R
Robert Heiling
kony said:
Then how many bits, according to you, are meant by kilobits?
Bob
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Then how many bits, according to you, are meant by kilobits?
Bob
R
Robert Heiling
Cal said:<snip>
They certainly do question Wikipedia as an information source. No
true expert or authorative source would ever reply on the information
presented in Wikipedia. The fact that you do causes question of your
credibility.
<snip>
Wilipedia is a source of papers written by non-experts in an effort to
populate a database. Nothing else.
As I was reading that post, I kept expecting that you were going to furnish your
own expert and authorative source, but I sure didn't see one.
Bob
C
Cal Vanize
kony said:That's the definition of it in a decimal system. If you'd
like to use Kilo in a decimal system, go right ahead...
without using byte since that makes it an invalid
expression. A valid expression would always state the exact
same quantity, which it obviously does not, hence this
thread.
The difference is based on the difference between base 10 (decimal) and
base 2 (binary). You are correct in that 1 kilo is 1,000 in decimal.
But for base 2, 1 kilo is an approximation of the number 2^10 and used
in computing since counting in computers is binary in nature. "Kilo" in
this context is 2^10 or 1024 bytes. 1 megabyte for computers is not
1,000,000 bytes, but is actually a "decimalized" approximation of the
2^20 or 1,048,576 bytes. Likewise, for gigabytes (2^30 vs. 1,000,000,000).
Manufacturers took the opportunity to state the capacity of their drives
in base 10 numbers, not base 2.
Its just the way it is.
C
Cal Vanize
Robert said:As I was reading that post, I kept expecting that you were going to furnish your
own expert and authorative source, but I sure didn't see one.
Bob
Just saying that Wikipedia is not an expert or reliable source. Not
even suggesting anything other than that fact.
J
jameshanley39
Have fun explaininghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte
you're wrong. If you read the whole of wikipedia, you'll realise that.
DO YOU GET MY POINT?
now state your objections in your own words instead of referring to a
long article where only a small part is possibly relevant.
you fool
R
Rod Speed
Cal Vanize said:Rod Speed wrote
They certainly do question Wikipedia as an information source.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
There are plenty of authoritative sources that say exactly the
same thing ABOUT A GIGABYTE as that wikipedia article.
No true expert or authorative source would ever reply on the information presented in Wikipedia.
Easy to claim.
The fact that you do causes question of your credibility.
Only with fools like you who cant manage to grasp that plenty of authoritative
sources say exactly the same thing ABOUT A GIGABYTE as that wikipedia article.
Personal attacks?
Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?
I questioned your source,
You did a hell of a lot more than that, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
now you cause question of your own credibility.
Personal attacks?
Wilipedia is a source of papers written by non-experts in an effort to populate a database.
Nothing else.
There are plenty of authoritative sources that say exactly the
same thing ABOUT A GIGABYTE as that wikipedia article.
And even someone as stupid as you should be able to check the links
at the bottom of the wikipedia article and if someone was actually
stupid enough to lend you a seeing eye dog a white cane, even
you should be able to find authoritative sources in there, child.
R
Rod Speed
Just saying that Wikipedia is not an expert or reliable source. Not even suggesting anything
other than that fact.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
R
Rod Speed
you're wrong.
Wota stunningly rational line of arguement you have there, child.
If you read the whole of wikipedia, you'll realise that.
Wota stunningly rational line of arguement you have there, child.
DO YOU GET MY POINT?
Wota stunningly rational line of arguement you have there, child.
now state your objections in your own words
Already did, ****wit child.
instead of referring to a long article where only a small part is possibly relevant.
you fool
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
G
GT
YES IT IS THE SAME - kilo means 1000. You said yourself that
That's the definition of it period. The numerical base doesn't matter, 1000
is 1000. and the dictionary definition of kilo is 10^3 = 1000. A byte is
simply a unit and can be quantified using any numerical base system.
Tell me at which step this statement goes wrong:
We can count bytes using any base including decimal? So it is valid to write
1 byte, or 5 bytes, or 1000 bytes, or 1024 bytes? If it is valid to write
1000 bytes, then we can abbreviate that number using the SI prefix kilo, so
instead of writing 1000 bytes, we can write 1KB. If we want to shorten 1024
bytes, we can write 1.024 KB.
