Actual hard drive space?

[GT]

Not exactly. If 1 kilobits = 1024, then 8 kilobits is 8192.

It was about as accurate as saying 1000 = 1024 !!!

 

[GT]

How many bits, according to you, are meant by kilobits?

1024, even if someone does similar to a HDD manufacturer and
tries to round down for misleading specs.

no kilo means 1000, you are rounding up to a non-round number!!!

 

[Robert Heiling]

I was getting tired of the thread frankly, how many times
can one rehash this discussion? It's already a giant thread
and in the end it won't cover anything that wasn't covered
in one of the dozens it succeeds.

Can't say I blame you as I've reached that point already myself.

1024, even if someone does similar to a HDD manufacturer and
tries to round down for misleading specs.

That's what I had loosely called a "conspiracy" theory and got at least one
person confused in the process. I don't see how you can call those "misleading
specs" when that usage is well known. Do you personally get taken by surprise
when you find out how many bytes are on that HD you just bought? Of course you
don't. It's only the people who haven't taken efforts to educate themselves who
are surprised that their unfounded assumptions are incorrect.

Was it supposed to be a trick question? There are several
references to it,
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define:kilobit

Nothing trick at all. Just attempting to understand what was behind your
thinking and that appears to be that, if the term is a computer term, then kilo
= 1024.

In the end there are only two camps - thouse who know how to
use the binary system, and those who either accidentally or
deliberately misused it.

There are indeed two camps. Those who are informed and those who are not.

Bob

 

[Robert Heiling]

Not exactly. If 1 kilobits = 1024, then 8 kilobits is 8192.

You're right, of course. Sorry about that.

 

[jameshanley39]

It's the same. I was attempting to be unambiguous by using the mathematical term
since we are dealing with mathematics. Binary is base 2, octal base 8, decimal
base 10, and hexadecimal base 16. See the Oxford Dictionary:
Base noun Mathematics a number used as the basis of a numeration
scale.

I don't know what a "numeration scale". It isn't defined there.
The Cambridge dictionary is very good. It says

binary number noun [C]
a number that is expressed using 1 and 0:

base (MATHEMATICS) Show phonetics
noun [C usually singular] SPECIALIZED
the number on which a counting system is built:

Fair enough, that there's a definition of base that is base^exponent.
But that "base" has nothing to do with the number system - binary,
octal e.t.c.

I don't know for sure what Oxford dictionary mean by numeration scale.
But I can see that Cambridge dictionary is quite specific, a number
system. And just to be more clear, cambridge dictionary says a binary
number is in 1s and 0s.

2^x+2^y. is not 1s and 0s.

I may even bet that Oxford dictionary agrees with cambridge on this
one(and umeration scale means number system like binary). Either way,
Oxford isn't disagree with cambridge's definition. Oxford may be
extending that definition of binary in a way i've never seen before,
and in a way that Cambridge dictionary doesn't agree with. If you are
right in your interpetation of Oxford, then it's not a standard
definition. The Cambridge one is, it's the common ground.

Just to be picky, because it's needed for the topic, the quantity doesn't change
at all, but the quantity *reported* does.

if one has in mind a product whose capacity or "speed" you are
specifying. Then yes. But I didn't mean that.. (hence I said quantity
changes)

I meant if one has in mind the possible meanings of , say, 32MB !

The quantity of the unit changes! The number of bytes in the kilobyte
or megabyte. As in your example. But also, in my case, if all other
things are kept equal i.e. just changing the convention, keeping 32 of
them-... 32MB in one convention is a different quantity to 32MB in
another convention. So it's not just the quantity of the unit that
changes. It's the quantity of Bytes itself

I wonder .. Before partitioning, how many bytes are on a HDD marketted
as 40GB drive? I guess that HDDs don't have an exact 2^x or 10^x
number of bytes. That's just a guess.
In which case.. The number on the box is an approximation. The number
given by windows, which happens to use a different convention, is more
precise. So in a sense, the reported quantities are different (even in
your example) ;-)

 

[GT]

Using base 10 (decimal). kilo = 10^3 = 1000 not 1024. Kilo

It does mean 1024 if the group that is using the term has agreed to have
it mean
1024 for their purposes. The reality of the matter is that the 1024 usage
is
already in place and it isn't about to change.

Thank you for link link on conventions, but following this definition
through results in a definition of kilo = 10^3 = 1000. The group in question
here is the human race and the con-ven-tion, or 'standard' as your reference
calls it, was adopted by this group originally in 1795.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/kilo. There does appear to be a
breakout group of 'computer people' who seem to think that kilo means 1024
when quantifying some units, but 1000 when quantifying others - some
'standard'!! Basically they use the standard definition of kilo that is used
in every walk of life (10^3), except when expressing a quantity of bytes or
bits, when it has to be rounded up to an arbitrary 1024, except when talking
about bits in communications, when they revert to using 1000 again. Then
they get confused and try to take companies to court when the rest of the
world uses the global standard, not their 'special number'.

con·ven·tion
5. a rule, method, or practice established by usage; custom: the
convention of
showing north at the top of a map.
6. general agreement or consent; accepted usage, esp. as a standard of
procedure.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/convention
Find your own if you don't like that one.

No need - I agree with you !

 

[Cal Vanize]

It was about as accurate as saying 1000 = 1024 !!!

How about this:

Its within 2.5% accuracy. That's a lot better than the accuracy of
Wikipedia or weather prediction.

 

[Cal Vanize]

no kilo means 1000, you are rounding up to a non-round number!!!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Cal Vanize]

You're right, of course. Sorry about that.

No problemo. I end up having to count in binary too much anyway.

 

[jameshanley39]

Yes, either on LAN or WAN. I didn't realize that my use of the word
"communication" would be misunderstood.


Perhaps this quote from a popular and respected source will help:
" Kilobit = 1000 bits per second (#14472)
For the purposes of presenting speed test results we adopt the
data-communications convention of k = 1000, not k = 1024. For example, 28.8k
modems ran at 28800 bits per second. 56k modems ran at 56000 bits per second.http://www.dslreports.com/faq/14472

kilobit only ever means 1000 bits anyway.

I'm not saying one way from my knowledge that comm speeds are in 10^x
or 2^x. But i've taken into consideration that you have said 10^x.
Though , I think you said, that you didn't say *all* comm speeds are
10^x, which indicates to me that you think some are not.

If i've read you right, and you say that WAN comm speeds are in 10^x,
and as an indication of that , you gave 100Mbps. (100=10^2). Then
what would you say to speeds of 128KB/s ro 512KB/s. Is it using the
binary convention. Or is it using the decimal convention so it'd mean
512,000,000 Bytes.

Changing reporting method in midstream? That's unreal.

it's not. Why should the data download speed be a power of two?
Maybe a whole load of people were downloading something and your
download speed dropped from 128,000 Bytes to 100,000 Bytes. Is that
impossible?!
If WAN comm speeds are 10^x then it must be that a 512KB download is
512,000,000

I made no such "all" claim.

I misunderstood you then. I thought that saying that comm speeds use
the 10^x convention, which is how I understood you, meant, none use
2^x convention.

As far as that section goes, I can't respond when words are being put in my
mouth, so discussion is ended.

I guess your words have never been misinterpeted before. It's a
mistake, not a sin.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

Useless bullshit answer.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Plenty of definitions of ascii actually say that its a 7 bit code, ****wit child.

The use of half-bytes for packed numeric data doesn't work very well with seven bits, does it?

Irrelevant to whether you can do the entire alphabet, integer numbers,
special characters and still have room for control characters in 7 bits.

Also didn't allow for much use of parity for those 7-bit characterizations back then, did it.

Irrelevant to whether you can do the entire alphabet, integer numbers,
special characters and still have room for control characters in 7 bits.

Six bits plus parity wasn't quite enough,

Irrelevant to whether you can do the entire alphabet, integer numbers,
special characters and still have room for control characters in 7 bits.

was it dickmouth.

Wota stunningly rational line of arguement you have there, child.

 

[Rod Speed]

interesting. I wasn't aware of the data transmission
convention regarding Bytes , being standard SI.

As Word size grows (and i'm not sure if Word size,
is size of data bus or size of cpu registers).

Neither actually. Its the size of the instructions.

But if we're talking "data bus",

We arent.

then I suppose that'd be standard SI too ?

Nope, not when word sizes vary considerably.

And what is being discussed is the SI MULTIPLIERS, not units.

What would you say is the convention for HDDs..

The convention is completely irrelevant when the
SI standard MULTIPLIERS are legally mandated.

If the convention comes from designing them

The convention is what ALL the hard drive manufacturers use.

then it may not be not so well known generally because the average person isn't designing them?!

Pathetic, really. The average person doesnt package goods either.

What matters is what is legally mandated.

If designers go by the apparently non binary organisation.
And use 10^x, then it may be better known.

Most peoples' usage of the term Byte with HDDs goes by how the OS defines it.

Only the pig ignorant fools.

Windows uses the 2^x form.

Not exclusively, in some places the full form is used, no multiplier.

If other OSs and software does the same

They dont. Some linuxes use the Gi style etc now.

then perhaps 2^x should be the convention for HDDs.

Nope, just because Win ****s it up completely is completely irrelevant.

 

[Rod Speed]

I don't know what a "numeration scale". It isn't defined there.
The Cambridge dictionary is very good.

Not with technical terms it isnt.

It says

binary number noun [C]
a number that is expressed using 1 and 0:

Pity about octal and hex.

base (MATHEMATICS) Show phonetics
noun [C usually singular] SPECIALIZED
the number on which a counting system is built:

Fair enough, that there's a definition of base that is base^exponent.
But that "base" has nothing to do with the number system - binary,
octal e.t.c.

I don't know for sure what Oxford dictionary mean by numeration scale.
But I can see that Cambridge dictionary is quite specific, a number
system. And just to be more clear, cambridge dictionary says a binary
number is in 1s and 0s.

2^x+2^y. is not 1s and 0s.

I may even bet that Oxford dictionary agrees with cambridge on this
one(and umeration scale means number system like binary). Either way,
Oxford isn't disagree with cambridge's definition. Oxford may be
extending that definition of binary in a way i've never seen before,
and in a way that Cambridge dictionary doesn't agree with. If you are
right in your interpetation of Oxford, then it's not a standard
definition. The Cambridge one is, it's the common ground.

You cant use that sort of dictionary for technical terms.

if one has in mind a product whose capacity or "speed" you are
specifying. Then yes. But I didn't mean that.. (hence I said quantity
changes)

I meant if one has in mind the possible meanings of , say, 32MB !

The quantity of the unit changes! The number of bytes in the kilobyte
or megabyte. As in your example. But also, in my case, if all other
things are kept equal i.e. just changing the convention, keeping 32 of
them-... 32MB in one convention is a different quantity to 32MB in
another convention. So it's not just the quantity of the unit that
changes. It's the quantity of Bytes itself

I wonder .. Before partitioning, how many bytes are on a HDD marketted
as 40GB drive? I guess that HDDs don't have an exact 2^x or 10^x
number of bytes. That's just a guess.
In which case.. The number on the box is an approximation. The number
given by windows, which happens to use a different convention, is more
precise. So in a sense, the reported quantities are different (even in
your example) ;-)

Clearly completely pissed and incoherent.

 

[Rod Speed]

The problem with opinions is that in the end, no matter what
the opinion is, the actual quantity expressed MUST NECESSARILY
be the same quantity expresed in a different system.

You can keep chanting that pathetic little pig ignorant mantra till
the cows come home if you like. Changes absolutely nothing at all.

In any such base change where the quantity does
not remain the same, the original base expression
is valid but the one with changing quantity is not.

Meaningless gobbledegook.

Since, as I wrote in my last post, there is nothing new here
just a rehash of the same old arguments (a waste of time),
I'm done wasting time on the thread.

Great, you've been done like a dinner, as always.

 

[Rod Speed]

Would you say that the convention goes by
the organisation (whether binary or not).

Nope, just that that is why a different convention was seen with memory.

And Convention follows that.
Nope.

I notice that windows measures hard drive capacity as 2^x.

Windows is completely irrelevant to the SI standard.

I don't know whether windows measures communication speed as 2^x?

No it doesnt.

I always assumed it does.

More fool you. And Windows is completely irrelevant anyway.

I can imagine that windows would just use 2^x
because it wants to use one uniform convention.

Pity it doesnt with cpu speed and comms speeds.

Is windows wrong?
Yes.

What of other operating systems?

Some flavours of linux are now using the Mi and Gi forms.

and partitioning programs?

They're completely irrelevant.

 

[~misfit~]

Just saying that Wikipedia is not an expert or reliable source. Not
even suggesting anything other than that fact.

Wikipedia had much more data than Brittanica and less errors.

 

[Cal Vanize]

Wikipedia had much more data than Brittanica and less errors.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

That's the funniest thing I've read in weeks!!

 

[Rod Speed]

Cal Vanize wrote

It is in fact a hell of a lot more than just that.

It isnt anything like a fact, just your stupid pig ignorant claim.

Wikipedia had much more data than Brittanica and less errors.

And usually decent links so you can check what's claimed too.

 

[jameshanley39]

Neither actually. Its the size of the instructions.

do you have a source for that?

Not exclusively, in some places the full form is used, no multiplier.

when? (besides Mb/s or Gb/s for Ethernet)

You mentioned comm speeds being in 10^x. When windows reports 512KB/s
is that 10^x or 2^x ?

 

[Rod Speed]

(e-mail address removed) wrote

do you have a source for that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_size

when?

Most obviously with the command prompt Dir

(besides Mb/s or Gb/s for Ethernet)

Those are both still using a multiplier.

You mentioned comm speeds being in 10^x.
When windows reports 512KB/s is that 10^x or 2^x ?

Decimal.