We had an exhaustive discussion of this topic a few weeks ago. As you just joined the list, you couldn't be expected to know that, though.
I suggest you click on http://metric1.org/binprfx.htm and then on the link on that page.. A quick summary, though: There are binary prefixes, based on multiple-of-10 powers of two (i.e., 2^10, 2^20, etc.), and they are a defined by an IEC standard. Unfortunately, the people who use the awful "meg" and "gig" jargon don't appear to know about them and, to be realistic, they probably don't care. Meg and gig are, of course, meaningless in SI, -- the correct forms being mega and giga. Moreover, mega and giga (and all the other prefixes) are never used in isolation (no, not even kilo). Rather, they are only used as prefixes to SI units (e.g., megajoule, gigahertz). Incidentally, as bits, bytes and binary prefixes are not SI (and almost certainly never will be), discussion of them here is considered off-topic. (Not my rule, but I do agree with it.) Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Behalf Of Gavin Young >Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 11:10 >To: U.S. Metric Association >Cc: U.S. Metric Association >Subject: [USMA:28876] Re: Nanotechnology - meg in computer jargon not >the same as in SI > > >The problem in computer jargon is that a Meg does not equal >1,000,000 and a gig >does not equal 1 billion. Computers are based upon base 2 instead >of base ten >and their prefixes reflect that. A kilobyte of RAM is actually >1,024 (2 to the >10th power) bytes. A megabyte of RAM or hard drive space is actually 1,024 >kilobytes. A gigabyte of RAM or hard drvie space is actually 1,024 >megabytes. >People often forget this and assume that 100 gigabytes is >100,000,000,000 bytes >but it is really 100,073,741,824 bytes (100 x 1024 x 1024 x 1024 >bytes). Thus >the prefixes in computer jargon do not have the same meaning in >metric usage. > >Quoting Nat Hager III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Interesting article on nanotechnology in this morning's Washington Post. >> As a side benefit, it clearly puts the prefix "nano" in the national >> lexicon >> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59607-2004Feb21?language=print >> er >> >> like the computer industry has done for "meg" and "gig". >> >> Nat >> >> > > >Gavin Young >http://www.xprt.net/~hightech , http://www.renewableelectricity.com, >http://www.electric-automobile.com >
