Re: GB vs. MB

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johan_Myr=E9en?= (
Thu, 28 Nov 1996 08:57:52 +0200 (EET)

On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, Albert Cahalan wrote:

> I would like to see the drives sold with MB=2^20.
> Since that is not so and nothing will change that,
> I would at least like Linux to agree with the drive label.

Does it really matter what they are sold as, as long as you know they are
MarketingBytes? And what difference does it make what the drive label
says? You can't see it anyway when the drive is inside the case.

> It does not really matter if the drive companies decide
> that a MB will be 937201 bytes. I'll buy "more" disk then.
> Most of all, I'd like everything to agree.

Do you _really_ think it does not matter whether a MB is 937201 bytes or
something that makes sense? As you have seen, it's going to be a tough
battle getting averyone to agree that a megabyte=10^6. I cast my vote for
everyone agreeing on MB=2^20. :-)

> The traditional MB is also hard to deal with unless you
> write everything in hex. How many GB is 1900000000 bytes?
> It is obviously 1.9 cheap GB, but it is 1.77 traditional GB.
> I do not wish to do that calculation ever.

Don't you think a k should be 1000 and not 1024 then too? And when we say
that a file is 5k, we mean exactly 5000 bytes? And a 5M file is 5000000
bytes? Should du be changed to report blocks of 1000 (or 500)? Should df
be changed to report 1000-blocks instead of 1024-blocks?

> This is 1996, and a disk MB is 10^6, like it or not.

Why should a disk MB be different from a RAM MB? Just because of the
marketdroids thought it was a good idea? "OUT, OUT!" said Saint Dogbert to
the Demons of Stupidity.

Johan Myreen