Anyone who is using base 10 is simply wrong.
Or lying to sell you a smaller storage unit.
Whatever confusion there exists, it was created by dishonest mass storage manufacturers. Prior to 1990-something, there was no confusion. As larger and larger storage devices became available on the mass consumer market, the sneaky bastards at Seagate, Quantum et al started to use base 10 to make their products appear more capacious.
The solution for that is to simply take back the kilobyte.
Possibly, legislation could help: make it unlawful for a storage device which holds 100000000000 bytes to be called a gigabyte device.
It doesn't even make sense... 1024 isn't a base two number, it's a base 10 number! If you really wanted to represent 1024 bytes in base 2, it would be 1000000000 bytes. Kibi and Mebi are not moron speak, they are the correct term for these quantities in base 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix
Using a base 10 prefix for a base 2 number is just historical weirdness. There's no sensical formal framework in which it fits with other uses of these prefixes. It's good to try to preserve old standards wherever possible. No need to reinvent the wheel. But in the long term in computer science we are trying to get to a world where ideas make sense together and form an easy to understand system. In the long term it's better if people don't have to learn this arcane idea that prefixes are base-10 everywhere except digital storage.
If you want to insist that 1KB is 1024 bytes, then you aren't talking about real "kilos", you are talking about fake, computer-nerd "kilos". Stealing these units was wrong, and should have never happened in the first place. The SI isn't being moronic in introducing KiB, MiB, and friends, it's just asking us to return what we've stolen.
Well, the "computer people" did in fact do that, through natural language extension, which is often irregular and inconsistent.
It is this committee-designed "kibi", "mebi" and "gibi" which are prescriptive. And for that reason they are broadly rejected in the industry.
"Mega" is just a foreign prefix that can flexibly serve any purpose you want, just like a Greek letter in mathematics.
Just like the Greek λ can be "anonymous function", "eigenvalue", or "air/fuel ratio", the Latin "mega-" can be 1000000 or 1048576.
Nobody had any problem with this whatsoever, until storage manufacturers started lying in order to sell you a 781 Mb drive as 800 Mb.
That said, they aren't measuring them in bits any more, and using gigabyte in the SI way is definitely misleading.
Even tapes, which along with every other "piece of string" device, have been base10 since before this cp/m / *dos mistake existed?
Why should they now be forced to be wrong?
(also, be careful what you ask for. If this were to be legislated, it'd be perfectly logical for them to fall inline with NIST - who don't agree with you on this one)
You can say that, but that doesn't make it true, or reasonable. The facts on the ground are that OSX and drive manufacturers use base-10 MB/GB.
And, as I point out in the article, CPU frequencies, GPU frequencies, thumb drive capacities, and hard drive capacities are all actually base 10, so it's not like base 10 is going to go away.
Why should the capacity of memory chips affect how we describe file sizes and drive sizes? Please explain?
Nobody wants base 10 to go away. Just away from the prefixes in kilobyte, megabyte, gigabyte!
"Giga" and "mega" do not mean exactly a million or billion; they are the root of words like "megalomania" and "gigantic".
Mega: From Ancient Greek μέγας (mégas, “great, large, mighty”), from Proto-Indo-European meǵh₂s (“great”). Cognate with Latin magnus, and with Germanic words: Gothic 𐌼𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌻𐍃 (mikils), Old English micel, Middle English muchel, English much, Old High German mihhil, Old Norse mikill, Danish meget.* [Source: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mega-]
Giga: From Ancient Greek γίγας (gígas, “giant”); cognate to giant. [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/giga-]
Nothing about a million or billion!
Kilo is the one that means one thousand, from Greek. (χίλιοι / khílioi).
> Why should the capacity of memory chips affect how we describe file sizes and drive sizes?
So that, for example, a gigabyte of swap space corresponds exactly to a gigabyte of RAM. Doh? Who wants the description of size to change when data is moved between RAM and disk?
Speaking of "memory chips", flash storage is memory chips too. We should use the same units for memory chips that we use for ... memory chips.
No they're not. They're very relavent for anything dealing with networkig and communications.
I recently programmed an atmega chip for a homebrew project and the frequency of the SPI bus was very relavent.
I don't recall ever seeing a thumb drive advertised base 10. Have you seen base 10 for thumb drives often?
Check out the actual capacity. As I mentioned in the blog post, every flash drive and SD card that I have checked has used the base-10 GB. The extra capacity is there, but it is kept in reserve for bad blocks and headroom needed for efficient use of flash. It is entirely invisible outside of the flash drive.
Base 10 is far more prevalent in computing than most computer experts realize.
Speaking it however makes you sound like you have a speach impediment and non geeks will think your're a moron. You can deduce the base of the unit from context most of the time and when you can't, unlike when reading, I can ask you for clarification right away.
"Giga inches" sounds wrong for two reasons: first, that larger distances like that are customarily expressed in units more suited to their scale, and second, that that measurement system generally doesn't use SI-style prefixes.
"KiloCM" sounds wrong because you're applying two SI prefixes to one unit and using the wrong capitalization for both "centi" and "meter". kcm could technically be represented by the "dam" unit, although it's more common to show things in that scale just as meters.
I need to remember to say "it's 3.8 Gm from Seattle to New York".
IDK,I just think going with bits is neater.
Memory is base2 because that's how we address arrays. It's the odd one out. Preferring to believe otherwise just doesn't seem very geek to me.
I also prefer base 2 for file transfer speeds just so it matches the file size convention. Fortunately most programs either default to base 2 or let you chose in the preferences.
Network line speeds are in base 10 (100Mbit ethernet is actually 100,000,000 bits/s) but there so much protocol overhead and other factors that comparing transfer speeds and line speeds is moot in most situations.