26

For decades, in the field of computing (except disk manufacturers), a KB (kilobyte) was understood to mean 1024 bytes. In the past few years, there has been a movement to use KiB ("kibibyte") to mean 1024 bytes, and change the meaning of kilobyte to be 1000 bytes, dooming us to many more years of confusion. On the other hand, the movement seems to be confined to Gnome, and some overzealous wikipedia editing.

Will you be converting your programs to use KiB? If you have ever displayed a filesize in KB, did you divide by 1000 or 1024?

Bill the Lizard
  • 398,270
  • 210
  • 566
  • 880
Steve Hanov
  • 11,316
  • 16
  • 62
  • 69
  • 25
    While we are having fun beating our head against a wall, could I suggest we move to 100 seconds per minute, 100 minutes per hour and 10 hours per day. It would only make the day 3.77 hours longer and I could use the extra sleep. – Darrel Miller Oct 07 '08 at 01:54
  • @Darrel: You are my new hero. – Matthew Scharley Oct 07 '08 at 02:01
  • 1
    I'm also considering measuring downloads in Kibbles, in honour of this new measurement. In all fairness though, there does need to be something done about this situation, it's caused WAY too much confusion over the years. – Matthew Scharley Oct 07 '08 at 02:03
  • 1
    @ALL: There will be many post here which don't seem to answer the Question. This is due to the fact that the Question as it is posed now is quite different to the Original Question: "Do you accept "kibibyte" as a unit of measurement?" – Ande Turner Oct 08 '08 at 09:52
  • 1
    What about the infamous gigglebyte? – moo Oct 18 '08 at 20:59
  • Funny, Kibbles looks like Quibbles... – Benjol Jun 10 '09 at 12:04
  • 3
    @Darrel Miller: This is a funny but unfair comparison. The problem is the redefinition of the SI prefix "kilo", not the binary relation between the different units. – Dimitri C. Sep 23 '10 at 09:57
  • @Darrel: I completely support your proposition, for consistency and for the extra (waking, for me) hours. – quentin-starin Oct 27 '10 at 22:56
  • i move we redefine the byte as 8.192 bits. 1000 of those will be the same number of bits as 1024 of the traditional bytes, which should be renamed classic bytes, to avoid confusion. of course, if that catches on, i expect the drive markers to start measuring KB in multiples of 999.9 bytes. – JustJeff Apr 29 '11 at 21:22
  • 4
    "For decades, in the field of computing (except disk manufacturers), a KB (kilobyte) was understood to mean 1024 bytes." Just for the record, this premise is completely untrue. It's been used ambiguously for both 1000 and 1024, in the same contexts, by the same manufacturers, since before hard drives existed. – endolith Jul 13 '11 at 20:55
  • Since Kilobytes, Kilobits, and Kibibytes, do Kibibits exist as well? Cause I never heard of them, and Kibibytes are really new to me. I always thought 1 Kilobyte where 1024 bytes, but 1000 bytes makes more sense and I read that the "bi" stands for binary which makes more sense. – Lorthas Sep 24 '17 at 17:45
  • @Lorthas Yes, a kibibit is 1024 bits. – endolith Dec 13 '20 at 05:33
  • @endolith, "`Just for the record, this premise is completely untrue. It's been used ambiguously for both 1000 and 1024, in the same contexts, by the same manufacturers, since before hard drives existed.`" I don't believe I've ever seen any reference to a 1000 KB _anything_ that wasn't a disk or a modem past 1200baud. Note: he didn't say "hard drive". Thinking backwards, paper-tape updates for the DEC 11/20 were 1024x, as were their hard-drives, and 3.5" floppies were in a hybrid unit of 1.44×1000×1024 bytes. All memory was always in 1024x. – alife Oct 11 '22 at 03:31
  • In general, I see no reason for there not to be a 1024 standard for K, and multiples thereof. That there is no connection to other units is of zero consequence. Are we really worried about mixing these units up any time soon? A drive weight of 100TB/KG? This KiB business is a pedant's solution in desperate need of a problem. – alife Oct 11 '22 at 03:36
  • `3.5" floppies were in a hybrid unit of 1.44×1000×1024 bytes` So you agree that it was always ambiguous, and is a problem that needed to be fixed? – endolith Oct 11 '22 at 15:16
  • I find it super convenient and extremely informative to write that my gaming PC has 17.179869184 GB memory. Writing 16 GB would feel sloppy and useless indeed. Just like everybody else, I of course use every single byte manually, that's why I prefer the former number. – tevemadar Feb 22 '23 at 12:11

23 Answers23

89

KB is 1024 bytes, damnit.

Serafina Brocious
  • 30,433
  • 12
  • 89
  • 114
  • 5
    It would have been 1024 grams if everyone had been using 1024 for the last 20 years, so yes – Orion Edwards Oct 07 '08 at 01:50
  • 1
    What about if a small group of scientists studying wood decided that 1kg = 1000g? Should that become standard practice? Of course not. Lazy comp-sci students have been using 1024-byte units, but that's no reason to force users to deal with the issue. – John Millikin Oct 07 '08 at 02:01
  • 4
    Using 1024 makes sense whatever way you look at it. Calling it a kilobyte is confusing. Kibibyte just sounds like dogfood to me though. – Matthew Scharley Oct 07 '08 at 02:04
  • 3
    KB has been 1024 for so long that it is ridiculous to start introducing new measurements now. Long live KB1024! – Scott Alan Miller Oct 07 '08 at 02:10
  • But when you start talking charging by the Gig or the Terra or even the Peta your users won't care if they get a few extra bytes for free. – David McEwing Aug 13 '09 at 03:39
  • 33
    kilo is a SI prefix assigned to 10^3. even if we don't like it, a kilobyte _is_ 1000 bytes. get over it please :) – Stefano Borini Feb 10 '10 at 16:53
  • 2
    Jack Bauer, get out of this body! – Pascal Thivent Sep 18 '10 at 08:53
  • I upvoted this answer, and Millikin's comment – Dlongnecker Oct 28 '10 at 23:41
  • 12
    Standards exist for a reason - KiB is not ambiguous, but KB is - therefore KiB is preferred to be used when talking about 1024 bytes – Robert Oct 28 '10 at 23:44
  • 7
    Funny though that, by your definition of KB, 1KB takes 1.024 seconds to transfer over a 1KB/sec data link, instead of exactly one second as most normal people would expect. Now you see where we have a problem. – Dan Moulding Nov 03 '11 at 19:09
  • 1
    @DanMoulding Transmission speeds are measured in bits, not bytes, so it should be written as `1Kb/sec` for `1 Kilobit per second`. `1KB/sec` would mean `1 Kilobyte per second`. Unless I am completely confused at this point.. – Zack Mar 03 '15 at 17:27
  • 4
    @Zack, when the hardware folks that build communication equipment say "kilo", they (rightly) mean 1000. So, to them, 1KB/sec is 8000 bits per second. If we software know-it-alls call 1024 bytes a "KB", then 1KB takes 1.024 seconds to transfer over a 1KB/sec (8kbps) data link. – Dan Moulding Mar 03 '15 at 21:15
  • @JohnMillikin if a '*kilo* gram' can be a *base* unit, then just leave me alone and let me use my KB for my 1024 bytes, please. – n611x007 Aug 27 '15 at 09:12
  • 1
    @StefanoBorini you assume that kilo in kilobyte goes by SI. no. it's just an overloaded word. like fun. – n611x007 Aug 27 '15 at 09:14
  • 3
    @n611x007 The kilo in kilobyte isn't from SI? Funny, considering *mega*bytes, *giga*bytes, *tera*bytes, etc keep on going with SI prefixes.... I guess it was just a super coincidence? – user3932000 Sep 06 '16 at 00:07
53

I did this once before in an app. While internally it used kibbi's and mebbi's (KiB, MiB, etc), it would still display in what users (in this case IT folks) were used to. The underlying field was just a long that was in bytes IIRC.

It was forward compatible, and would at least allow you to enter 4 GB as well as 4GiB. It also understood shorthand entry like 4.5G and properly rounded back to the real number of bytes - not forcing poor user to have to enter it that way and prevent their mistakes. Updating to use IEC notation is 1 line of code.

kilo's are 1000 and 98% of the world uses metric. We need to get over it already.

I see a lot of anger in many of these responses which baffles me. SI prefixes are SI prefixes, and programmers have no right to alter them for no better reason than convenience and custom. It's odd that those in Computer Science, a highly technical field, are the one's clamoring to go back to the days of cubits furlongs and rods. wtf?

We all know what we mean, but sticking to custom alienates and confuses users. Just because in the early pioneer days some guys, when talking about computer memory, decided to reuse SI notation doesn't mean they were correct to do so.

Robert Paulson
  • 17,603
  • 5
  • 34
  • 53
  • 14
    This can't be upvoted enough. – Dan Moulding Dec 15 '09 at 16:00
  • 7
    I've always cringed at kilobytes meaning 1000 bytes, but I'd never considered the larger context of SI prefixes. After a second of consideration, I now fairly wholly support kilobyte as 1000 bytes, and I guess we get kibbi's & mebbi's. I think as programmers most of us should be able to jive with that logic. – quentin-starin Oct 27 '10 at 23:00
  • 1
    "His name is Robert Paulson." – Mr. Polywhirl Mar 19 '15 at 20:03
  • Just because in later days some folks decided to fix the reuse of SI notation doesn't mean they were correct to do so. – n611x007 Aug 27 '15 at 09:18
  • 3
    @n611x007 You have it backwards. "kilo" has always been 1,000, even since the Romans, long before SI had ever existed. – user3932000 Sep 06 '16 at 00:09
  • The problem with reusing _kilo-_ to mean 1024 is the same problem with Americans trying to "reuse" the word _meter_ to mean the SI unit of length: it's wrong. And trying to justify/rationalize it is much worse than just fixing past mistakes and moving on. – getsnoopy Oct 25 '19 at 00:57
  • 1
    @getsnoopy Meters *are* the SI unit of length... – endolith Dec 13 '20 at 05:32
  • @endolith Meters are not, _metres_ are. A meter is a device that measures something, such as an odometer, which could measure distances in metres. – getsnoopy Dec 13 '20 at 22:34
  • 1
    @getsnoopy Meters are the base unit of length in the International System of Units. – endolith Dec 14 '20 at 18:50
  • @endolith The unit is spelled _metre_, not "meter": https://www.bipm.org/en/measurement-units/base-units.html – getsnoopy Dec 14 '20 at 21:06
  • 1
    @getsnoopy That's the French spelling, yes. In Germanic languages (German, English, Dutch, Scandinavian) it's spelled "meter": https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html – endolith Dec 14 '20 at 21:15
  • @endolith It is the English spelling, as you'll see on that website, which is written in English. The French spelling is _mètre_. NIST is incorrect in this because they supposedly want to follow "US spelling", which is not only irrelevant here because the SI is a specification that is _defined_ in the English and French languages (unlike common English words which can change with dialect like "colour" vs. "color"), but it is also more of a political move than anything else. The USMA spells it properly: https://usma.org/commonly-used-metric-system-units-symbols-and-prefixes – getsnoopy Dec 15 '20 at 21:43
  • 1
    @getsnoopy The English spelling is "meter", used by over 2/3 of native English speakers. English doesn't have words ending in -re unless they're French loanwords like "theatre". The "meter" spelling is also used in Afrikaans, Danish, Dutch, German, Malay, Norwegian, Slovak, Slovenian, Swedish, etc. – endolith Dec 17 '20 at 17:50
  • @endolith The English spelling is "metre", which indeed came from French. The English spelling "meter" refers to the verb "to mete" (i.e., to measure) combined with the suffix "-er" which refers to someone or something that does something; therefore, a "meter" is somebody or something that measures, while a "metre" is something that is measured (the SI base unit of length). What other languages are doing is irrelevant. And 22% of the 1+ billion people in the world who speak English use the spelling "meter", which is incorrect to do so anyway. – getsnoopy Dec 18 '20 at 02:29
37

In my opinion, 1 Kilobyte equals to 1000 bytes is something drivemakers want you to believe, so that your drive looks more spacious than it really is. ;)

I would take 'kibibyte' more seriously if it didn't sound so much like 'Kibbles N Bits

Community
  • 1
  • 1
wai
  • 8,923
  • 4
  • 24
  • 19
  • 5
    +1 oh xkcd, what with your raptors and such – brian_d Oct 28 '10 at 23:40
  • in my opinion, it's an unethical practice by the drivemakers which is independently used to fuel attacks on the kilo=1024 tradition. Presumably for moving power from the technicals to the enterprises. – n611x007 Aug 27 '15 at 09:19
  • 1
    @n611x007 lmao, really? drivemakers use the standardised meaning of kilo et al to inflate their specs, not so they can victimise you. lotta tinfoilhattery itt. – underscore_d May 18 '16 at 20:27
  • 2
    @underscore_d No, drivemakers use the standardized meaning of kilo because hard drive sizes are arbitrary numbers with no connection to powers of 2. Abbreviating 250,000,000,000 bytes as "250 GB" makes infinitely more sense than writing it as "233 GB". – endolith Sep 06 '16 at 14:16
33

Since I spent a few years learning to be a mechanical engineer before switching majors, I have to admit that "kilo" always means 10^3 to me. From that standpoint, KiB makes sense. However, try saying "kibibyte" outloud a few times, and think about how dumb you sound.

Therefore, kilogram is 1000 grams, kilobyte is 1024 bytes.

Addendum: In addition, I agree with those who have been saying that we shouldn't change what is already established if it works. 1024 is simply a nicer number in binary. Also, "kibibyte" still sounds like something a dog eats.

Kederaji
  • 379
  • 2
  • 3
  • 5
    Or just use kilobytes, and kibibytes only when needed (AKA almost never) – John Millikin Oct 07 '08 at 01:50
  • 2
    Not sure I agree with your logic but I agree with your answer :) Who thought kibi was okay to use? Seriously. Are they claiming that 1024 meters is a kibimeter now too? – Scott Alan Miller Oct 07 '08 at 02:11
  • 2
    I sound just as dumb saying "kibibye" as i do saying "kilobyte"... Which is not so say i sound dumb! – RCIX Sep 20 '09 at 01:03
18

It's not changing the meaning of "kilobyte". Kilo means 1000. Some people were using it incorrectly to refer to units of 1024 bytes.

I never display file sizes in kibibytes, because users don't care about 1000 vs 1024. Instead, I always use "XXX KB/MB/GB", where XXX is the number of bytes divided by 1 thousand / 1 million / etc.

John Millikin
  • 197,344
  • 39
  • 212
  • 226
  • 7
    Unfortunately this means that your users will be confused, as they expect things to be displayed in bytes / 1024, because this is what windows has done forever. As right as you may technically be, you're still wrong – Orion Edwards Oct 07 '08 at 01:50
  • 4
    Users expect the number to match what's on the box. Currently, OSes displaying using the wrong (kibibyte) units are confusing the hell out of users -- witness how many people think there's some vast conspiracy of HDD builders. – John Millikin Oct 07 '08 at 01:51
  • 3
    Actually most users wouldn't know the difference between a KB or a MB – Vincent McNabb Oct 07 '08 at 01:56
  • 2
    @Vincent: a surprising number do, if only because they've noticed that files labelled "MB" take longer to download than "KB" files. – John Millikin Oct 07 '08 at 01:58
  • How long until we have file sizes labeled "small" "large" "very large"? Outlook email already does this when you sort by size. – Steve Hanov Oct 07 '08 at 02:12
  • 6
    I take it you don't know metric very well then. Kilo is k, not K. So a kilobyte in metric would be kB. – tloach Oct 07 '08 at 18:20
  • It's not about changing what kilo means. It's about changing what the reuse of kilo means. It's not incorrect. Kilo got overloaded. It was just a loanword. – n611x007 Aug 27 '15 at 09:24
  • 2
    @tloach If we're talking capitalization, then how many bytes are in MB? 1,000,000 or 1,048,576? – user3932000 Sep 06 '16 at 00:12
  • 1
    @n611x007 Yes, you're using kilo incorrectly. Stop doing that. – endolith Sep 06 '16 at 14:12
  • 1
    @user3932000 The prefix kilo- is one of the few ones where ignorant manufacturer organizations such as JEDEC made the lowecase k into uppercase K to "highlight the use of 1024 being meant". Since this luxury didn't exist with the higher prefixes, they continued the deception unannounced. So we now have kB, MB, GB, etc. meaning base-1000 if you're using it properly, while KB, MB, and GB (no higher prefixes, surprisingly) meaning base-1024 if you're following JEDEC "standards". – getsnoopy Dec 15 '20 at 21:53
16

There are 2 ways to think about this:

  1. Use what the operating system you're running on uses. That way users have a consistent experience.

  2. Use what is correct.

If you use KiB always though there will be no confusion. If you use KB there will be confusion. So if you chose option #2 then you're better off actually using 1024 and using the KiB suffix. Working with powers of 2 is more efficient anyway.

It's up to you but my rule of thumb would be that if you have a technical audience, then use KiB and avoid all confusion. If you have a large user base of non technical users, then use what your operating system uses. By the way Windows uses KB to mean 1024 bytes.

Brian R. Bondy
  • 339,232
  • 124
  • 596
  • 636
14

Areas of speciality have always used terms in ways that are understood by that specialisation. For example, a mechanical engineer building a bridge uses the term "stress" to mean something completely different from, say, a lawyer who finds out his star witness has been lying on the first day in court. Should we mandate that the engineer use the same definition for "stress" as the lawyer just because that definition is more widely used? If we do, I'm not driving across that bridge!

Kilobytes = 1024 bytes. Its an industry accepted specialisation of the term.

Chris Latta
  • 20,316
  • 4
  • 62
  • 70
  • 6
    Now if we can just get the hard drive manufacturers to agree to that! – tloach Oct 07 '08 at 18:15
  • 6
    And the metric system! – TraumaPony Oct 08 '08 at 07:01
  • 3
    So are hard drive manufacturers an industry sub-specialty, who go back to the other, non-computing usage of "kilo"? Where does it end? Does each sub-specialty in computing get to define its own prefixes? What about things that cross boundaries between specialties? The first paragraph of your comment is insightful, but it doesn't lead to a simple answer in this case! – Ken Oct 29 '10 at 00:26
  • @Ken, no. Hard drive manufacturers who used the 10-based meaning were and are exploiters who started a war on the kilo=1024 tradition because they knew it would make them more profit whichever side wins. It's divide and conquer. It is based on making an unethical move that goes in the face of an unwritten but nonetheless living tradition. And should anyone challange them they'd just say "what are you talking about? it's the standard". It's because fun things are usually not written down but lived. Killing fun and natural ecosystems on the other hand can be made by making documents. Stand up. – n611x007 Aug 27 '15 at 09:34
  • 2
    @n611x007 Is this the programmers' equivalent to War on Christmas? Go easy on the tinfoilhattery – user3932000 Sep 06 '16 at 00:13
  • 1
    @user3932000 Yes, and it's just as fictional. Hard drives have been measured as multiples of 1000 since the beginning of time. – endolith Sep 06 '16 at 14:11
12

I use KiB.

Do you really want to hurt everyone by refusing to use well-established standards just like IE?

Omer van Kloeten
  • 11,800
  • 9
  • 42
  • 53
11

I've always displayed file size in 1000-byte Kilobytes. It hardly ever matters to the people who can't tell the difference, and often relieves confusion when they see the actual number. 65323 bytes = 65Kb when rounded, and the "normal" people like that.

I probably won't ever display "KiB", since that's never what my customers want.

The arrogance of deciding not to follow the standard created by more than just the computer community (see... it isn't "new" that Kilo actually means 1000) is staggering.

billjamesdev
  • 14,554
  • 6
  • 53
  • 76
  • So to ease "confusion" do you also modify how memory is displayed? Oh wait, memory isn't measured the same way. So do you use a double standard in your calculations or in your desire for "accuracy"? No matter what some consumer is going to be confused. That's a poor argument at this stage. – Scott Alan Miller Oct 07 '08 at 02:17
  • 7
    I disagree. Memory isn't something my customers are interested in, for my web app development. File size is mainly used as a guideline for uploads, etc. But yes, if I did have to display memory, I'd just round to the 1000, and they'd like it that way. – billjamesdev Oct 07 '08 at 02:30
10

Only if the situation called for it. In almost all cases, 1,000-based units are more appropriate.

The only exceptions I know of are memory, since it naturally comes in multiples of a power of two, and CD size, since it's measured in multiples of 220 bytes by the manufacturers. Everything else, including hard drives, DVDs, flash drives, bandwidths, processor speeds, memory buses, etc. is currently measured in 1000s, and file sizes should be, too. (Or, at least, me and Steve Jobs think so. Windows will probably continue measuring file sizes in 1024s for years...)

To avoid confusing the user, use k- = 1,000, and Ki- = 1,024.

The sloppy usage of "k" to mean 1024 is an unholy abomination that should be killed with fire.

endolith
  • 25,479
  • 34
  • 128
  • 192
  • 3
    "The sloppy usage of "k" to mean 1024 is an unholy abomination that should be killed with fire." Agreed, "k" strictly means "kilo-". I can at least *accept* the usage of "K" as a shorthand for "kibi-" since Kelvin (temperature) does not apply to size. – Mr. Polywhirl Mar 19 '15 at 20:21
10

Mac OS X doesn't use KiB, MiB, GiB. On the other hand, when it uses the metric ones, it at least does the maths correctly:

Mac OS X Screenshot

Personally I prefer to get this stuff right so that users who are currently in the dark would learn from it. Waiting for users to change first is just foolish. Users didn't suddenly wake up some day and think that a kilobyte is 1024 bytes - it was software which made them think that, so shouldn't it be software's job to correct the mistake?

Hakanai
  • 12,010
  • 10
  • 62
  • 132
8

I've worked in the storage industry for a decade. Arguments over the size of a TB can vary the size of a solution by 10%. In short: programmers and the storage industry use different measurements. Neither are right all the time.

The Storage Networking Industry Association (SNIA) dictionary defines kilobyte as:

Kilobyte (KB)

[General] 1,000 (10^3) bytes.

The SNIA uses the 10^3 convention commonly found in storage and data transfer-related literature rather than the 1,024 (2^10) convention common in computer system random access memory and software literature.

My rule of thumb is:

  • Measure memory, files, file systems, and data on a network in 1024^n byte blocks.
  • Measure raw disk space — and only raw disk space — in 1000^n byte blocks.
  • Tell the customer which unit you're using. Repeat yourself often.

By and large, that keeps me out of trouble.

Garth Kidd
  • 7,264
  • 5
  • 35
  • 36
4

One program I'm working on uses "KiB" by default, but has a user pereference as to which unit of measurement to use (1024 B in a KiB, 1024 B in a KB, or 1000 B in a KB).

MiffTheFox
  • 21,302
  • 14
  • 69
  • 94
2

No. 1024 bytes is a kilobyte, regardless of whether that makes sense.

The usage of the "kilo-" prefix for units of 1024 bytes back in the day was probably a mistake. But it's now the standard. Trying to change it now only adds to the confusion.

We don't deal with the world as it should be; we deal with the world as it is.

Will Wagner
  • 4,128
  • 3
  • 22
  • 14
2

Technically KiB is correct, but I have seen it only in a few applications (mainly linux console apps). Users are either used to work with 1024 for both KB and KiB (IT people) or they don't really care and will think that "KiB" is misspelled (non-IT people).

However: I have been used to work with "Kilobytes = 1024 bytes" for over 20 years now and even though I know that it is scientifically wrong will go on using it.

If you need to provide KiB to allow your soul to rest, make it available as an option, but don't confuse poor users with yet another definition - especially if they work with an OS, that uses the non-scientific approach and defines KB as 1024.

(BTW: Kibibytes always reminds me of Tinky Winky and his friends... ;) )

BlaM
  • 28,465
  • 32
  • 91
  • 105
  • 2
    Using "k-" as if it meant 1024, when it means 1000 everywhere else, is what confuses users. "Why can't I fit 4.4 GB of data on my 4.7 GB DVD??" They aren't confused when you use the correct units. That's exactly why the correct units exist. – endolith Aug 12 '09 at 21:11
  • I don't think so, because "normal users" don't know the difference between KiB and KB. – BlaM Aug 14 '09 at 14:23
1

I tried to start using these terms when teaching my students, but I've sort of given up now.

