ubuntu switch to 1000 calculations from 1024 calculations? Their developers need to be cyberwhipped.
 
Wait what?

I was sure that a Gigabyte was ALWAYS 1024, so what the hell do they mean by Gibabyte? Instead of changing the definition of a Gigabyte to a 1000, why not just call 1000 a Gibabyte.

As for why the HD is 935 GB instead of 1024, it should be because of the formatting and the table.
 
Toothball said:
I was sure that a Gigabyte was ALWAYS 1024, so what the hell do they mean by Gibabyte? Instead of changing the definition of a Gigabyte to a 1000, why not just call 1000 a Gibabyte.
Click to expand...
The only thing "ALWAYS" about SI prefixes modifying the base unit byte, is that there has ALWAYS been confusion and multiple interpretations.

SI prefixes were established to have very clearly defined meaning: some power of ten multiplication of the base unit.

The power of two multiplications commonly meant by SI prefixes on bytes are contrary to how the system is defined, and as such cause confusion.

In my field (hardware design), using SI prefixes is usually unacceptable for technical specifications, as there is no common definition of what it means.
 
So maybe it would be best if we could choose from

Power of 2
Power of 3 (like in Charmed)
Power of 10
Power of LOVE

BTW I recall when I was in schooll (decades) a teacher saying it was not power of 2 but power of 8 since a byte is 8 bits.
 
My standard declaration when I see someone trying to push "Mebi/Gibibytes" through is:

Would you consider it okay to redefine a "gallon" as 100 fluid ounces, then declare that 128 fluid ounces is really a "giballon"?

No.

Just because OTHER uses use power-of-ten doesn't mean computers have to. Computers have always used power-of-two, just use what's being used. No reason to invent a new prefix.
 
Stoly said:
So maybe it would be best if we could choose from

Power of 2
Power of 3 (like in Charmed)
Power of 10
Power of LOVE

BTW I recall when I was in schooll (decades) a teacher saying it was not power of 2 but power of 8 since a byte is 8 bits.
Click to expand...


Power of Grayskull!
 
"Here in the PCWorld Lab we’re always working on improving our tests to keep pace with the demands of consumer technology"

"the PCWorld Lab crew"

"A GiB equals 1.074GB"

Hahahahahahahah
 
CharonPDX said:
My standard declaration when I see someone trying to push "Mebi/Gibibytes" through is:

Would you consider it okay to redefine a "gallon" as 100 fluid ounces, then declare that 128 fluid ounces is really a "giballon"?

No.

It's more like the computer industry is trying to redefine giga as 1,073,741.824 instead of 1,000,000,000. There's a standard definition for these prefixes that computers don't adhere to because it was easier for programmers to use binary math to approximate the defined value.
Click to expand...
 
CharonPDX said:
Just because OTHER uses use power-of-ten doesn't mean computers have to. Computers have always used power-of-two, just use what's being used. No reason to invent a new prefix.
Click to expand...
SI prefixes are decimal powers though. Parts of computer industry appropriated the prefixes and redefined them.

The reason to invent new prefixes is because the old ones typically mean something else, and it's confusing to redefine them.
 
actually it is slightly funnier

2^1 = 2, 2^2 = 4, 2^3 = 8, 2^4 = 16, 2^5 = 32, 2^6 = 64, 2^7 = 128,
2^8 = 256, 2^9 = 512, 2^10 = 1024

which is why a kilobyte 2^10 was always 1024, not a 1000 which was
from 10 x 10^2 or 10^3, namely because we never used 10^2 centibytes anyone? or 10^1 decabytes?

for megabytes a thousand bytes it would be 2^20 or twenty places out as 2^10 is ten places out, which is 1048576 or 1024x1024, the point being that everyone who used the stuff early one understood that to have a table you need to use one row that goes down mulitplied by one row that goes across. How you label or the values you use to describe your matrix are not as big a deal as they have to be something the cpu can understand which means the tables are going to be base 2, base 6, base 10, or base 16, x86 is going to require base 2 at the bottom level, as all your pointers the numbers that explain where your data is stored much be in base 2, or the registers are not going to work. X64 just doubles the size of the space not the format.

So all drives working in x86 / x64 are going to have binary sized clusters and thus binary sized drives, how ever they are labeled.
 
--- 8 bits to one byte ---

1,000,000 bits = 1 megabit
1,024,000 bits = 1 megabyte

... HDD makers are to blame here. Labeling drives incorrectly. Standards were in place long before we hit the capacities we have today. Not to mention, when you format a drive in any filesystem, there are blocks of un-usable space from the partition table and the reserved bad blocks in the firmware of the hdd....
 
xrealm20 said:
1,000,000 bits = 1 megabit
1,024,000 bits = 1 megabyte
Click to expand...
I don't know any definition where 1MB = 1024000 bits.

It's either:
1MB = 2^20 bytes = 1048576 bytes = 8388608 bits
or
1MB = 10^6 bytes = 1000000 bytes = 8000000 bits
 
lol at the bottom - "would you recommend this story" 9 yes 40 no :D

The true nerds have spoken, screw those mac-loving "PC"World bastards :p
 
xrealm20 said:
--- 8 bits to one byte ---

1,000,000 bits = 1 megabit
1,024,000 bits = 1 megabyte

... HDD makers are to blame here. Labeling drives incorrectly. Standards were in place long before we hit the capacities we have today. Not to mention, when you format a drive in any filesystem, there are blocks of un-usable space from the partition table and the reserved bad blocks in the firmware of the hdd....
Click to expand...

bad blocks usually don't show up as a loss in the total capacity since there are reserve sectors that take there place.

And hdd makers aren't to blame.. programmers trying to speed up their code and save storage space back in the day when computers were slow and space was a premium (every byte had an enormous cost).

The use of metric prefixes for computer capacities is non-standard and against the rules of the SI system. That's why there was a push to re-redefine them back to acceptable usage.

(Note: I'm not saying that HDD manufacturers aren't trying to use the discrepancy to their advantage, they certainly are. But they're not to blame for the creation of the discrepancy.)
 
jimmyb said:
I don't know any definition where 1MB = 1024000 bits.

It's either:
1MB = 2^20 bytes = 1048576 bytes = 8388608 bits
or
1MB = 10^6 bytes = 1000000 bytes = 8000000 bits
Click to expand...

floppy disks. are 1024x1000 bytes :D 1.44MB is 1440kb which is 1,474,560 bytes,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top