[USMA:27990] RE: Binary prefixes--not strictly an SI topic

[Michael Ossipov]

well well   let's recap   the fact is, that storage companies use the prefixes absolutely *right*, the one who is misunsing is computer industry?   so, whos fault is it?? ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Potts To: U.S. Metric Association Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 4:02 AM Subject: [USMA:27982] RE: Binary prefixes--not strictly an SI topic I see your manners haven't improved, Michael.   The discussion is not about floppies, but about alleged misrepresentation of disk capacity by drive manufacturers. The capacity specifications of a 90 mm diskette are simply a convenient (and historically relevant) example, with manageable numbers, for the purpose of the discussion.   Of course, if you had been following the discussion from the start, you  might possibly know that and would be able to curb your apparently compulsive rudeness.   Now, if you were to object (politely) because the discussion isn't really about SI, I could understand that. Barney Rubble, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Michael Ossipov Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 18:22 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:27980] RE: Binary prefixes--not strictly an SI topic what is this all about??   Floppies are DEAD and this is how it should be, didn't used one in the last 3 years and there is no reason for.   People who still use it are from stone age! ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Potts To: U.S. Metric Association Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 1:31 AM Subject: [USMA:27979] RE: Binary prefixes--not strictly an SI topic Euric wrote: "If the suit is silly wouldn't that be for a court to decide?" In terms of what happens next, yes. However, anyone is entitled to an opinion that may or may not agree with that of the court. Often an opinion not agreeing with that of a court is vindicated when the decision of a lower court is overturned by that of a higher court. My opinion still stands (as an opinion).  "But if the court decides not to throw it out then it must have some merit." In that particular court's opinion, yes. Others are free to continue to think otherwise. Their opinions just don't have the weight of law. "I'd still be curious to see if such a suit is still going to proceed and if it does what outcome will result." So would I. "Hopefully one that will  force the industry to either choose binary or decimal prefixes or both for their products, but not a mixture of both."  That may or may not be the outcome. As long as a manufacturer provides an unambiguous specification (e.g., capacity in bytes, using no prefix at all), the advertising may or may not be an issue. After all, how many consumers who have bought 90 mm diskettes, thinking they contained 1.44 mebibytes, would not have bought them if they knew they only contained 1440 kibibytes. I'm sure the defense counsel(s) will raise many relevant issues, including that of the capacity of the diskette when it contains multiple files, as opposed to its capacity when it contains one conventional file, or its capacity when it contains one CAB file (which always exceeds the manufacturer's stated capacity). Because of different formatting conventions, a manufacturer can really only provide an unformatted capacity (which is always greater than the effective, or practical, capacity -- except in the case of CAB files). Incidentally, when I format a 90 mm diskette, Windows tells me I have 1 457 664 bytes available capacity, which is greater than the manufacturer's claim of 1.44 MB (assuming the manufacturers of diskettes follow historical industry practice and use true base-10 megabytes). It also tells me I have 1.38 MB available, which means, in that case, they actually mean mebibytes. Again, that's an understatement, rather than an overstatement, in that 1 457 664 bytes is, in fact, 1.39 mebibytes. Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]