I often find myself explaining the same things in real life and online, so I recently started writing technical blog posts.

This one is about why it was a mistake to call 1024 bytes a kilobyte. It’s about a 20min read so thank you very much in advance if you find the time to read it.

Feedback is very much welcome. Thank you.

  • silly goose meekah
    link
    fedilink
    English
    102 years ago

    sure, but one of the intrinsic properties of binary data is that it is in binary sized chunks. you won’t find a hard drive that stores 1000 bits of data per chunk.

    • @abhibeckert@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      The “chunk” is often 32,768 bits these days and it never matches the actual size of the drive.

      A 120 GB drive might actually be closer to 180 GB when it’s brand new (if it’s a good drive - cheap ones might be more like 130 GB)… and will get smaller as the drive wears out with normal use. I once had a HDD go from 500 GB down to about 50 GB before I stopped using it - it was a work computer and only used for email so 50 GB was when it actually started running out of space.

      HDD / SSD sellers are often accused of being stingy - but the reality is they’re selling a bigger drive than what you’re told you’re getting.

    • @wischi@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 years ago

      Look up the exact number of bytes and then explain to me what the benefits are of using 1024 conversations instead of 1000 for a hard drive?