Instead of condemning the shady practices of all HDD manufacturers being the only ones perverting the sane decades old definition of KB MB GB etc. as opposed to kb mb gb etc. Hence even more confusion added.
I'm hoping a 32-bit Windows OS stays around another 10 years. I have a 16-bit journal application I'd hate to lose the function because it wont run on a 64-bit Windows OS & also lose 20 years of memories. Actually I .pdf the whole app. (all entries) every year that saves all the entries w/ details.
Hmmm. Was it an IBM CPU then? I wonder how because on PC/workstation the AMD64 architecture with the Athlon K7 has been introduced in the year 2003 (IA-64 year 2001 wasn't compatible to x86). This means on Intel based PC it cannot be older than 15 years, on server 17 years Intel workstation / PC CPUs had no X64 extension that time. AFAIK Intel then got AMD64 from AMD and AMD got SSE3 in return. When debating about "32 bit OS" and 64 bit one has to know what it actually means. One has to relate it to the process / operation. 64 bit architecture means the CPU supports the 64 bit address register and a 64 bit OS means the OS supports it, too. Nothing more and nothing less. There are still other architectures present, of course.
if it is true that (it is) 1 kilobyte = 1000 bytes 1 kibibyte = 1024 bytes so this means that all the low and medium level computer related books are teaching us wrong info that 1 kilobyte = 1024 bytes windows os is also using wrong info bcoz it measures the file size in actually KiB and not KB see here the difference what the hell is all this?? windows detect hdd size in KB but it detects file size in KiB ? I'M FREAKING OUT..
Windows calculates the file size in bytes (base-2) unit but reports then as base-10 units. (MB) For instance it shows a file of 2^20 bytes as 1.00 MB. In other words only the bytes shown are right. This is unique since other OSes have changed that already.
@Yen i read some article and wikipedia and now i understand that, there was a contradiction between 1KB = 1000 bytes vs 1 KB = 1024 bytes, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) tried to standardized things by recommending that 1 kilobyte (KB) = 1000 bytes and 1 kibibyte (KiB) = 1024 bytes and now i'm checking everything again and now i'm realizing that my previous post about it were wrong. i think now that following is right 1 KB = 1000 bytes 1 KiB = 1024 bytes (previously i thought KiB is bigger than KB and thats what caused the whole confusion but google calculator tells me KB is bigger than KiB, here it is how) I KB = 0.976563 KiB 500 GB = 465.661 GiB so its clear now (?) that hdd manufacturer are using correct terms where 1 KB = 1000 bytes thats according to IEC But microsoft is using 1 KB = 1024 bytes and according to IES it should use the term KiB instead KB, and since ms runs 90% computers thats why it became norm that 1 KB = 1024 bytes and this differs from IES recommendation. all things clear now.
maybe i add my own opinion how prefixes should be. this 1000 vs 1024 is giant mess these days. in my view s.i. prefixes i.e. kilo, mega, giga, tera and so on should never be used as 1024^x based unit. so kilo should always be 1000, mega should be 1'000'000 and so on. if 1024 based units are necessary then some other things should be used, like kibi mebi gibi, 2^x, 1024^x, exact numbers or rounded numbers. examples: 8 GiB mem 8*1024^3 B mem 2^33 B mem 8589934592 bytes ~8.58 GB (not recommended so much) how things usually are and here are lot of exceptions. 1000 based prefixes: hardisk sizes in marketing. optical media sizes in marketing. bandwidths in modems and equivalents, unit usually is bytes/s and bits/s. usb memories and memory cards in marketing. 1024 based units: sizes in devices, filesize in file browser. hardisk and optical media sizes in programs. main memory size in all cases. bandwidths (bytes/s) in programs (this varies heavily). usb and memory cards in device's user interface.
Erm, no. M$ actually makes errors (maths) What's crucial is the numeral system! Both have got correct terms. Either one sticks to the binary system or the decimal system. M$ is making an error when computing in bytes and reporting 2^20 bytes as exactly one megabyte. 10^6 isn't 2^20 !!! The amount of space is a fixed real amount and can be expressed as 2 different numbers (powers of 2 and 10) Let's say your filesize is really 47586438 bytes Then it means it has got 47.586438 Megabytes OR 45.38196373 Mebibytes. This means 47.586438 Megabytes = 45.38196373 Mebibytes. It is NOT more or less, both is the same! M$ is reporting it as 45.3 Megabytes which is wrong, though! Kilo literally means (ancient Greek) thousand. In the decimal system we have the base 10 (deca=10). In the binary system we have the base 2 (binary 2). As prefixes we have Kilo = thousand Mega = million Giga = Billion The difference from one to the other in the decimal system is always 10^3 The difference in the binary system is 2^10 though. Edit: What you have posted is actually right, too. When you say M$ should have used KiB instead of KB. I'd consider as an error (maths), though. Kilo literally means 1000 and not 1024. And the native numeral system of computers is binary.
as i've read in some sites, that in around early computer days there was a dispute over 1 KB = 1000 vs 1024 bytes. and ms decided to use 1 KB = 1024 bytes in early days, i guess they must had pretty good reason to go with it. at that time both side were using 1000 and 1024 bytes for 1 KB. so to clear that confusion IES recommended to use 1 KB = 1000 bytes and 1 KiB = 1024 bytes the side which was already using 1 KB = 1000 bytes didnt have to change anything but other side had to change. ms didnt comply with this and kept using 1 KB = 1024 bytes and didnt change KB to KiB since windows became most popular os, bcoz of that 1 KB = 1024 bytes became the norm and it is being taught in schools and books.almost whole internet uses 1 KB = 1024 bytes for file sizes. but mac uses 1 KB = 1000 bytes i hope i'm understanding it right.
I didn't like Windows XP. I was happy to hear about Windows Vista coming soon and then 7. XP was boring OS.
Boring? you mean no eye candy? Perfectamundo. Eye candy is the reason we now have operating systems at 7GB plus installed which is why people are not in a rush to slim them down. Oh, hang on,,,