I suspect that you will find fault with the statement that 1000bytes can be
shortened to 1KB. You will say something about it not being relevant to mix
a binary term with decimal, but we are not mixing any binary and decimal
terms. The word byte is the unit and refers to a collection of 8 bits, each
of which can be in one state at a time. a bit is a binary digit, but that is
irrelevant to the quantity. We can quantify bytes using any numerical base
and the term K means 10^3. So 1000 is simply a quantity of bytes, we can
write that 1000 in any base (see below). If we are using a decimal system,
then 1000 IS 1K, so if the units being quantitifies are bytes, then 1000
bytes = 1Kbyte.
Its perfectly valid to count any units (including bytes) using decimal,
binary, hexidecimal - we are simply expressing a quantity. Why do you not
conceed that any number is valid in binary, decimal or hex? Lets take the
base 10 number 16. This can be written like this:
Binary (base 2) - 10000
Octal (base 8) - 20
Decimal (base 10) - 16.
Hex (base 16) - 10
The units that we are actually counting are irrelivant. That might be 16
apples, 16 cars, 16 bits, 16 bytes, or 16 houses. It doesn't matter what the
units are. Any quantity can be written in binary, decimal or any other base
and is the same quantity.
A valid expression would always state the exact same quantity. Here is a
valid expression: kilo = 10^3. This can be written as 1000 in base 10. Lets
write 1000 in other bases:
base 2 = 1,111,101,000
base 8 = 1750
base 10 = 1000
base 16 = 3E8
Are you telling us that the translation from decimal 1000 to binary is not
1,111,101,000? Are you telling us that it is actually 10,000,000,000? Can
you please show us your working for this incorrect conversion.
Might I suggest that what you are actually saying is that it is not valid to
use the pre-fixes kilo, mega etc in reference to storage space in computing,
but relevant to everything else in the entire universe?
That's the definition of it in a decimal system.
That's the definition of it period. The numerical base doesn't matter, 1000
is 1000. and the dictionary definition of kilo is 10^3 = 1000. A byte is
simply a unit and can be quantified using any numerical base system.
Tell me at which step this statement goes wrong:
We can count bytes using any base including decimal? So it is valid to write
1 byte, or 5 bytes, or 1000 bytes, or 1024 bytes? If it is valid to write
1000 bytes, then we can abbreviate that number using the SI prefix kilo, so
instead of writing 1000 bytes, we can write 1KB. If we want to shorten 1024
bytes, we can write 1.024 KB.
I suspect that you will find fault with the statement that 1000bytes can be
shortened to 1KB. You will say something about it not being relevant to mix
a binary term with decimal, but we are not mixing any binary and decimal
terms. The word byte is the unit and refers to a collection of 8 bits, each
of which can be in one state at a time. a bit is a binary digit, but that is
irrelevant to the quantity. We can quantify bytes using any numerical base
and the term K means 10^3. So 1000 is simply a quantity of bytes, we can
write that 1000 in any base (see below). If we are using a decimal system,
then 1000 IS 1K, so if the units being quantitifies are bytes, then 1000
bytes = 1Kbyte.
Its perfectly valid to count any units (including bytes) using decimal,
binary, hexidecimal - we are simply expressing a quantity. Why do you not
conceed that any number is valid in binary, decimal or hex? Lets take the
base 10 number 16. This can be written like this:
Binary (base 2) - 10000
Octal (base 8) - 20
Decimal (base 10) - 16.
Hex (base 16) - 10
The units that we are actually counting are irrelivant. That might be 16
apples, 16 cars, 16 bits, 16 bytes, or 16 houses. It doesn't matter what the
units are. Any quantity can be written in binary, decimal or any other base
and is the same quantity.
A valid expression would always state the exact same quantity. Here is a
valid expression: kilo = 10^3. This can be written as 1000 in base 10. Lets
write 1000 in other bases:
base 2 = 1,111,101,000
base 8 = 1750
base 10 = 1000
base 16 = 3E8
Are you telling us that the translation from decimal 1000 to binary is not
1,111,101,000? Are you telling us that it is actually 10,000,000,000? Can
you please show us your working for this incorrect conversion.
Might I suggest that what you are actually saying is that it is not valid to
use the pre-fixes kilo, mega etc in reference to storage space in computing,
but relevant to everything else in the entire universe?
G
GT
Cal Vanize said:The difference is based on the difference between base 10 (decimal) and
base 2 (binary). You are correct in that 1 kilo is 1,000 in decimal. But
for base 2, 1 kilo is an approximation of the number 2^10
No, kilo is 1000 in any base. If you want to refer to 2^10, thats a kibi
(kilo binary)!! A kilobyte is 1,000 bytes a kibibyte is 1024 bytes.
and used in computing since counting in computers is binary in nature.
"Kilo" in this context is 2^10 or 1024 bytes.
No, kilo in any context is 1000, never 1024.
1 megabyte for computers is not 1,000,000 bytes
Yes it is. Mega means 1,000,000
but is actually a "decimalized" approximation of the 2^20 or 1,048,576
bytes.
No, Mega is not an approximation of anything. Mega is 1,000,000. A mebibyte
(mega binary byte) is 2^20 or 1048576. Likewise, giga is 10^9 and Gibi (giga
binary) is 2^30.
Manufacturers took the opportunity to state the capacity of their drives
in base 10 numbers, not base 2.
That's their choice and they are using the correct terminology, it is simply
confusing and being misinterpretted by lots of people in the computing
field.
Its just the way it is.
True!
Kony, Cal, everyone:
What we refer to as a 100GB hard disk can hold 100,000,000,000 bytes. This
number can be abbreviated to 100x10^9 bytes. 10^9 can be written as Giga, so
we can further abbreviate the figure to 100 Gigabytes (or even 0.1
TeraBytes). This is mathematically accurate, so would you prefer that that
hard disk label said something else? What else could it possibly say?
R
Robert Heiling
Then how many bits, according to you, are meant by kilobits?
Why are you ducking my question, kony?
"Bits", as you know, is a computer term and its usage in the computerese jargon
predates "bytes". If "bytes" has some sort of effect on the meaning of kilo,
because it is computerese, then "bits" would also have that same effect
following your logic.
How many bits, according to you, are meant by kilobits?
Bob
K
kony
No, kilo in any context is 1000, never 1024.
Can't have it both ways, either 1000 is limited to a decimal
only definition, or it is invalid in binary.
In the end, use of a different base to express a quantity
MUST NECESSARILY be expressing the same quantity, not
something rounded off (unless it is expressly stated to be
rounded off).
R
Rod Speed
Can't have it both ways, either 1000 is limited to
a decimal only definition, or it is invalid in binary.
In the end, use of a different base to express a quantity
MUST NECESSARILY be expressing the same quantity,
Wrong, as always. The multiplier used is an entirely separate issue to the unit.
not something rounded off
Rounding off isnt even being discussed.
(unless it is expressly stated to be rounded off).
Wrong, as always.
Out in china yet ?
C
Cal Vanize
Rod said:Out in china yet ?
How did you get a computer in your cell?
J
jameshanley39
<snip>
Why are you ducking my question, kony?
"Bits", as you know, is a computer term and its usage in the computerese jargon
predates "bytes". If "bytes" has some sort of effect on the meaning of kilo,
because it is computerese, then "bits" would also have that same effect
following your logic.
I may almost agree with Kony in this aspect.
I don't agree that Byte is some kind of purely binary unit that can't
be mixed with decimal.
But the convention - and it's only convention - is that Kilo Mega
Giga, when used with Byte, use the 2^x definition.
The convention comes from the fact that computers reference bytes.
The number of bytes they can reference with x bits is 2^x
The whole KibiByte thing was a late attempt, and it never took off.
People always used Kilobyte to refer to 1024 bytes, and they still do,
and they understand each other. So there was/is no need for a new
terminology.
How many bits, according to you, are meant by kilobits?
1000.
Only Bytes have this convention.
R
Robert Heiling
[email protected] said:I may almost agree with Kony in this aspect.
IMO kony has been on the losing side of this whole argument. I'm somewhat
surprised.
I don't agree that Byte is some kind of purely binary unit that can't
be mixed with decimal.
In fact, it is usually represented by 2 hexadecimal characters (base 16), not to
be confused with decimal (base 10).
But the convention - and it's only convention - is that Kilo Mega
Giga, when used with Byte, use the 2^x definition.
The convention comes from the fact that computers reference bytes.
The number of bytes they can reference with x bits is 2^x
It became convenient to adopt those terms by convention, but that doesn't change
their true meaning. The burden in any discussion is upon people to define their
terms, either implicitly or explicitly. When speaking of data storage, the
original meaning of those terms is in effect and there is no convention in
effect to have them mean otherwise. If some people misunderstand that, then it's
like any similar situation where they need to educate themselves.
The whole KibiByte thing was a late attempt, and it never took off.
People always used Kilobyte to refer to 1024 bytes, and they still do,
and they understand each other. So there was/is no need for a new
terminology.
Whenever I have used those terms in discussions with fellow software types, it
has always been clear as to how the terms were being used in any given context.
If not, it's pretty easy to clarify by asking a question.
1000.
And likewise for Kilobytes in data transmission.
Only Bytes have this convention.
Depends om who's talking and if they are using a certain convention. Unless they
have agreed to use 1024 for kilo as a convention, then kilo is 1000 as in
kilogram, kilometer, etc and also Kilobytes, as in KBps.
Bob
C
Cal Vanize
Robert said::
IMO kony has been on the losing side of this whole argument. I'm somewhat
surprised.
In fact, it is usually represented by 2 hexadecimal characters (base 16), not to
be confused with decimal (base 10).
Base 16 only that each hex character is made up of four bits (2^4).
Bytes were created out of convenience. A byte has 256 possible values
which allowed them to represent the entire alphabet, integer numbers,
special characters and still have room for control characters.
R
Rod Speed
(e-mail address removed) wrote
More fool you.
Corse it isnt, the multiplier is completely independant of the unit being multiplied.
Wrong, as always. Most obviously with comms speeds which have never done that.
They dont do that exclusively. There have been plenty that didnt
even use bytes at all and which had none byte mulitple word sizes.
Bytes are a relative recent thing computer wise.
Irrelevant to other collections of bytes which arent referenced by
x bits, most obviously with hard drive capacity and comms speeds.
Wrong again, it is in fact used quite recently with some flavours of linux.
Wrong, most obviously with comms speeds where they never did.
Only the pig ignorant fools with hard drive capacity and comms speeds.
Pathetic really.
There was no 'new terminology' with comms speeds, the decimal
multipliers were always what was used with bytes and bits.
Only with SOME memory, memory that is binary organised and that isnt even all memory.
I may almost agree with Kony in this aspect.
More fool you.
I don't agree that Byte is some kind of purely
binary unit that can't be mixed with decimal.
Corse it isnt, the multiplier is completely independant of the unit being multiplied.
But the convention - and it's only convention - is that Kilo
Mega Giga, when used with Byte, use the 2^x definition.
Wrong, as always. Most obviously with comms speeds which have never done that.
The convention comes from the fact that computers reference bytes.
They dont do that exclusively. There have been plenty that didnt
even use bytes at all and which had none byte mulitple word sizes.
Bytes are a relative recent thing computer wise.
The number of bytes they can reference with x bits is 2^x
Irrelevant to other collections of bytes which arent referenced by
x bits, most obviously with hard drive capacity and comms speeds.
The whole KibiByte thing was a late attempt, and it never took off.
Wrong again, it is in fact used quite recently with some flavours of linux.
People always used Kilobyte to refer to 1024 bytes,
Wrong, most obviously with comms speeds where they never did.
and they still do,
Only the pig ignorant fools with hard drive capacity and comms speeds.
and they understand each other.
Pathetic really.
So there was/is no need for a new terminology.
There was no 'new terminology' with comms speeds, the decimal
multipliers were always what was used with bytes and bits.
Only Bytes have this convention.
Only with SOME memory, memory that is binary organised and that isnt even all memory.
R
Rod Speed
just the puerile shit thats all it can ever manage.
C
Cal Vanize
Rod said:just the puerile shit thats all it can ever manage.
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.