|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dbee
Joined: 29 Dec 2004
Location: korea
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:42 am Post subject: 'Kilo byte' rant ... |
 |
|
| Quote: |
kilo (k)* = 10 ^ 3 = 1,000 thousand
mega (M) = 10 ^ 6 = 1,000,000 million
giga (G) = 10 ^ 9 = 1,000,000,000 billion
tera (T) = 10 ^ 12 = 1,000,000,000,000 trillion
1 bit (b) = 0 or 1 = one binary digit
1 kilobit ( kb) = 10^3 bits = 1,000 bits
1 Megabit (Mb) = 10^6 bits = 1,000,000 bits
1 Gigabit (Gb) = 10^9 bits = 1,000,000,000 bits
1 byte (B) = 8 bits (b)
1 Kilobyte (K / KB) = 2^10 bytes = 1,024 bytes
1 Megabyte (M / MB) = 2^20 bytes = 1,048,576 bytes
1 Gigabyte (G / GB) = 2^30 bytes = 1,073,741,824 bytes
1 Terabyte (T / TB) = 2^40 bytes = 1,099,511,627,776 bytes
|
... I've seen this explanation quoted around the internet a few times.
Am I the only one who thinks that it makes no sense whatsoever ??
As far as I can see it goes something like this ...
1 byte = 8 bits
1 kilo = 1000
therefore
1 KB = 2^10 bytes = 1024
Hello !! ... that doesn't make any sense !!!! 
if
1 kilo = 1000
then
1KBytes = 1000 Bytes
2^10 does not have any relation with the word kilo
computers measure things in binary because it's the easiest way to gauge high/low voltage.
Humans measure things in decimal because we have ten fingers and it helps us count things when we're really drunk.
the term kilo is strictly a decimal way of thinking ... using it with binary is like saying that you had a 'flock' of silicon transistors ... it has no meaning whatsoever.
the only reason 1KB = 2 ^ 10 bytes is because it's closer to our realisation of a 'kilo' is than 2 ^ 9 is . If 2^9 were closer to 1000 then it would be termed a 'kilo'. Wrongly I might add.
I was just doing countable and uncountable nouns with the kids today. It's just struck me that bytes are 'uncountable'. Unless of course you can count in binary ... which is unlikely as it's very annoying.
Therefore technically speaking, when speaking about memory - the correct quantifier to use would be 'some'. 
Situational role play : the computer store
customer: Hi, I'd like to get some new memory for my computer pls
salesman: Sure, how much do you want ?
customer: I'd like some please.
salesman: Sorry ?
customer: Yes, give me some memory pls
salesman: Err ... could you be a bit more specific
customer: Ok then - how's about 2^10 bytes
salesman: Err, ok - let's just think of it in terms of porn ... how many movies do you want to store ???
customer: lots |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pangit
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Location: Puet mo.
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That's the way it is. Deal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It was worse before NTFS disk formatting. You formatted your HD in terms of "cluster size". If you had these large cluster sizes, like 16K, you wasted a lot of disk space. Files would get written down in clusters. A 68K file would get written as 5 16K clusters. The last bit of the file would only occupy 4K of the 5th 16K cluster. However, nothing else could be written to that empty 12K. The next file would be written to a whole new block of clusters. Back in the day when files were actually 68K in size and a one meg file was considered "bloatware", this really wasted a lot of space on your 80 meg hard drive.
Last edited by mindmetoo on Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pangit
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Location: Puet mo.
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Geeze, grandpa. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wrench
Joined: 07 Apr 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fat16 was even worse. Fat32 was a bit better but not by much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pangit
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Location: Puet mo.
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm just glad that 4 GB filesize limit is gone. Friggin' Windows 98. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dbee
Joined: 29 Dec 2004
Location: korea
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I still don't get how they managed to open up a four giga-bit address space to whatever it is now ... and at the same time reduce cluster size.
I mean a 32bit address space adds up to just over 4gb, no matter how you divide the segment and offset. The only way that you can make it bigger is by making the cluster size larger. I know that they do some trick to make it a 52 bit address space but I've no idea how that works ??
So I guess I must be missing something here ... ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
