143
Why a kilobyte is 1000 and not 1024 bytes (zeta.one)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
211 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I often find myself explaining the same things in real life and online, so I recently started writing technical blog posts.

This one is about why it was a mistake to call 1024 bytes a kilobyte. It's about a 20min read so thank you very much in advance if you find the time to read it.

Feedback is very much welcome. Thank you.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] [S] -69 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Pretty obvious that you didn't read the article. If you find the time I'd like to encourage you to read it. I hope it clears up some misconceptions and make things clearer why even in those 60+ years it was always intellectually dishonest to call 1024 byte a kilobyte.

You should at least read "(Un)lucky coincidence"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Ok so I did read the article. For one I can’t take an article seriously that is using memes. Thing the second yes drive manufacturers are at fault because I’ve been in IT a very very long time and I remember when HD manufacturers actually changed. And the reason was greed (shrinkflation). I mean why change, why inject confusion where there wasn’t any before. Find the simplest least complex reason and that is likely true (Occam's razor). Or follow the money usually works too.

    It was never intellectually dishonest to call it a kilobyte, it was convenient and was close enough. It’s what I would have done and it was obviously accepted by lots of really smart people back then so it stuck. If there was ever any confusion it’s by people who created the confusion by creating the alternative (see above).

    If you wanna be upset you should be upset at the gibi, kibi, tebi nonsense that we have to deal with now because of said confusion (see above). I can tell you for a fact that no one in my professional IT career of over 30 years has ever used any of the **bi words.

    You can be upset if you want but it is never really a problem for folks like me.

    Hopefully this helps…

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Pushing 30 years myself and I confirm literally not a single person I've worked with has ever used **bi... terms. Also, I recall the switch where drive manufacturers went from 1024 to 1000. I recall the poor attempt from shill writers in tech saying it better represents the number of bits as the format parameters applied to a drive changes the space available for files. I recall exactly zero people buying that excuse.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I just think that kilobyte should have been 1000 (in binary, so 16 in decimal) bytes and so on. Just keep everything relating to the binary storage in binary. That couldn't ever become confusing, right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -21 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    kilobit = 1000 bits. Kilobyte = 1000 bytes.

    How is anything about that intellectually dishonest??

    The only ones being dishonest are the drive manufacturers, like the person above said. They sell storage drives by advertising them in the byte quantity but they're actually in the bit quantity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago*

    They sell storage drives by advertising them in the byte quantity but they're actually in the bit quantity.

    No, they absolutely don’t. That’d be off by 8x.

    The subject at hand has nothing to do with bits. Please, read what OP posted. It’s about 1024 vs 1000

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent