Not true. In the case of hard drives, 1 megabyte means 10^6 bytes. In the case of floppies, 1 megabyte means 10^3 x 2^10. I'm not even sure if in referring to memory megabyte means 2^20 consistantly or at the manufacturers whim could mean 10^6 or 10^3 x 2^10. It is only a guess as to what is meant.
This is why the IEC came up with the binary prefixes. So that there is no doscrepancy as to what is meant. A mebibyte means and can only mean 2^20 bytes and a megabyte means and can only mean 10^6 bytes. If someone, even the so-called "experts" can get it correct, then the burden of error falls on them. As in a lawsuit, the defendants can not argue that we do it wrong because we have always done it this way. Because if the IEC and the BIPM were called to testify, they would testify on behalf of the right way and not common usage. When you go against the standard, you are on your own without the blessing of the authority. The "I understand what they mean when they say....", does not mean everyone understands. Or the "I'm not confused....", does not mean everyone is not confused. If there wasn't a problem with the meaning, then the IEC would not have seen fit to adopt a set of prefixes for binary usage. But they did and they solved the issue. Now if there is any problem it is the mis-user that has to take the blame if someone decides to make an issue of it. Those who support the continued error and no different then the BWMA who supports a continued use of FFU. The reasons are the same. We have always done it this way and people understand the present convention. Euric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ezra Steinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, 2003-12-28 23:44 Subject: [USMA:28022] RE: Moral Issue?... > Actually, the term "megabyte" denotes 1,048,576 (equal to 2**20) bytes, not 1,000,000 bytes. > Similarly, "kilobyte" denotes 1,024 (equal to 2**10) bytes, not 1,000 bytes. > > That's why you can't use the SI prefixes in a binary context without overloading them. It's cleaner to have a one-to-one correspondence between syntax and semantics, which leads you to creating different prefixes to denote certain powers of two. > > Ezra > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "G. Stanley Doore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Dec 28, 2003 3:37 PM > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [USMA:28020] RE: Moral Issue?... > > The binary system is based on 2s not tens. > 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024,2048 etc are binary numbers not rounded > numbers. Binary is the most efficient use in hardware design and logic. > Special hardware was developed for the base 10 system because base 10 is > what the general public uses. > > People who deal in binary and bytes understand that the prefixes in 1 000s > or 1/1 000s know the prefixes do represent exact binary numbers. The > standard prefixes are for ease of use. > > The SI prefix definitions remain unchanged. Mega still means millions etc. > regardless of the unit. For example megapixels still means millions of > pixels. Megasbits still means millions of bits etc. In dealing in the > context of pure binary, the prefixes do not mean exact binary numbers. > > Stan Doore > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bill Potts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 4:48 PM > Subject: [USMA:28018] RE: Moral Issue?... > > > Marcus Berger wrote: > "For instance, I'd much rather see 10-bit, 100-bit buses than the current > 16, 32, 64, etc... Nothing, *technically* would make such construction > wrong or flawed IMHO. It's just a pity that someone "decided" to call 8 > bits a byte, as opposed to 10 being a bite." > > We've been over this ground before, Marcus. A 10-bit bus wouldn't make a > computer any less binary. > > The range of memory that would be addressable over a 10-bit bus would be > 2^10. Each of the memory elements thus addressable could have any number of > bits. For consistency with your approach, each element might contain 10 > bits. Again, the largest binary number that could be stored in that memory > element would be 2^10-1. The size of the largest decimal number would be > dependent on how one structured bit groups for expressing decimal digits. In > fact, for the storage of decimal numbers, a bit group containing a multiple > of 4 bits would work better. A 12-bit group would be good for decimal > numbers from 0 to 999 (10^3-1). However, used in binary fashion, it could > accommodate numbers from 0 to 4095 (2^12-1). > > As a 4-bit group, used for decimal digits, would only use 10 of the 16 > possible combinations, it would only be 62.5% efficient (as would any > multiple of a 4-bit group). Used for binary numbers, it's 100% efficient (as > is any number of bits). > > Bill Potts, CMS > Roseville, CA > http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] > > >
