Re: [WSG] File sizes in links: kb KB mb MB etc.

2005-10-27 Thread Jason Foss
Far out Andy... now I'm really confused!!! To elaborate on your Quicktime example, I'd be inclined to say something like: * Optimised for broadband (5.4 Megabytes) * Optimised for dialup (1.2 Megabytes) Although separating binary from metric might be a new standard, it's a big ask to just throw

Re: [WSG] File sizes in links: kb KB mb MB etc.

2005-10-26 Thread Andy Kirkwood | Motive
Hi Dan, Data storage units are a bit of a can of worms. The problem lies in common-usage vs. international standards. There are also 'old' and 'new' standards for unit abbreviations. METRIC vs BINARY UNIT GUIDE Essential reading before continuing... < http://www.romulus2.com/articles/guides/mis

Re: [WSG] File sizes in links: kb KB mb MB etc.

2005-10-26 Thread Terrence Wood
Daniel Nitsche said: My only concern would be that most sites seem to use (ambiguosly) one of > the > kb varieties. > > What does everyone else think? I'd use what ever unit returns a number between 1 and 1024 e.g 874K, 1.2M, 647b. Seems a bit more metric. cheers Terrence Wood. **

[WSG] File sizes in links: kb KB mb MB etc.

2005-10-26 Thread Daniel Nitsche
Hi all, I was wondering recently what is the best format to indicate file sizes when linking to a file. For example: My inclination is to use MB (Megabytes) where appropriate (ie. if the file is greater than 0.01MB), and KB (Kilobytes) for files less than 0.01MB.  My reasoning is that more use