Amar KHELIFI wrote: > > sorry i don't agree. > check the bandwidth calculator on the net, u will see that i > was correct. > + for the K and k and B and b, it is so obvious that an > explanation is not > necessary........... > thanx for letting my messages show up normally and then respond > to > them............;
Amar KHELFI, If you look at my original post, you will see that I was even guilty of mucking this all up. 1KB does not equal 1024 bits as I said, but rather 1024 _BYTES_. Again, 1024 vs. simply 1,000 in this case becuase of simple exponential math in computers/software. WAN links don't have that problem. A kbit, in terms of memory or storage, would be 1024 bits. But kbps, in terms of WAN capacity or rate, refers to 10^3 bits rather than 2^10 bits. I hope I now stand corrected... > > > ""s vermill"" a icrit dans le message > de news: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I should also have mentioned that the "B" is typically > capitalized along > > side the "K" when dealing with kilobytes (KB) and the "b" is > typically not > > capitalized when dealing with kilobits (kbps). That's > probably at least, > if > > not more, significant than the "K/k" capitalization (if, in > fact, any of > it > > is significant). I mention it because it seems to cause so > much > confusion. > > You won't see it around here much, but at some other forums > one of the > chief > > complaints relates to achieving only 1/8th the expected > download rate. > > What's happening, of course, is that the download is being > measured in > > KB/sec while the connection is rated in kbits/sec. I'll shut > up now... > > > > > > s vermill wrote: > > > > > > Amar KHELIFI wrote: > > > > > > > > since > > > > 1byte=8bits > > > > and > > > > 1Kbits=1024bits > > > > then > > > > 32kbps=32768bps=4096bytes > > > > there is no formula. > > > > > > Amar KHELIFI, > > > > > > 1kbits does not = 1024bits and 32kbps does not = 32768bps. > > > 1kbps = 1,000bps & 32kbps = 32000bps. "k" simply means > 1,000. > > > The whole idea of 1KB (KiloByte) = 1024 bits has to do with > > > binary math and the fact that computers deal in bytes vs. > > > bits. 2^10 = 1024, which is divisibly by 8 (whereas 1,000 > > > would not be). It would be very inconvenient for a > computer to > > > have to deal with information blocks that are not divisible > by > > > 8. Modern communications systems are not byte-aligned at > all > > > and deal strictly in bits. For example, a DS0 is 64kbps. > > > That's 64,000bps. > > > > > > As a side note, and I'm not sure that there's any official > > > convention to go along with this, in general, a KiloByte is > > > abbreviated KB, with a capital K. kilobits per second is > > > generally abbreviated kbps, with a lower-case k. Thus, when > > > you see a capital K, it's safe to assume 1024 is being > implied, > > > whereas when you see a lower-case k, it's safe to assume > 1,000 > > > is being implied. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ""Robert Perez"" a icrit dans le > > > > message de > > > > news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Anyone know how the conversion techniques for converting > > > > bits, bytes, > > > > > kilobits, etc, to calculate bandwidth usages? > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=65197&t=65008 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
