#### Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary. Now with pictures!

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

No, 'Byte' exists outwith any system - its a unit of measurement. Mega is a

mathematical (greek or latin?) term meaning 10^6 (10 to the power 6, or

1,000,000), so a MegaByte is 1,000,000 Bytes.

Why do you even mention that a byte is not 10 bits - nobody said it was! We

know a byte is 8 bits and I don't see why that is relevant?

A KiloAnything is 10^3 (10 to the power 3, or 1,000) anythings and therefore

1 KiloByte is 1000 Bytes and, if you want to bring bits into it, 1KB is

therefore 8000 Bits.

1KG = 1,000 gramms

1KM = 1,000 metres

1KB = 1,000 bytes = 8,000 bits

1KHz = 1,000 Hz

1KDay = 1,000 days = over 33 months, or about 3 years.

I don't dispute that this case exists, but do you have a link or postable

documentation about this case - I would like to read about it. I do not

consider the manufacturers to be mislabelling their drives. 100GB is,

mathematically 100,000,000,000 Bytes. If we in the computing world decide to

interpret the term 1GB as anything other than 1 G(10^9 or 1,000,000,000)

B(bytes) , then that is our problem!

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

No, that a bit - Binary unIT and it exists regardless of system. A bit

refers to a logical 'true' or 'false' and can be counted using any

mathematical base in the same way as apples can be counted. A byte is a

collection of 8 bits and can be counted in any mathematical base. a KiloByte

is therefore 1000 of these units that we call Bytes. You can write 1000 in

base 10 as 1000 or in base 2 (binary) as 1111101000, but regardless of the

base there is the same quantity of these units.

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:36:20 -0000, "GT"

No, both are binary units. It does not exist without a

binary "thing" existing to have a "byte", it is in fact

binary only.

NO it can't. Any other base would require more than only

two choices.

NO, you are in error if you do.

... therefore nothing, because all the prior assumptions are

in error.

Which is obviously wrong.

You are ignoring that writing 1000 is not the same thing as

writing Kilobyte. Either number system can express that

quantity, but that is because the quantity is FIXED, it does

not vary based on which system is used. WIth the misuse of

Kilobyte as you did above, or Gigabyte as HDD manufacturers

do, the opposite is true and breaks a basic law- that no

matter what base is used, the actual quantity does not

change.

No, both are binary units. It does not exist without a

binary "thing" existing to have a "byte", it is in fact

binary only.

NO it can't. Any other base would require more than only

two choices.

NO, you are in error if you do.

... therefore nothing, because all the prior assumptions are

in error.

Which is obviously wrong.

You are ignoring that writing 1000 is not the same thing as

writing Kilobyte. Either number system can express that

quantity, but that is because the quantity is FIXED, it does

not vary based on which system is used. WIth the misuse of

Kilobyte as you did above, or Gigabyte as HDD manufacturers

do, the opposite is true and breaks a basic law- that no

matter what base is used, the actual quantity does not

change.

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

It doesn't matter how many 'states' something has, you can still count them

using any mathematical base. An example:

If I throw a coin in the air it will land on a head (0) or a tale (1) - a

binary choice, so lets call it a bit. There is nothing wrong with me

counting the quantity of these bits using any base I choose - binary,

decimal, octal, hexidecimal etc. The fact that a bit is a binary digit

doesn't matter, we are talking about how many of these throws (or bits)

there are. I might even choose to group my coin throws in clusters of 8 and

call these clusters of 8 throws a byte. I might then perform scientific

tests on probability and perform 1000 bytes, which I would refer to as a

kilobyte.

YES it can - Something can have any number of potential choices (2 or 50)

but it will only be in one of those choices or 'states' at any point in time

and we only need space to store one state for each element. For a bit we

need 2 possible states, but it doesn't matter how many states something has,

or what state each bit is in, its the number of elements that we are

counting. And we can count those elements using any base or any numbering

system we choose. If we choose to use a decimal (base 10) system, then we

can shorten the numbering using the standard mathematical mechanism of 1,000

chunks and refer to kilo, mega etc.

[snip]

YES IT IS THE SAME - kilo means 1000. You said yourself that "Approximations

aren't sufficient", so kilo can't mean 1024 because that is a approximation

of the true definition of kilo - 1000.

I didn't misuse kilobyte - kile means 1000 and byte is a unit to describe 8

bits.

Precisly - the actual quantity does not change. kilo means 1000 so you can't

change it to mean 1024, mega means 1,000,000 and you can't change it to mean

1048,xxx.

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:28:58 -0000, "GT"

That's the definition of it in a decimal system. If you'd

like to use Kilo in a decimal system, go right ahead...

without using byte since that makes it an invalid

expression. A valid expression would always state the exact

same quantity, which it obviously does not, hence this

thread.

That's the definition of it in a decimal system. If you'd

like to use Kilo in a decimal system, go right ahead...

without using byte since that makes it an invalid

expression. A valid expression would always state the exact

same quantity, which it obviously does not, hence this

thread.

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

Why are you ducking my question, kony?

"Bits", as you know, is a computer term and its usage in the computerese jargon

predates "bytes". If "bytes" has some sort of effect on the meaning of kilo,

because it is computerese, then "bits" would also have that same effect

following your logic.

How many bits, according to you, are meant by kilobits?

Bob

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

I may almost agree with Kony in this aspect.

I don't agree that Byte is some kind of purely binary unit that can't

be mixed with decimal.

But the convention - and it's only convention - is that Kilo Mega

Giga, when used with Byte, use the 2^x definition.

The convention comes from the fact that computers reference bytes.

The number of bytes they can reference with x bits is 2^x

The whole KibiByte thing was a late attempt, and it never took off.

People always used Kilobyte to refer to 1024 bytes, and they still do,

and they understand each other. So there was/is no need for a new

terminology.

1000.

Only Bytes have this convention.

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

"jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk" wrote:

IMO kony has been on the losing side of this whole argument. I'm somewhat

surprised.

In fact, it is usually represented by 2 hexadecimal characters (base 16), not to

be confused with decimal (base 10).

It became convenient to adopt those terms by convention, but that doesn't change

their true meaning. The burden in any discussion is upon people to define their

terms, either implicitly or explicitly. When speaking of data storage, the

original meaning of those terms is in effect and there is no convention in

effect to have them mean otherwise. If some people misunderstand that, then it's

like any similar situation where they need to educate themselves.

Whenever I have used those terms in discussions with fellow software types, it

has always been clear as to how the terms were being used in any given context.

If not, it's pretty easy to clarify by asking a question.

And likewise for Kilobytes in data transmission.

Depends om who's talking and if they are using a certain convention. Unless they

have agreed to use 1024 for kilo as a convention, then kilo is 1000 as in

kilogram, kilometer, etc and also Kilobytes, as in KBps.

Bob

IMO kony has been on the losing side of this whole argument. I'm somewhat

surprised.

In fact, it is usually represented by 2 hexadecimal characters (base 16), not to

be confused with decimal (base 10).

It became convenient to adopt those terms by convention, but that doesn't change

their true meaning. The burden in any discussion is upon people to define their

terms, either implicitly or explicitly. When speaking of data storage, the

original meaning of those terms is in effect and there is no convention in

effect to have them mean otherwise. If some people misunderstand that, then it's

like any similar situation where they need to educate themselves.

Whenever I have used those terms in discussions with fellow software types, it

has always been clear as to how the terms were being used in any given context.

If not, it's pretty easy to clarify by asking a question.

And likewise for Kilobytes in data transmission.

Depends om who's talking and if they are using a certain convention. Unless they

have agreed to use 1024 for kilo as a convention, then kilo is 1000 as in

kilogram, kilometer, etc and also Kilobytes, as in KBps.

Bob

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

Robert Heiling wrote:

Base 16 only that each hex character is made up of four bits (2^4).

Bytes were created out of convenience. A byte has 256 possible values

which allowed them to represent the entire alphabet, integer numbers,

special characters and still have room for control characters.

Base 16 only that each hex character is made up of four bits (2^4).

Bytes were created out of convenience. A byte has 256 possible values

which allowed them to represent the entire alphabet, integer numbers,

special characters and still have room for control characters.

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

Rod Speed wrote:

Useless bullshit answer.

So listen little shithead child. You might just learn something before

you go back to the third grade for another year.

The use of half-bytes for packed numeric data doesn't work very well

with seven bits, does it? Also didn't allow for much use of parity for

those 7-bit characterizations back then, did it. Six bits plus parity

wasn't quite enough, was it dickmouth.

Useless bullshit answer.

So listen little shithead child. You might just learn something before

you go back to the third grade for another year.

The use of half-bytes for packed numeric data doesn't work very well

with seven bits, does it? Also didn't allow for much use of parity for

those 7-bit characterizations back then, did it. Six bits plus parity

wasn't quite enough, was it dickmouth.

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Plenty of definitions of ascii actually say that its a 7 bit code, fuckwit child.

Irrelevant to whether you can do the entire alphabet, integer numbers,

special characters and still have room for control characters in 7 bits.

Irrelevant to whether you can do the entire alphabet, integer numbers,

special characters and still have room for control characters in 7 bits.

Irrelevant to whether you can do the entire alphabet, integer numbers,

special characters and still have room for control characters in 7 bits.

Wota stunningly rational line of arguement you have there, child.

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

interesting. I wasn't aware of the data transmission convention

regarding Bytes , being standard SI.

As Word size grows (and i'm not sure if Word size, is size of data bus

or size of cpu registers). But if we're talking "data bus", then I

suppose that'd be standard SI too ?

What would you say is the convention for HDDs..

If the convention comes from designing them then it may not be not so

well known generally because the average person isn't designing them?!

If designers go by the apparently non binary organisation. And use

10^x, then it may be better known.

Most peoples' usage of the term Byte with HDDs goes by how the OS

defines it. Windows uses the 2^x form. If other OSs and software

does the same then perhaps 2^x should be the convention for HDDs.

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

"jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk" wrote:

I wouldn't be so quick to toss in the word "standard", but it;s the way that

most of the world seems to report it.

No need to even get into that as you're dealing with the finished product. The

manufacturer reports the size in base 10. Windows reports in base 2. It's a

surprise only to the uninformed.

Shrug.

Bob

I wouldn't be so quick to toss in the word "standard", but it;s the way that

most of the world seems to report it.

No need to even get into that as you're dealing with the finished product. The

manufacturer reports the size in base 10. Windows reports in base 2. It's a

surprise only to the uninformed.

Shrug.

Bob

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

<snip>

<snip>

when you say "base 2" and "base 10" you mean base as in

base^exponent, rather than binary and decimal, right?

As i'm sure we agree,

We could use any number system (binary,decimal,octal) to represent

either number.. A different number system doesn't change the

quantity.

The quantitiy is changing due to convention for kilo,mega e.t.c. Not

due to a change of number system.

<snip>

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

It's the same. I was attempting to be unambiguous by using the mathematical term

since we are dealing with mathematics. Binary is base 2, octal base 8, decimal

base 10, and hexadecimal base 16. See the Oxford Dictionary:

Base noun Mathematics a number used as the basis of a numeration scale.

Correct.

Just to be picky, because it's needed for the topic, the quantity doesn't change

at all, but the quantity

***reported***does.

Bob

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

I don't know what a "numeration scale". It isn't defined there.

The Cambridge dictionary is very good. It says

binary number noun [C]

a number that is expressed using 1 and 0:

base (MATHEMATICS) Show phonetics

noun [C usually singular] SPECIALIZED

the number on which a counting system is built:

Fair enough, that there's a definition of base that is base^exponent.

But that "base" has nothing to do with the number system - binary,

octal e.t.c.

I don't know for sure what Oxford dictionary mean by numeration scale.

But I can see that Cambridge dictionary is quite specific, a number

system. And just to be more clear, cambridge dictionary says a binary

number is in 1s and 0s.

2^x+2^y. is not 1s and 0s.

I may even bet that Oxford dictionary agrees with cambridge on this

one(and umeration scale means number system like binary). Either way,

Oxford isn't disagree with cambridge's definition. Oxford may be

extending that definition of binary in a way i've never seen before,

and in a way that Cambridge dictionary doesn't agree with. If you are

right in your interpetation of Oxford, then it's not a standard

definition. The Cambridge one is, it's the common ground.

if one has in mind a product whose capacity or "speed" you are

specifying. Then yes. But I didn't mean that.. (hence I said quantity

changes)

I meant if one has in mind the possible meanings of , say, 32MB !

The quantity of the unit changes! The number of bytes in the kilobyte

or megabyte. As in your example. But also, in my case, if all other

things are kept equal i.e. just changing the convention, keeping 32 of

them-... 32MB in one convention is a different quantity to 32MB in

another convention. So it's not just the quantity of the unit that

changes. It's the quantity of Bytes itself

I wonder .. Before partitioning, how many bytes are on a HDD marketted

as 40GB drive? I guess that HDDs don't have an exact 2^x or 10^x

number of bytes. That's just a guess.

In which case.. The number on the box is an approximation. The number

given by windows, which happens to use a different convention, is more

precise. So in a sense, the reported quantities are different (even in

your example) ;-)

#### Site Timeline

- » Newest MemTest86, MemTest86+ incompatible with Sandy, Ivy chipsets?
- — Next thread in » Computer Hardware

- » Advice on printer/scanner/fax please
- — Previous thread in » Computer Hardware

- » hardware, UEFI, dual-boot, USBstik ?
- — Newest thread in » Computer Hardware

- » Anyone Using ESET NOD32??
- — The site's Newest Thread. Posted in » Anti-Virus Software