On Tuesday 12 June 2007 08:44, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 08:36:39AM +0200, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> > That's an argument that's been heard before but it's *wrong*. SI prefixes
> > *are* used with non-SI units without losing their normal meaning and
> > there is no reason why bytes should be an exception. Since kilo has
> > always meant 1000, kilobyte must initially have meant 1000 bytes, before
> > people started to use it as if to mean 1024. There is confusion; hard
> > drive manufacturers' advertising material is not the only place where
> > kilobyte != 2^10 bytes.
>
> If I remember my history of computing correctly, kilo was not chosen to
> mean exactly 1000 when it came to computers. Things were initially done
> in powers of 2 (oversimplification). Since 2^10 = 1024 ≈ 1000, kilo was
> chosen as the prefix to use, since it already existed. The idea of
> going back and redifining the kilo to mean exactly 1000 in the context
> of computing was a marketing gimmick.
It is possible that nobody used the word "kilobyte" before it became
conventional to use it to mean "1024 bytes", but if they did, it must have
meant "1000 bytes", by default.
> Besides, there are other units of measure which carry the same name and
> have different numerical values based on context (think statute miles
> and nautical miles), though I don't think any such examples can be found
> in the SI.
Of course not. The utter mess of miles, gallons, tons, pounds
troy/avoirdupois, and so on, is completely irrelevant.
--
Magnus Holmgren holmgren@lysator.liu.se
(No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)
Attachment:
pgpaPBUERMqYX.pgp
Description: PGP signature