why do computer scientists say 1KB=1024 bytes?!!
Electronics Forum Index Electronics
Circuits, theory, electrons and discussions.
 
 FAQFAQ   MemberlistMemberlist     RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
 
Google
 
Web ElectronicsHelp.net
why do computer scientists say 1KB=1024 bytes?!!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Electronics Forum Index -> Design
Author Message
Guest






Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 5:35 pm    Post subject: Re: why do computer scientists say 1KB=1024 bytes?!! Reply with quote

In article <439b5631$0$28628$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet.net>,
"John B" <spamj_baraclough@blockerzetnet.co.uk> wrote:
Quote:
On 10/12/2005 the venerable mensanator@aol.compost etched in runes:

..
..
Of course, I'm somewhat nostalgic having written my first
program with BASIC on a Teletype. It was interesting
watching the Teletype s..l..o..w..l..y print out the results
of your MIRV warhead cluster detonating over the computer's
cities and waiting for it's retaliation. It was so slow you could
add up the numbers in your head before the totals were printed
to see who won that exchange (and whether 3 independently
targeted 1 megaton warheads were better in the long run
than single 5-10 megaton warheads). But the novelty of that
wore off quickly.



/BAH

Does anyone know if Colossal Adventure is still out there somewhere? I
still use the magic words 'Xyzzy' & 'Plugh' when I need a temporary
filename. Sooo many people ask 'What's that mean?' when they see them.

That's the ADVENTure I know.

/BAH

Back to top
Guest






Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 5:35 pm    Post subject: Re: why do computer scientists say 1KB=1024 bytes?!! Reply with quote

In article <1134239932.971121.221660@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"slebetman@yahoo.com" <slebetman@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1133957672.066443.219040@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"slebetman@yahoo.com" <slebetman@gmail.com> wrote:
.. That's why a lot of older
documentation talked about 'octets'.

We never did. I don't recall ever typing that word.

The basis of the internet. Almost all RFCs use octet instead of byte:

RFC791 - IP
RFC1332 - PPP
RFC1731 - IMAP
RFC1962 - SOCKS
RFC2251 - LDAP
RFC2279 - UTF-8

etc...

On our machine achitecture (PDP-10), I could define my byte
sizes with instructions. I could have 0-36 bits/byte.


Quote:


Despite criticisms, kiB, MiB, GiB are catching on. I've started seeing
them in tender documents and specifications.

And what does a spell checker do with them?


Nothing mainly because tender documents and specifications come in
printed form on thick bundles of paper. But it makes the client's
lawyers happy.

This is a flip answer. Lawyers use spellcheckers. What's
worse is they probably use Micshit's spellcheckers. When
I was executrix, the lawyer said that Micshit often changed
the sense of a sentence by erasing or inserting a "not".
I told him about file comparing. The procedures they used
when working on contracts were horrifying.

/BAH
Back to top
Guest






Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 5:35 pm    Post subject: Re: why do computer scientists say 1KB=1024 bytes?!! Reply with quote

In article <pan.2005.12.10.20.21.32.395442@example.com>,
Rich The Newsgroup Wacko <wacko@example.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 12:56:14 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
onehappymadman@yahoo.com wrote:
Rich The Newsgroup Wacko wrote:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 05:58:02 -0800, tadchem wrote:
....
shoes off. Hard-core computer geeks wear sandals. You can get to
1,048,575 (one 'meg') that way.

And if you're naked, boys can count to 2,097,151. ;-P

Oh geez. Everyone, male or female, can count at least up to 16,777,215
(8 fingers, 2 thumbs, 10 toes, 2 arms, 2 legs). Reserve the male part
as an "overflow flag".

Nope. Not overflow. Parity check bit.


To determine if you're "odd" or "even"? ;-P

<grin> Perhaps. More like ensuring all bits are in a row.

/BAH

Back to top
Guest






Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 5:35 pm    Post subject: Re: why do computer scientists say 1KB=1024 bytes?!! Reply with quote

In article <pan.2005.12.10.20.17.43.809678@example.net>,
Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net> wrote:
Quote:
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 12:59:49 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
snip

Unlike a lot of people, I *do* care about what is inside of my box. On
a related note, I will *NOT* use Maxtor drives nor will Intel - barring
a serious shift towards quality - ever grace my systems again.

You don't have a need to know how that part of the computing biz
is working? It is a pretty bad bias that you're incorporating
into your computing usage. I stayed with AOL just to observe
what most uneducated users were experiencing. In that way I can
extrapolate computing needs and usage 5-10 years from now.

Eh?

My aversion to Intel and Maxtor is through personal experience and
overwhelming ancedotal evidence from other people. Not because of some
ignorant bias, like what you seem to be implying.

Reread what I wrote. You ensure that your bias remain ignorant.
Intel is contantly working on fixing bugs, aspects, and new
architectures or twiddles of the current architecture. If you
don't play with it occasionally, you won't know if what bit
you badly has been fixed or still exists. If you expect any
of your work to be used or transferred to or through an
Intel architecture platform, then it is wise and frugal to
check out the competition every once in a while.

I can't think of any computing that won't be put on or thru
an Intel these days.

I was astonished the other day, having been following this thread, I
checked to see what processor my $300.00 e-bay computer has; it seems
slow, and I thought I'd blame Intel, but imagine my surprise:

$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
cpu family : 6
model : 4
model name : AMD Athlon(tm) Processor
stepping : 4
cpu MHz : 996.487
cache size : 256 KB
fdiv_bug : no
hlt_bug : no
f00f_bug : no
coma_bug : no
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 1
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 sep mtrr pge mca cmov
pat pse36 mmx fxsr syscall mmxext 3dnowext 3dnow
bogomips : 1985.74

Maybe a fxxxing gigaherts isn't fast enough for today's bloatware?

It isn't bloatware that is the problem.

[emoticon gets on very familiar bandwagon]

It has to do with how computing service is measured. You
keep assuming that more Hertz implies better performance.
It does not if all the OS does is run the null job. The
null job was our way to keep a CPU ticking while it waited
for something useful to do. If resident OS code increases
1:1 as available memory capacity increases, there just isn't
any improvement in available data. The same proportion stays
out on "slow" devices rather than the much faster memory.

Note that the terms I use are old-fashioned and DEC-biased.
The guys are trying to correct my terminology to reflect
today's usages but I seem to not do substitutions easily
these days.


Quote:
I
remember installing Slackware 3, back in the late 1990's, including X,
and it was just really lean and clean and quick - really snappy response.

On a Cyrix 6X86-P150.

Sorry, hardware doesn't impress me. What does impress me is how
the OS delivers computing services to the user without forcing
the user to wrestle with it.
Quote:

What happened? Howcome everything is so blasted slow that you need a
processor ten to a hundred times faster than we used to have, just to
type a message to a newsgroup?

Do a mind exercise that counts all instructions to deliver this
letter A from my TTY to your TTY screen. You have to include
all the instructions that "pass on" the post from one server
to the next. Compare a count that uses pure newsgroup software
with the count that involves a web-based presentation. Include
all instructions of user application software plus (and this
is the important part) all the instructions than each and every
OS, which merely passes the comm packets thru, executes.
Quote:

(in case you're wondering, a "bogomip" is a "bogus MIPS" - it's just an
ordinary timing loop that doesn't account for caching or arithmetic or
anything.)

If you're really curious, these aren't bogus mips. They are
bookkeeping mips, setup mips, scheduling mips, and clocking
mips. Think about how a computer knows what to do when (the
biz calls this timing). Hint: Tick, tock, tick, tock.
Why do you think Hertz is a metric?

/BAH
Back to top
scienstein
Guest





Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 12:01 am    Post subject: Re: why do computer scientists say 1KB=1024 bytes?!! Reply with quote

1byte=8bit=2^3bit:it is a binary digit which can only be written in
terms of 0 and 1.thus has only two states two represent any number.it
is also related to cardinality of any set.which is 2^n.thus in computer
system we have 8bit=2^3:16bit=2^4 &32bit=2^5bit.rest is your common
sense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Back to top
Jeff_Relf
Guest





Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:16 am    Post subject: Since when have geeks concerned themselves with the layman ? Reply with quote

Hi One_Happy_Madman, You asked:

Why do computer scientists say 1KB = 1024 bytes ? ! !

Not using an N_bit address, e.g. using 1,000 instead of 1,024,
would waste either memory or CPU cycles,
and programmers/electrical_engineers would have to write more code/circuits.

Laymen think in terms of base_10 not base_2, e.g. 1,000 not 1,024,
but since when have geeks concerned themselves with the layman ?
Back to top
Guest






Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:35 am    Post subject: Re: Since when have geeks concerned themselves with the laym Reply with quote

You are correct, the average person thinks in base 10. Even IBM tried
to make computers which did computations in base 10 and used "Binary
Coded Decimal" but eventually, as computers became cheap enough for
"humans" to buy for themselves, the world of Binary had to merge with
the world of Decimal. No, most people really don't care that 1 kbyte
is really 1024 bytes instead of 1000. Most people don't even know the
differences between a byte and a character.

What people do care about is that they can create documents that other
people can read, without having to worry about it crashing in the
middle of the document. They want others to be able to read that
document without having to pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars
for the software that lets others view the documents. They want to be
able to find the document when someone asks about it - a week, a month,
or even a decade later. They want to make sure that others can read
the document later.

Microsoft has done a great job of making computers friendly and easy to
use - - for a price. The Microsoft's greatest contribution to the
industry is Clippy the dancing paper clip. He may be annoying to
experienced users, but all of those helps are a great gift to the
people who have never used computers before.

Open Source has done a great job of making computers friendy, easy to
use, secure, reliable, and at a much lower price. For those more
experienced computer users who want things to work faster, better, and
with less effort, and more flexability and capability, at a lower
price, then Linux is a very good choice for them.
Back to top
Kleuskes & Moos
Guest





Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:35 am    Post subject: Re: Since when have geeks concerned themselves with the laym Reply with quote

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 19:16:09 +0000, Jeff_Relf wrote:

Quote:
Laymen think in terms of base_10 not base_2, e.g. 1,000 not 1,024,
but since when have geeks concerned themselves with the layman ?

How many programs do you know that require you to use binary, octal or
hexadecimal numbers?

None?

Do spreadsheets require binary, octal or hex numbers?

No?

Then geeks _do_ care.
Back to top
mensanator@aol.compost
Guest





Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:35 am    Post subject: Re: why do computer scientists say 1KB=1024 bytes?!! Reply with quote

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Quote:
In article <1134228772.879024.316260@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"mensanator@aol.compost" <mensanator@aol.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1134147969.609373.291690@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:

Does anybody want a copy of "Lisa on a Stool" on paper
tape? I'll trade you for the lunar landscape.

Boo-hoo. Nobody ever made a male pinup. It was a couple
years later (after that printer paper phase) that Burt
Reynolds was the centerfold. It caused a huge sensation
in my group which was 100% female at the time. Even
then they wouldn't let me look and I was too cheap to
buy a magazine.

Ah, the difference between men and women.

Do you think the development of GUI was driven by men's
never ending desire to get better pinups? If women were
in charge, would we still be using TTY interfaces?

Good grief, absolutely not. Video terminals increased
production by reducing the time waiting for the mechanical
TTY innards to adjust themselves.

I actually meant text displays versus graphic, not mechanical
versus electronic.

Quote:

Not that
there's anything wrong with that, I am currently working on
making yet another port (3rd or 4th) of the 25 year old
Apple ][ text adventure game THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF EAMON
to Python so I can still play it without mucking about with
an emulator.

Why did you choose Python?

Mainly because I needed unlimited precision integers.
I have legitimate problems where the operands can
exceed 50,000 decimal digits.

Luckily for me, of the many languages where you can
get such math, Python was the first I tried. It fit very
well with my programming needs so I use it for just
about everything even when there's no danger that
Conan's coin purse will ever collect more than
2 billion gold pieces.

Quote:
Or is it what you have on-line right now?


Of course, I'm somewhat nostalgic having written my first
program with BASIC on a Teletype. It was interesting
watching the Teletype s..l..o..w..l..y print out the results
of your MIRV warhead cluster detonating over the computer's
cities and waiting for it's retaliation. It was so slow you could
add up the numbers in your head before the totals were printed
to see who won that exchange (and whether 3 independently
targeted 1 megaton warheads were better in the long run
than single 5-10 megaton warheads). But the novelty of that
wore off quickly.

I was banned from using ASR33s because I broke them from typing
too fast.

The company I worked for wanted to hang a CRT onto one of
the machines but, for hardware compatability, it had to still have
a 20ma current loop. They called it a Glass Teletype, which I
always got a kick out of.

But I guess Iron Teletypes weren't as rugged as I thought.

Quote:

/BAH
Back to top
Peter
Guest





Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:35 am    Post subject: Re: Since when have geeks concerned themselves with the laym Reply with quote

r.e.ballard@usa.net wrote:

Quote:
You are correct, the average person thinks in base 10. Even IBM tried
to make computers which did computations in base 10 and used "Binary
Coded Decimal" but eventually, as computers became cheap enough for
"humans" to buy for themselves, the world of Binary had to merge with
the world of Decimal. No, most people really don't care that 1 kbyte
is really 1024 bytes instead of 1000. Most people don't even know the
differences between a byte and a character.

Presumably base 10 BCD was used when applications programs were coded in

assembler. The IBM 1620 was a 'pure' BCD computer with variable length
fixed point numbers and IBM 360 had a set of instructions for handling BCD
computations (may have been an optional extra). AFAIK the original local
banking software was written in IBM 360 assembler - all it did was emulate
the transaction facilities of ledger machines, together with daily summary
and exception printouts for management and branches and statement printouts
for customers.

Interestingly the IBM 650 had special currency hardware for accountancy for
the British oriented market (1 pound = 20 shillings = 240 pence).

BCD instructions or at least fixed point instructions would be great for
accounting and currency formats in spreadsheets!
Back to top
Robert Israel
Guest





Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:35 am    Post subject: Re: Since when have geeks concerned themselves with the laym Reply with quote

In article <1134363924.014795.232660@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
slebetman@yahoo.com <slebetman@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:
Some 'modern' CPUs also have BCD instructions. Though I can't recall
which, it has been a long time since I've used BCD in my programs.

The CPU you're working on now probably has, because one of the data
formats used by the 8087 floating-point coprocessor was "packed
decimal": 18 decimal digits, packed two per byte, plus a sign.

Robert Israel israel@math.ubc.ca
Department of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel
University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada
Back to top
slebetman@yahoo.com
Guest





Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:35 am    Post subject: Re: Since when have geeks concerned themselves with the laym Reply with quote

Peter wrote:
Quote:
r.e.ballard@usa.net wrote:

You are correct, the average person thinks in base 10. Even IBM tried
to make computers which did computations in base 10 and used "Binary
Coded Decimal" but eventually, as computers became cheap enough for
"humans" to buy for themselves, the world of Binary had to merge with
the world of Decimal. No, most people really don't care that 1 kbyte
is really 1024 bytes instead of 1000. Most people don't even know the
differences between a byte and a character.

Presumably base 10 BCD was used when applications programs were coded in
assembler. The IBM 1620 was a 'pure' BCD computer with variable length
fixed point numbers and IBM 360 had a set of instructions for handling BCD
computations (may have been an optional extra).

Some 'modern' CPUs also have BCD instructions. Though I can't recall
which, it has been a long time since I've used BCD in my programs.
Heck, it has been a long time since I've touched assembly.
Back to top
slebetman@yahoo.com
Guest





Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:35 am    Post subject: Re: why do computer scientists say 1KB=1024 bytes?!! Reply with quote

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Quote:
In article <1134239932.971121.221660@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"slebetman@yahoo.com" <slebetman@gmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1133957672.066443.219040@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"slebetman@yahoo.com" <slebetman@gmail.com> wrote:
.. That's why a lot of older
documentation talked about 'octets'.

We never did. I don't recall ever typing that word.

The basis of the internet. Almost all RFCs use octet instead of byte:

RFC791 - IP
RFC1332 - PPP
RFC1731 - IMAP
RFC1962 - SOCKS
RFC2251 - LDAP
RFC2279 - UTF-8

etc...

On our machine achitecture (PDP-10), I could define my byte
sizes with instructions. I could have 0-36 bits/byte.


Exactly why such important specifications were written with 'octets'
instead of 'byte'. When the documents were written, PDPs were still
popular and made up a significant portion of the internet.


Quote:
Despite criticisms, kiB, MiB, GiB are catching on. I've started seeing
them in tender documents and specifications.

And what does a spell checker do with them?


Nothing mainly because tender documents and specifications come in
printed form on thick bundles of paper. But it makes the client's
lawyers happy.

This is a flip answer. Lawyers use spellcheckers. What's
worse is they probably use Micshit's spellcheckers. When
I was executrix, the lawyer said that Micshit often changed
the sense of a sentence by erasing or inserting a "not".
I told him about file comparing. The procedures they used
when working on contracts were horrifying.


Over here lawyers are still fond of using mechanical typewriters. But I
suspect a lot of the tender documents I've been getting are written in
M$ Word.

The clients use the funny new i-units to prevent us from "cheating".
But they could have easily specified kB=1024 in the definitions page or
an appendix. Except that kb also usually is 1000 bits when talking
about transmission medium. So I guess they adopted kiB to be less
confusing. Which helps a little because tender documents tend to be
vague and confusing anyway.
Back to top
Keith
Guest





Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:35 am    Post subject: Re: why do computer scientists say 1KB=1024 bytes?!! Reply with quote

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 11:58:58 -0500, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:

Quote:
In <dn6t88$4ib$1@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, on 12/07/2005
at 02:57 PM, szekeres@pitt.edu (GregS) said:

I remember the term.

The term "nybble" came from a humorous article in Datamation. I never
expected anybody to take it seriously.

It was, and was a usefull term to describe a bucket to put a BCD number
into.

Quote:
I think byte is simply a subdivision of a word,

A byte is a string of consecutive bits, and could cross word boundaries.

No, that's an architectural definition. A "byte" has no real meaning
outside a specific architecture.

Quote:
Some computers, e.g., IBM 7030, had hardware to support bytes crossing
words, while others, e.g., PDP-6/PDP-10, did not.

Exactly. A "could" and "size" are built into the architecture.

--
Keith
Back to top
Guest






Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:19 pm    Post subject: Re: why do computer scientists say 1KB=1024 bytes?!! Reply with quote

In article <439c5ad2$15$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>,
"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
Quote:
In <dn6t88$4ib$1@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, on 12/07/2005
at 02:57 PM, szekeres@pitt.edu (GregS) said:

I remember the term.

The term "nybble" came from a humorous article in Datamation. I never
expected anybody to take it seriously.

That is why a person in the biz who names things needs to take
care. The oddest things, usually the one noun you don't want,
become a common term.

Quote:

I think byte is simply a subdivision of a word,

A byte is a string of consecutive bits, and could cross word
boundaries. Some computers, e.g., IBM 7030, had hardware to support
bytes crossing words, while others, e.g., PDP-6/PDP-10, did not.

Would you put in the word "copyable" in that definition?


/BAH
Back to top
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Electronics Forum Index -> Design All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 10 of 11

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



Home & Living New Topics
Powered by phpBB