I've taught an introductory computer course ("and this is a disk drive") a few times, and it can be confusing for the students that the prefixes mean different things in different contexts. Kilo means 1024 when you have a kilobyte or a kilobit of data, except if you store it on disk when it is 1000, and if you send a kilobit per second over a network then it is 1000, and a kilohertz is of course 1000 too. And one kilometer of fiber cable is 1000 meters! But it turns out that it really isn't that much of a problem. The engineering and computer science students need to know the difference, and they will get used to it anyway. When I meet them again in database courses or in the compiler course, there is never any confusion about the different kinds of kilos, megas and teras. And students from other areas (media design and so on) don't really care.

And after I did an informal poll among the other computer science people in my corridor at the university, and found out that most of them had never heard of these new prefixes, I definitely gave up.

Thomas Padron-McCarthy
  • 27,232
  • 8
  • 51
  • 75
1

A KB is 1024 bytes A kB is 1000 bytes unfortunately spelled out is ambiguous. I always use 1024.

Knuth refers to MB as KKBytes or kkBytes to differentiate between 1024*1024 and 1000*1000

Dan Hewett
  • 2,200
  • 1
  • 14
  • 18
0

For me, this is a bit like the 'hacker' arguments we had, back in the day.

Depending on how old and stubborn you are, 'hacker' may mean a different thing to you. For a while in the media (and probably still today, partly) people consider hacking to be the act of breaking into machines illegally. However, in the industry now, the feeling people get is that it is someone who enjoys tinkering with things.

For a while the security community wasn't sure if this would take off, and we actually tried to use 'cracker' to refer to the bad guys. I don't think cracker has really taken off like we'd like, but we have reclaimed 'hacker' as a legitimate term, to quite a reasonable degree of success.

So to me this is the same: just because the media has tried to consider a KB as 1,000, I will never back down, and always stand up for the rights of the remaining 24 bits.

24bFL

Noon Silk
  • 54,084
  • 6
  • 88
  • 105
0

I have honestly never heard of this & I doubt it's going to gain much traction in mainstream usage. I can't imagine why I would want to start doing this. The current definition of kilobyte is accurate & sufficient. I would much rather see hard drive manufacturers start using accurate terminology rather than further dumb-down technical terminology. Why can't manufacturers either build drives that are exactly xGB in size or simply say what they really are?

Glenn Slaven
  • 33,720
  • 26
  • 113
  • 165
  • 1
    As much as I support the continued use of KB and think that the kibi system is abhorrent, the actual issue is that it is NOT accurate. Technically a kilobyte would be based on 1000 not on 1024. But de facto usage over time confused everyone until 1024 is by far the more common usage. – Scott Alan Miller Oct 07 '08 at 02:14
  • 2
    In base 10 counting. But this isn't base 10, it's base 2, as Pi said, Binary units for binary machines. – Glenn Slaven Oct 07 '08 at 02:59
  • 4
    Right, and the correct binary prefixes are Ki, Mi, etc. :) – Hakanai Nov 16 '11 at 04:55
0

Other than rants about how the terminology needs to change, I have never heard those expressions used. It is not going to catch on.

Jeffrey L Whitledge
  • 58,241
  • 9
  • 71
  • 99
0

I'm still going by measurements of 210*n until computers are based on decimal...

Jimmy
  • 27,142
  • 5
  • 87
  • 100
  • 5
    Computers were originally based on decimal, actually. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_computer – endolith Aug 12 '09 at 19:49
0

Kilo means 10^3 when you're working in the decimal number system.

Kilo means 2^10 when you're working in the binary number system.

I mean, just look at it... they're both quite arbitrary. It seems to me that anything else is equally arbitrary - so we have 40-year entrenched arbitrary versus brand-new arbitrary. Which should win? For now, I vote for the entrenched method, simply because it will cause less total confusion.

At some point our technology is bound to change - think quantum/genetic computers - that point will be a good opportunity to sanitize our measuring system.

Also, some users will always be confused - should we remove confusion for them at the risk of confusing the community that makes it all happen (us and the hardware guys)? I think not.

Johan
  • 1,940
  • 1
  • 13
  • 18
-2

Drivemaker/denary Kilobytes can burn in hell. Binary units for binary machines.

Alex M
  • 2,458
  • 20
  • 15
  • 9
    So if you wrote a mapping application, you'd abbreviate 131,072 meters as "128 km", right? Binary units for binary machines. – endolith Aug 12 '09 at 21:30