The life of a musician

41 comments

1023
- This is up for debate, with computer prefixes now officially aligned with the standard SI prefixes.
  You'll often see a GB meaning 1000MB, and a GiB (gibibyte) meaning 1024MB.
  The ISQ (International System of Quantities) and IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) refer to it that way, and so do many others.
  But then again, some keep the more traditional 1024MB is a GB system, and maintain that the SI prefixes shouldn't count in computing because the base 2 1024 is close enough and it's the way we traditionally did it. I think Microsoft still does, for example.
  In the past, that system was close enough. After all, an additional 24 bytes or kilobytes is a tiny amount. But now that we're getting into super huge data sizes, the gap is significant. 8 terabytes by the official scale is 8 trillion bytes, but by the "traditional" scale it's 8.8 trillion bytes, a pretty sizable difference!
  In a way, 999 and 1023 are both correct. But 999 is technically the standard, and has been for a while.
  
  Programmers like 1024, because that's how binary works when you keep doubling bits, and it's cleaner and more intuitive when you're working with low level code. Normies like 1000.
  
  Great summarized, especially the "close enough" part. If you think about it this situation never would've happened if we would have based the majority of the computer designs on ternary instead of binary. https://zeta.one/kilobyte-is-1000-bytes/
  
  So, to my limited knowledge, all digital storage is still based on the idea of a switch indicating a 0 or a 1. So, in terms of data storage, you're using those switches and base 2 is imposed.
  You technically cannot build 1000MB of storage because your entire storage system is based 2. Being off by 24 isn't great, but manageable. However....
  Let's call a KB 1000 bytes, and 1MB 1000 KB: we end up 1MB as 1,000,000 bytes, and 1GB as 1,000,000,000 bytes rather than 1,073,741,824 bytes, ~7.4% off! This error compounds as we go up in units, and quickly leaves one so far from physical hardware as to question one's sanity!
  The real reason for the change is likely to be a little darker - 1.1TB sounds better than 1TB when trying to sell storage ("we give 10% more!").
  
  This is why my band is called 953 Mebibytes.
  
  I’m old and did not know this. Huh.
  Still 1024 in my heart.
- Only professionals use GiB. 👍
- GB, not GiB
- 1000 is technically correct. The best kind of correct 🙃 It's hard to explain in a short sentence because the situation is a bit of a mess. If you have a few minutes and want to go down the rabbit hole you could check out this: https://zeta.one/kilobyte-is-1000-bytes/
- 1,073,741,824 bytes
  
  1,073,741,824 moments so big
  1,073,741,824 bytes
  How do you measure, measure a gig?

Storage is measured in base 2. I don't give shit what salesperson sold courses to which moron.

Hard drive manufactures would beg to differ lmao.
"One TB? You mean 657GB?"
- 1 TB (tera, si prefix 10^3\*4) is 0.9095TiB (tebi, 2^10\*4) or 931.3 GiB
  
  That's not what I'm talking about.

41 comments