In a recent note, David Woolley said: > Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 08:39:17 +0000 (GMT) > > > I thought "KB" was standard. > > I think there was a lost cause to try to standardise on something like > Ki for 1024, but it is never going to work given that no marketing > person seems to know the difference between K and k, M and M, or B and > b, and, nowadays, a lot of programmers don't seem to either. > > KB as 1024 * 8 bits has been industry standard for more than 30 years. > And "K" as 10^3 has been scientific and engineering standard for far longer than that.
> I would vote against Ki as it will simply cause confusion. > The ambiguous (more properly, simply careless) use of K, M, and G is already causing confusion, and lately, even lawsuits. It was a convenient shortcut to so overload "K" when it involved only a 2.4% discrepancy. Similarly overloading "G" results in a 7.5% discrepancy; far less acceptable, particularly when planning disk capacity. Pop quiz question: How long should it take to transfer 1GB (including overhead) of data over a 100 Mbit/sec channel? Justify your answer, particularly if it's other than 80.0 sec. I vote against the ambiguous convention. -- gil -- StorageTek INFORMATION made POWERFUL ; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
