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. 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. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature