bits/bytes/capital/lower case

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paul_s
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 40
  • Views Views 852
always thought it was a windows power of 2 thing.

1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024
vs a normal persons way of doing things
I prefer 1000 to 1024
its a bit like imperial and metric in my eyes.

i prefer a yard to a meter. and as such i prefer 1000K to 1024K "it may seem a bit contradictory for people who are now thinking. but a kelomiter is 1000 meeters"
but to me mm/cm extera are just to accurate for general use.
id rather say an inch than 2.53whatever the hell it is cm's

so i go with manufaturers of hard disks and say windows should not confuse the layman with using power of 2 for storage so when they buy a 750Gb hard disk they actually get 750 reported in windows. not something more like 700.
people get confused with that stuff..

having said that if mfrs used 1024 instead of 1000 then we would get more space..
But again its like yards and meters to me and i prefer the easiest one. which is yards "3 feet. 36 inches not 3.sumthing stupid feet. and some crazy decimal placed cm."

as for the rant.. lower and upper case. i never bother making sure its correct.
only time i bother with it is with internet speeds and then i look and see what the rated speed is 4.0M/ps devide that by 8 and i come out with my aproximate download speed of 500K/ps

thats all bits and bytes though.
and those are an 8th of the size of the other
.
but when it comes to GB vs Gb. thats a power of 2 thing. and not the diference between a bit and a byte. its just a diference between a standard size.
if it was bits and bytes then a 1tb hard disk would be 125.. and that would be rediculous.
But it is implied that one is bits and the other is bytes with the lower or upper case B.. which again can end up confusing people.
if you think its bits vs bytes then you will think 1Tb is 125GB, when its not the case at all..

P.s

i also prefer celcius to farenheight.
if your going to use faren height you may aswell just use kelvin and have done with it.
i like 0c "tripple point of water" 100c"boiling point of water" (depending on pressure obviously)
vs 32f for tripple point and something stupid like 265f for the boiling point..
sure its more accurate. but like i said if you want to be that accurate about things use kelvin.
there is no need for that much accuracy in most things that we humans get up to daily.
 
Last edited:
ShambleS1980 said:
But again its like yards and meters to me and i prefer the easiest one. which is yards "3 feet. 36 inches not 3.sumthing stupid feet. and some crazy decimal placed cm.
Click to expand...
Really? you think miles yards and feet is simpler than metric? If asked how many yards or feet was in 3/4 of a mile I bet most people would need a calculator, that's if they even knew how many feet or yards were in a mile to begin with. On the other hand metric is just multiples of 10 to make it easier, I cannot see how you come to the conclusion that imperial is easier than metric.
 
it just is lol..
its what i was brought up using..

if you tell me something is 1000 yards away i can tell you exactly how far that is away in inches..
you tell me its 1000 meters away and ask me to tell you what it is in inches id need a calculator..

I am 5feet 8 inches tall..
Dont know what that is in meeters wont even bother.. but i bet it has some stupid amount of places to a decimal.
like 1.563567389 meters..
 
ShambleS1980 said:
it just is lol..
its what i was brought up using..

if you tell me something is 1000 yards away i can tell you exactly how far that is away in inches..
you tell me its 1000 meters away and ask me to tell you what it is in inches id need a calculator..

I am 5feet 8 inches tall..
Dont know what that is in meeters wont even bother.. but i bet it has some stupid amount of places to a decimal.
like 1.563567389 meters..
Click to expand...
Why are you mixing the systems together though? something 1000 metres away is 1000 metres away, why would you need to know what it is in inches? As for height noone uses metres unless it's buildings etc, like I am 6"2 which is 188cm I would never say 1.88m. Would you say you are 1.88889 yards tall if someone asked how tall you are?

Once you get past 6 feet imperial is just very hard to work with especially working to precise measurements. 1 mile 77 feet and 5/32nd's of an inch anyone? it's unworkable vs 3001.55m for example. Same reason decimal replaced old money it's much simpler to understand and workout when dealing with massive numbers.

And afterall that I still say my weight and higher in imperial btw :)
 
i just always worked in inches feet and yards. i know how far a mile is.
all these things i can visualize..

if you tell me i have to walk 36keelo meeters i have no reall idea what that is. i cant vizualize it.
you tell me i have to walk 18miles i know how far that is and about how long it would take without needing a calculator.. "about 6 hours for an avarage human"

I would not mind if a cm was exactly 1/2 of an inch. but its not..
so anything over a few inches converted to metric for me is miles out,
i like stones and pounds for weight. i can convert that in to just pounds if needed. but i cant convert it to Kg to easily. as again like cm and inches its not a round number or even x.5
they all end up being 2.532 somthing or other,

as far as im concerned imperial came 1st, or its earlyer equivalents. which are recorded back to as far as 2600Bc
and then you also have the fact that romans used miles..

i know that the british then messed about with the measurments around the time of the american civil war.
But regardless of that.

i think metrtic sould have been better. a cm could be exactly 1/2 of an inch. a kg could be exactly 1/2 a pound or 2lbds even 1.5 or 2.5..
and then everything would be much easier to visualize.
 
Last edited:
ShambleS1980 said:
i think metrtic sould have been better. a cm could be exactly 1/2 of an inch. a kg could be exactly 1/2 a pound or 2lbds even 1.5 or 2.5..
and then everything would be much easier to visualize.
Click to expand...

'Course, then you may as well not have metric at all which I guess is what you want. I think you were just unlucky to grow up during a big shift in the system of weights and measures. Must've been all sorts of systems in the past, probably imperial just held over some of the names.

1000 vs 1024 shares the same problem of mixing up two systems. Powers of 2 seems a sensible way to count computer storage. It matches precisely with things like addressable memory and its close enough to 1000 that if you don't know or care about these things, using a metric prefix will not bother you. But when you borrow the metric prefixes and only change the meaning half the time, the result is a confusing mess for all 10 types of people in the world.
 
there aren't exactly 2cm to an inch because they aren't based on each other in any way.

1L = 1Kg = 1000 cubic cm

therefore the length of a cm is actually based on the size that it occupies within the volume of a litre.
(a litre being the volume occupied by a kilogram of water)
(if i am remembering high school math/science correctly)
 
System memory is measured as 1024 because that is how the computer addresses it.

Storage space is a different story though.
But I still say drive manufacturers are scamming the consumers!

Makes me think of electronics manufacturers that quote the output of audio amps as Watts (peak) and somewhere in the fine print have another figure listed at Watts (RMS).

Now THAT is scamming consumers... The only measurement for power output is simply Watts. For an AC signal (such as audio, for example), this is always a RMS figure so listing it as RMS values is redundant. (And listing peak wattage is a scam)

OK, RMS wattage in audiophile land has criticisms regarding the way even it is measured - but at least we can perform some calculations with that figure.
 
-Acid- said:
ShambleS1980 said:
But again its like yards and meters to me and i prefer the easiest one. which is yards "3 feet. 36 inches not 3.sumthing stupid feet. and some crazy decimal placed cm.
Click to expand...
Really? you think miles yards and feet is simpler than metric? If asked how many yards or feet was in 3/4 of a mile I bet most people would need a calculator, that's if they even knew how many feet or yards were in a mile to begin with. On the other hand metric is just multiples of 10 to make it easier, I cannot see how you come to the conclusion that imperial is easier than metric.
Click to expand...


see..
its easy

12 lines = 1 inch
12 inches = 1 foot
36 inches = 3 feet
3 feet = 1 yard
440 yards = quarter mile
880 yards = half mile
1760 yards = 1 mile

so 3/4 of a mile would be 1320 yards.. "no need for a calculator"

but if some one asked me how many miles in 14 Kelometers.. id be stuck. because a meter is not actualy a proper yard.. I could guess. and id be relitivly close.. but if you changed it to how many miles in 14,000 kelometers. i would be miles out due to all the .3 sumthings.
 
ShambleS1980 said:
-Acid- said:
ShambleS1980 said:
But again its like yards and meters to me and i prefer the easiest one. which is yards "3 feet. 36 inches not 3.sumthing stupid feet. and some crazy decimal placed cm.
Click to expand...
Really? you think miles yards and feet is simpler than metric? If asked how many yards or feet was in 3/4 of a mile I bet most people would need a calculator, that's if they even knew how many feet or yards were in a mile to begin with. On the other hand metric is just multiples of 10 to make it easier, I cannot see how you come to the conclusion that imperial is easier than metric.
Click to expand...


see..
its easy

12 lines = 1 inch
12 inches = 1 foot
36 inches = 3 feet
3 feet = 1 yard
440 yards = quarter mile
880 yards = half mile
1760 yards = 1 mile

so 3/4 of a mile would be 1320 yards.. "no need for a calculator"

but if some one asked me how many miles in 14 Kelometers.. id be stuck. because a meter is not actualy a proper yard.. I could guess. and id be relitivly close.. but if you changed it to how many miles in 14,000 kelometers. i would be miles out due to all the .3 sumthings.
Click to expand...

You forgot chains
80 chains = 1 mile
 
MZ3540 said:
System memory is measured as 1024 because that is how the computer addresses it.

Storage space is a different story though.
But I still say drive manufacturers are scamming the consumers!

Makes me think of electronics manufacturers that quote the output of audio amps as Watts (peak) and somewhere in the fine print have another figure listed at Watts (RMS).

Now THAT is scamming consumers... The only measurement for power output is simply Watts. For an AC signal (such as audio, for example), this is always a RMS figure so listing it as RMS values is redundant. (And listing peak wattage is a scam)

OK, RMS wattage in audiophile land has criticisms regarding the way even it is measured - but at least we can perform some calculations with that figure.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I'm inclined to agree. It was always widely understood that a 'k' in computer parlance was 1024, not 1000. Computers work in binary and powers of two, so 2^10 is the closest power of 2 to 1000. Hard disk manufacturers saw an opportunity to argue semantics so they could sell smaller disks and brand them as larger ones. It's properly dickish, but they're technically correct (the best kind of correct)

As for PMPO vs. RMS, surely you can just convert between the two by multiplying or dividing by 0.7-ish?
 
ShambleS1980 said:
see..
its easy

12 lines = 1 inch
12 inches = 1 foot
36 inches = 3 feet
3 feet = 1 yard
440 yards = quarter mile
880 yards = half mile
1760 yards = 1 mile

so 3/4 of a mile would be 1320 yards.. "no need for a calculator"

but if some one asked me how many miles in 14 Kelometers.. id be stuck. because a meter is not actualy a proper yard.. I could guess. and id be relitivly close.. but if you changed it to how many miles in 14,000 kelometers. i would be miles out due to all the .3 sumthings.
Click to expand...
You're doing it again lol why are you trying to mix two measurement systems together? I couldn't accurately tell you how many km are in 14 mile either (well I could get close - 1mile = 1.6km roughly (1609.344 to be exact) so round about 22.4km).

10mm = 1cm
100cm = 1m
1000m = 1km

That's all metric uses, far simpler.
 
-Acid- said:
ShambleS1980 said:
see..
its easy

12 lines = 1 inch
12 inches = 1 foot
36 inches = 3 feet
3 feet = 1 yard
440 yards = quarter mile
880 yards = half mile
1760 yards = 1 mile

so 3/4 of a mile would be 1320 yards.. "no need for a calculator"

but if some one asked me how many miles in 14 Kelometers.. id be stuck. because a meter is not actualy a proper yard.. I could guess. and id be relitivly close.. but if you changed it to how many miles in 14,000 kelometers. i would be miles out due to all the .3 sumthings.
Click to expand...
You're doing it again lol why are you trying to mix two measurement systems together? I couldn't accurately tell you how many km are in 14 mile either (well I could get close - 1mile = 1.6km roughly (1609.344 to be exact) so round about 22.4km).

10mm = 1cm
100cm = 1m
1000m = 1km

That's all metric uses, far simpler.
Click to expand...


the reason i mix them up is because i use imperial, and for the most part so does every one els around here..
but then lots of others use metric. and then I have to convert metric to imperial..

its like a language.
if your speaking english and then then some one from china comes and asks you a question. you have to translate it in to something you understand..

so like i said i understand imperial.
tv shows get more and more towards using kg, Km, meters excetera. so the only way i can comprehend how heavy that is or how far it is, is by converting it to imperial..

i dont see the need to use metric. like i dont see the need to use farenheight. they are more acurate than they need to be..

1/12th of an inch is plenty accurate enough for me. (well more accurate than i will need in general day to day use)
but thats still 2.11666666666667 mm

Nothing that i use in every day situations needs to be accurate down to a mm.

its like cooking using Kelvin as your temperature.

and then you have things like.
from the knucle of my thumb to the tip of my thumb is 1 and 1/2 inches long..
from the center of my chest to the length of my outstretched arm to my side is a yard..

i dont need a measuring tape to get those figures out..

so it is easier and more convinient.
 
dunno but it is.. you try it lol..

i think thats where most of the measurments originated..

standard sizes every one has available..
 
Don't they divide inches in 16 in america?
Like the spanners and hex nuts they have sizes like 1/8" and perhaps 10/16" i think i've seen that.
But in U.k u seem to divide by 12, "lines".
Am i wrong on the 1/16 part?

---------- Post added at 23:00 ---------- Previous post was at 22:52 ----------
ShambleS1980 said:
its like cooking using Kelvin as your temperature.
Click to expand...

Never understood fahrenheit, what happens at zero F? In kelvin molecules stands still i think (absolute zero).
But i guess it's just a theoretical state then since it isn't possible to read such a temperature with physical instruments.
And what's with having the same grades on C F and K.
A bit pointless we should all use K instead much easier.
I always seem to forget the magic number to convert from F to C.
I think it differs by 38 but i'm not sure.
 
well there was imperial and then british went to america, and then there was a civil war, and britain decided to change a few things about the measurments.. and america was now independant so they didnt change too..
but you can do 1/16th of an inch no probs.. its not quite 2mm. but definatly over 1.5mm

so the american way is the original british way.

0K is a temp where theoretically all mass would lose its shape due to the ataoms not moving. "bose einstein condensation"

nothing special happens at 0F. but 0c is tripple point of water.

to convert C to farenheight i generally double it and add 32
so 0 is 0+0+32=32..
33 is 33+33+32 = 98
(its not perfect but pretty close)

you can reverse it to convert the other way.


having said all that i think i will shut up.
i have derailed this thread by quite a long way.
 
MZ3540 said:
System memory is measured as 1024 because that is how the computer addresses it.

Storage space is a different story though.
But I still say drive manufacturers are scamming the consumers!
Click to expand...
I don't really agree that storage space is a different story even if it isn't directly addressed in the same way. How much hard disk space does it take to store 1Gb from RAM? (assume no filesystem overhead). Obviously 1Gb right, no wrong, well maybe, it depends.:Doh:

With drives being so huge now and the numbers being pretty close its not exactly the worlds greatest scam anyway, just a pain in the ass on the rare occasions when you care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom