As on previous occasions I had already happened with other Chinese manufacturers that the external pendrives or SSD disks not only did
not fulfill what was promised but were also a complete deception,
since they mixed internally two types of memory (fast at first and
very slow afterwards), I decided to do a complete test for each of the
10 pendrives. I will try to explain the process I performed as best as possible for less experienced users.
Please excuse the Linux/Windows crosspost, this is a question about USB hardware relevant to both OSs!
In a review raising the spectre of the VW emissions testing scandal all over again, an Amazon customer for this 128GB USB 3.1 drive ...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B08LG94ZR8/ref=twister_B08R5S2ZWG?th=1
... claims that the manufacturer has put fast chips at the beginning so that it passes review tests well, but fills up the memory beyond the beginning with cheaper very slow chips.
Please excuse the Linux/Windows crosspost, this is a question about USB hardware relevant to both OSs!
In a review raising the spectre of the VW emissions testing scandal all
over again, an Amazon customer for this 128GB USB 3.1 drive ...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B08LG94ZR8/ref=twister_B08R5S2ZWG?th=1
... claims that the manufacturer has put fast chips at the beginning so
that it passes review tests well, but fills up the memory beyond the beginning with cheaper very slow chips.
Please excuse the Linux/Windows crosspost, this is a question about USB >hardware relevant to both OSs!
In a review raising the spectre of the VW emissions testing scandal all
over again, an Amazon customer for this 128GB USB 3.1 drive ...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B08LG94ZR8/ref=twister_B08R5S2ZWG?th=1
... claims that the manufacturer has put fast chips at the beginning so
that it passes review tests well, but fills up the memory beyond the >beginning with cheaper very slow chips.
Like everyone else, I've heard of USB sticks having fractions of the
memory that they are specified to have, with the memory wrapping back to
the beginning for address ranges beyond the physical limit actually >installed, but the above claim is a new con on me. Has anyone else >encountered this?
FTR, here's what he says in full (auto-translated from Spanish into
English) ...
"Cliente Amazon
1.0 out of 5 stars Satisfaction and disappointment mixed
Reviewed in Spain on 10 December 2019
Verified Purchase
As on previous occasions I had already happened with other Chinese >manufacturers that the external pendrives or SSD disks not only did not >fulfill what was promised but were also a complete deception, since they >mixed internally two types of memory (fast at first and very slow >afterwards), I decided to do a complete test for each of the 10
pendrives. I will try to explain the process I performed as best as
possible for less experienced users.
I proceeded to format each pendrive by unchecking the Quick Format
option, controlling the initial and final time to determine the actual
write speed (which is what formatting basically does).
The joys and disappointments in the process did not wait too long: some
took about 8 to format (writing speeds of 15~17 MB. /sec., reasonably
high for usb 2.0) and the rest between 17 and 21 minutes, which means
that at most they reached typical usbs 1.0 speeds, with variable
formatting times (nor did I want to do the speed calculations so as not
to get bitter).
Of course, with these pendrive it is true that random access...
What really annoyed me was, when I observed the speed of the process of >formatting the slow pendrives, that I could see that at first the
advance, in general, seemed normal for the first/second gigabytes and
that then there was, visually, almost a stoppage in the speed of that
advance until its completion. This, in my opinion, clearly indicates
that the manufacturer (again, another manufacturer) has mixed chips with >fast access along with very slow chips, placing access to the fastest
at the beginning so that the usual test tools give good results.
That is why I, personally, [no longer] use the typical test tools that >usually only verify a minimum part (just the initial) of the total >capacity of the external disks/pendrives. I prefer to take a little
longer and perform my writing/formatting tests more comprehensively due
to the bad experiences I have had with different memory manufacturers.
However, in my tests none of the pendrives gave write errors: a simple
method to know is to use chkdsk (in the command console) when the
formatting is finished and check that the text bad sectors does not
appear.
Of the 10 pendrives, 7 had an acceptable speed (one took 10 minutes, but
I accept it with resignation as passable) and 3 were horribly slow.
As the overall price is reasonable, I don't dare complain about it, but
I value it with only one star because of the unexpected surprises I
have encountered.
I'm sorry about the whole thing, but I think this is the only way to
show the problem and try to help other less experienced users perform
their own checks more guaranteably."
On 27/01/2023 00:02, Java Jive wrote:
Please excuse the Linux/Windows crosspost, this is a question about
USB hardware relevant to both OSs!
In a review raising the spectre of the VW emissions testing scandal
all over again, an Amazon customer for this 128GB USB 3.1 drive ...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B08LG94ZR8/ref=twister_B08R5S2ZWG?th=1
... claims that the manufacturer has put fast chips at the beginning
so that it passes review tests well, but fills up the memory beyond
the beginning with cheaper very slow chips.
Like everyone else, I've heard of USB sticks having fractions of the
memory that they are specified to have, with the memory wrapping back
to the beginning for address ranges beyond the physical limit actually
installed, but the above claim is a new con on me. Has anyone else
encountered this?
I've often noticed, the initial speed writing a large file is fast, but
then slows dramatically after some time. I assumed some type of fast
cache memory was used. Caches have always been a thing, and are
generally sensible, although it is misleading to claim cache speed is
the total write speed.
Still, it would be better to use some software designed to
test thumbdrives for this. So, for now, it is only a
suspicion. Needs further testing/verification.
Please excuse the Linux/Windows crosspost, this is a question about USB hardware relevant to both OSs!
In a review raising the spectre of the VW emissions testing scandal all
over again, an Amazon customer for this 128GB USB 3.1 drive ...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B08LG94ZR8/ref=twister_B08R5S2ZWG?th=1
... claims that the manufacturer has put fast chips at the beginning so
that it passes review tests well, but fills up the memory beyond the beginning with cheaper very slow chips.
Like everyone else, I've heard of USB sticks having fractions of the
memory that they are specified to have, with the memory wrapping back to
the beginning for address ranges beyond the physical limit actually installed, but the above claim is a new con on me. Has anyone else encountered this?
claims that the manufacturer has put fast chips at the beginning so that
it passes review tests well, but fills up the memory beyond the
beginning with cheaper very slow chips.
Please excuse the Linux/Windows crosspost, this is a question about USB hardware relevant to both OSs!
In a review raising the spectre of the VW emissions testing scandal all
over again, an Amazon customer for this 128GB USB 3.1 drive ...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B08LG94ZR8/ref=twister_B08R5S2ZWG?th=1
... claims that the manufacturer has put fast chips at the beginning so
that it passes review tests well, but fills up the memory beyond the beginning with cheaper very slow chips.
Like everyone else, I've heard of USB sticks having fractions of the
memory that they are specified to have, with the memory wrapping back to
the beginning for address ranges beyond the physical limit actually installed, but the above claim is a new con on me. Has anyone else encountered this?
Carlos E.R.:
Still, it would be better to use some software designed to
test thumbdrives for this. So, for now, it is only a
suspicion. Needs further testing/verification.
The speed of bad-o]block tests in USB-imaging software may be
a reliable indicator. These tests include read-only and
read-write tests with various patterns.
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Please excuse the Linux/Windows crosspost, this is a question about USB
hardware relevant to both OSs!
In a review raising the spectre of the VW emissions testing scandal all
over again, an Amazon customer for this 128GB USB 3.1 drive ...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B08LG94ZR8/ref=twister_B08R5S2ZWG?th=1
... claims that the manufacturer has put fast chips at the beginning so
that it passes review tests well, but fills up the memory beyond the
beginning with cheaper very slow chips.
Like everyone else, I've heard of USB sticks having fractions of the
memory that they are specified to have, with the memory wrapping back to
the beginning for address ranges beyond the physical limit actually
installed, but the above claim is a new con on me. Has anyone else
encountered this?
Of the USB flash drives that I've dismantled (after they
catastrophically fail due to exceeding the maximum write cycles), there
is only one chip inside.
https://www.usbmemorydirect.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/USB-flash-drive-motherboard-1.jpg
One chip is the for hardware interface between memory chip and the USB protocol interface (aka mass storage controller). The other chip (just
one) is for the flash memory.
If a brand and model doesn't provide a spec sheet listing the sustained
read and write speeds, don't get that USB drive. There are lots of
cheap and promotional USB drives, and they're crap for speed. I usually
look at write speed, because read speed will be inherently faster.
However, if you intend to write once to use the USB drive as archival storage, and since reads are non-destructive to flash memory, perhaps
fast write speed isn't much of a concern to you other than the first
time you add more files to the drive.
If there are multi-chip flash memory USB drives, I haven't seen them; however, I don't buy crappy cheap no-name USB flash drives. Having to
wave solder multiple flash chips on a PCB with pads with multiple chips
would seem to be a more expensive manufacture process than having just
one flash chip to mount on the PCB. If you cannot find complete specs, included read/write performances as bps or IOPs, on a drive, don't buy
that drive. You're getting an unknown that is sold solely on capacity,
and not on performance. Most consumers only look at capacity, and then
later find performance sucks.
Until the one making accusations provides proof, it looks more like
someone dissatisfied with their purchase spewing FUD. Also sounds like someone that doesn't know the difference between burst or buffered mode
and sustained mode.
Please excuse the Linux/Windows crosspost, this is a question about USB hardware relevant to both OSs!
In a review raising the spectre of the VW emissions testing scandal all
over again, an Amazon customer for this 128GB USB 3.1 drive ...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B08LG94ZR8/ref=twister_B08R5S2ZWG?th=1
.... claims that the manufacturer has put fast chips at the beginning so
that it passes review tests well, but fills up the memory beyond the beginning with cheaper very slow chips.
On 27/01/2023 00:02, Java Jive wrote:
Please excuse the Linux/Windows crosspost, this is a question about
USB hardware relevant to both OSs!
In a review raising the spectre of the VW emissions testing scandal
all over again, an Amazon customer for this 128GB USB 3.1 drive ...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B08LG94ZR8/ref=twister_B08R5S2ZWG?th=1
.... claims that the manufacturer has put fast chips at the beginning
so that it passes review tests well, but fills up the memory beyond
the beginning with cheaper very slow chips.
Thanks for all the informative replies, all of which I've read.
It seems to me that most probably what the reviewer was actually
measuring was the difference between cache and memory write speeds.
Please excuse the Linux/Windows crosspost, this is a question about USB hardware relevant to both OSs!
In a review raising the spectre of the VW emissions testing scandal all
over again, an Amazon customer for this 128GB USB 3.1 drive ...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B08LG94ZR8/ref=twister_B08R5S2ZWG?th=1
... claims that the manufacturer has put fast chips at the beginning so
that it passes review tests well, but fills up the memory beyond the beginning with cheaper very slow chips.
Like everyone else, I've heard of USB sticks having fractions of the
memory that they are specified to have, with the memory wrapping back to
the beginning for address ranges beyond the physical limit actually installed, but the above claim is a new con on me. Has anyone else encountered this?
FTR, here's what he says in full (auto-translated from Spanish into
English) ...
"Cliente Amazon
1.0 out of 5 stars Satisfaction and disappointment mixed
Reviewed in Spain on 10 December 2019
Verified Purchase
As on previous occasions I had already happened with other Chinese manufacturers that the external pendrives or SSD disks not only did not fulfill what was promised but were also a complete deception, since they mixed internally two types of memory (fast at first and very slow afterwards), I decided to do a complete test for each of the 10
pendrives. I will try to explain the process I performed as best as
possible for less experienced users.
I proceeded to format each pendrive by unchecking the ???Quick Format??? option, controlling the initial and final time to determine the actual
write speed (which is what formatting basically does).
The joys and disappointments in the process did not wait too long: some
took about 8 to format (writing speeds of 15~17 MB. /sec., reasonably ???high??? for usb 2.0) and the rest between 17 and 21 minutes, which means that at most they reached typical usbs 1.0 speeds, with ???variable??? formatting times (nor did I want to do the speed calculations so as not
to get bitter).
Of course, with these pendrive it is true that ???random access???...
What really annoyed me was, when I observed the speed of the process of formatting the ???slow??? pendrives, that I could see that at first the advance, in general, seemed ???normal??? for the first/second gigabytes and that then there was, visually, almost a stoppage in the speed of that
advance until its completion. This, in my opinion, clearly indicates
that the manufacturer (again, another manufacturer) has mixed chips with ???fast??? access along with very slow chips, placing access to the fastest ???at the beginning??? so that the usual test tools give ???good results???.
That is why I, personally, [no longer] use the typical test tools that usually only verify a ???minimum??? part (just the ???initial???) of the total
capacity of the external disks/pendrives. I prefer to take a little
longer and perform my writing/formatting tests more comprehensively due
to the bad experiences I have had with different memory manufacturers.
However, in my tests none of the pendrives gave write errors: a simple
method to know is to use chkdsk (in the command console) when the
formatting is finished and check that the text ???bad sectors??? does not appear.
Of the 10 pendrives, 7 had an acceptable speed (one took 10 minutes, but
I ???accept it with resignation??? as passable) and 3 were horribly slow.
As the overall price is reasonable, I don't dare complain about it, but
I value it with only one star because of the ???unexpected surprises??? I have encountered.
I'm sorry about the whole thing, but I think this is the only way to
show the problem and try to help other less experienced users perform
their own checks more guaranteably."
It's hard to find good reviews on these USB flash sticks. I still have
old 128 MB that STILL work today.
On 1/27/2023 6:41 PM, Ant wrote:
It's hard to find good reviews on these USB flash sticks. I still have
old 128 MB that STILL work today.
That's because it is SLC.
In alt.os.linux Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On 1/27/2023 6:41 PM, Ant wrote:
It's hard to find good reviews on these USB flash sticks. I still have
old 128 MB that STILL work today.
That's because it is SLC.
https://www.kingston.com/en/blog/pc-performance/difference-between-slc-mlc-tlc-3d-nand
was an interesting read.
In alt.os.linux Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:Have the flash industry managed to sort out the size of 1GB yet? I
On 1/27/2023 6:41 PM, Ant wrote:https://www.kingston.com/en/blog/pc-performance/difference-between-slc-mlc-tlc-3d-nand
It's hard to find good reviews on these USB flash sticks. I still haveThat's because it is SLC.
old 128 MB that STILL work today.
was an interesting read.
On 28/01/2023 08:16, Ant wrote:
In alt.os.linux Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:Have the flash industry managed to sort out the size of 1GB yet? I
On 1/27/2023 6:41 PM, Ant wrote:https://www.kingston.com/en/blog/pc-performance/difference-between-slc-mlc-tlc-3d-nand
It's hard to find good reviews on these USB flash sticks. I still have >>>> old 128 MB that STILL work today.That's because it is SLC.
was an interesting read.
bought a 256GB flash drive sometime ago but it had only 231GB. People
told me that it is because nobody uses correct measurement yet. Is 1GB = 1000MB or is it 1024MB. I have not been able to reconcile how 256GB is
only 231GB when reformatted as NTFS or exFAT (default). I lost 25GB unnecessarily.
On 28/01/2023 21:51, Carlos E.R. wrote:
The industry has very clear that 1 GiB = 1024 MiB, and 1 GB = 1000 MB.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte#Multiple-byte_units>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte#Consumer_confusion>
So you are very clever here. How do you work out 256GB = 231GB? Use your figures to demonstrate this, Mr Clever.
(256 x 1000) / 1024 = 250
How does 250 compare with 231? You can reconcile the figures for us to understand better.
On 28/01/2023 08:16, Ant wrote:
In alt.os.linux Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:Have the flash industry managed to sort out the size of 1GB yet? I
On 1/27/2023 6:41 PM, Ant wrote:https://www.kingston.com/en/blog/pc-performance/difference-between-slc-mlc-tlc-3d-nand
It's hard to find good reviews on these USB flash sticks. I still have >>>> old 128 MB that STILL work today.That's because it is SLC.
was an interesting read.
bought a 256GB flash drive sometime ago but it had only 231GB. People
told me that it is because nobody uses correct measurement yet. Is 1GB = >1000MB or is it 1024MB. I have not been able to reconcile how 256GB is
only 231GB when reformatted as NTFS or exFAT (default). I lost 25GB >unnecessarily.
On 2023-01-28 21:30, Ravi Kapoor wrote:
On 28/01/2023 08:16, Ant wrote:
In alt.os.linux Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:Have the flash industry managed to sort out the size of 1GB yet? I
On 1/27/2023 6:41 PM, Ant wrote:https://www.kingston.com/en/blog/pc-performance/difference-between-slc-mlc-tlc-3d-nand
It's hard to find good reviews on these USB flash sticks. I stillThat's because it is SLC.
have
old 128 MB that STILL work today.
was an interesting read.
bought a 256GB flash drive sometime ago but it had only 231GB. People
told me that it is because nobody uses correct measurement yet. Is 1GB =
1000MB or is it 1024MB. I have not been able to reconcile how 256GB is
only 231GB when reformatted as NTFS or exFAT (default). I lost 25GB
unnecessarily.
There is no confusion at all, except for you. You have to study and
learn the different units.
The industry has very clear that 1 GiB = 1024 MiB, and 1 GB = 1000 MB.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte#Multiple-byte_units>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte#Consumer_confusion>
On 28/01/2023 21:51, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-01-28 21:30, Ravi Kapoor wrote:So you are very clever here. How do you work out 256GB = 231GB? Use your figures to demonstrate this, Mr Clever.
On 28/01/2023 08:16, Ant wrote:
In alt.os.linux Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:Have the flash industry managed to sort out the size of 1GB yet? I
On 1/27/2023 6:41 PM, Ant wrote:https://www.kingston.com/en/blog/pc-performance/difference-between-slc-mlc-tlc-3d-nand
It's hard to find good reviews on these USB flash sticks. I stillThat's because it is SLC.
have
old 128 MB that STILL work today.
was an interesting read.
bought a 256GB flash drive sometime ago but it had only 231GB. People
told me that it is because nobody uses correct measurement yet. Is 1GB = >>> 1000MB or is it 1024MB. I have not been able to reconcile how 256GB is
only 231GB when reformatted as NTFS or exFAT (default). I lost 25GB
unnecessarily.
There is no confusion at all, except for you. You have to study and
learn the different units.
The industry has very clear that 1 GiB = 1024 MiB, and 1 GB = 1000 MB.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte#Multiple-byte_units>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte#Consumer_confusion>
(256 x 1000) / 1024 = 250
How does 250 compare with 231? You can reconcile the figures for us to understand better.
On 2023-01-28 21:30, Ravi Kapoor wrote:
On 28/01/2023 08:16, Ant wrote:
In alt.os.linux Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:Have the flash industry managed to sort out the size of 1GB yet? I
On 1/27/2023 6:41 PM, Ant wrote:https://www.kingston.com/en/blog/pc-performance/difference-between-slc-mlc-tlc-3d-nand
It's hard to find good reviews on these USB flash sticks. I still have >>>>> old 128 MB that STILL work today.That's because it is SLC.
was an interesting read.
bought a 256GB flash drive sometime ago but it had only 231GB. People
told me that it is because nobody uses correct measurement yet. Is 1GB =
1000MB or is it 1024MB. I have not been able to reconcile how 256GB is
only 231GB when reformatted as NTFS or exFAT (default). I lost 25GB
unnecessarily.
There is no confusion at all, except for you. You have to study and learn the different units.
The industry has very clear that 1 GiB = 1024 MiB, and 1 GB = 1000 MB.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte#Multiple-byte_units>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte#Consumer_confusion>
On 28/01/2023 22:30, Ravi Kapoor wrote:
On 28/01/2023 21:51, Carlos E.R. wrote:
The industry has very clear that 1 GiB = 1024 MiB, and 1 GB = 1000 MB.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte#Multiple-byte_units>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte#Consumer_confusion>
So you are very clever here. How do you work out 256GB = 231GB? Use your
figures to demonstrate this, Mr Clever.
(256 x 1000) / 1024 = 250
How does 250 compare with 231? You can reconcile the figures for us to
understand better.
'The industry', whatever exactly that means, may say one thing, but what >really matters is what people do, and the fact remains that I rarely see
GiB in practice, and OSs do one thing while disk manufacturers do another.
In OSs, and BTW this is also what I was taught in academia, ...
1KB = 1024 bytes
1MB = 1024 KB
1GB = 1024 MB
... but to storage manufacturers ...
1KB = 1000 bytes
1MB = 1000 of their KB
1GB = 1000 of their MB
Hence to convert disk manufacturers' GB figures to OS' GB figures, you
have to multiply by (1000/1024)^3, giving ...
256 (manufacturer) GB x 1000^3 / 1024^3 = 238 (OS) GB
Then there will be some file system overhead to deduct after that.
On 28/01/2023 22:30, Ravi Kapoor wrote:
On 28/01/2023 21:51, Carlos E.R. wrote:
The industry has very clear that 1 GiB = 1024 MiB, and 1 GB = 1000 MB.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte#Multiple-byte_units>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte#Consumer_confusion>
So you are very clever here. How do you work out 256GB = 231GB? Use your
figures to demonstrate this, Mr Clever.
(256 x 1000) / 1024 = 250
How does 250 compare with 231? You can reconcile the figures for us to
understand better.
'The industry', whatever exactly that means, may say one thing, but what really matters is what people do, and the fact remains that I rarely see
GiB in practice, and OSs do one thing while disk manufacturers do another.
In OSs, and BTW this is also what I was taught in academia, ...
1KB = 1024 bytes
1MB = 1024 KB
1GB = 1024 MB
... but to storage manufacturers ...
1KB = 1000 bytes
1MB = 1000 of their KB
1GB = 1000 of their MB
On 1/28/2023 4:51 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-01-28 21:30, Ravi Kapoor wrote:
On 28/01/2023 08:16, Ant wrote:
In alt.os.linux Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:Have the flash industry managed to sort out the size of 1GB yet? I
On 1/27/2023 6:41 PM, Ant wrote:https://www.kingston.com/en/blog/pc-performance/difference-between-slc-mlc-tlc-3d-nand
It's hard to find good reviews on these USB flash sticks. I stillThat's because it is SLC.
have
old 128 MB that STILL work today.
was an interesting read.
bought a 256GB flash drive sometime ago but it had only 231GB. People
told me that it is because nobody uses correct measurement yet. Is 1GB = >>> 1000MB or is it 1024MB. I have not been able to reconcile how 256GB is
only 231GB when reformatted as NTFS or exFAT (default). I lost 25GB
unnecessarily.
There is no confusion at all, except for you. You have to study and
learn the different units.
The industry has very clear that 1 GiB = 1024 MiB, and 1 GB = 1000 MB.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte#Multiple-byte_units>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte#Consumer_confusion>
The legends on packaging and on computer screens can be wrong,
so the blame is not always with the user. They switch between GB and GiB
in a willy-nilly fashion.
If I pipe dd to wc -c , I can count the bytes that way :-)
When I use slightly more efficient methods, this is what I get
"128GB" stick = 128,983,236,608 bytes [they are using the decimal method like HDD do]
"1GB" stick = 1,006,108,672 bytes [they are using the decimal method like HDD do]
Then the computer screen does the math for GiB, but prints "GB" next
to the resulting number. Unnecessarily scaring the user.
The above numbers, do not involve any file systems, so these sample
numbers are not a side effect of "formatting". These numbers
are collected from the physical layer.
On 2023-01-28 21:30, Ravi Kapoor wrote:
On 28/01/2023 08:16, Ant wrote:
In alt.os.linux Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:Have the flash industry managed to sort out the size of 1GB yet? I
On 1/27/2023 6:41 PM, Ant wrote:https://www.kingston.com/en/blog/pc-performance/difference-between-slc-mlc-tlc-3d-nand
It's hard to find good reviews on these USB flash sticks. I still have >>>>> old 128 MB that STILL work today.That's because it is SLC.
was an interesting read.
bought a 256GB flash drive sometime ago but it had only 231GB. People
told me that it is because nobody uses correct measurement yet. Is 1GB =
1000MB or is it 1024MB. I have not been able to reconcile how 256GB is
only 231GB when reformatted as NTFS or exFAT (default). I lost 25GB
unnecessarily.
There is no confusion at all, except for you. You have to study and
learn the different units.
The industry has very clear that 1 GiB = 1024 MiB, and 1 GB = 1000 MB.
On 28/01/2023 22:30, Ravi Kapoor wrote:
On 28/01/2023 21:51, Carlos E.R. wrote:
The industry has very clear that 1 GiB = 1024 MiB, and 1 GB = 1000 MB.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte#Multiple-byte_units>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte#Consumer_confusion>
So you are very clever here. How do you work out 256GB = 231GB? Use your
figures to demonstrate this, Mr Clever.
(256 x 1000) / 1024 = 250
How does 250 compare with 231? You can reconcile the figures for us to
understand better.
'The industry', whatever exactly that means, may say one thing, but what >really matters is what people do, and the fact remains that I rarely see
GiB in practice, and OSs do one thing while disk manufacturers do another.
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 22:51:28 +0100, "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-01-28 21:30, Ravi Kapoor wrote:
On 28/01/2023 08:16, Ant wrote:
In alt.os.linux Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:Have the flash industry managed to sort out the size of 1GB yet? I
On 1/27/2023 6:41 PM, Ant wrote:https://www.kingston.com/en/blog/pc-performance/difference-between-slc-mlc-tlc-3d-nand
It's hard to find good reviews on these USB flash sticks. I still have >>>>>> old 128 MB that STILL work today.That's because it is SLC.
was an interesting read.
bought a 256GB flash drive sometime ago but it had only 231GB. People
told me that it is because nobody uses correct measurement yet. Is 1GB = >>> 1000MB or is it 1024MB. I have not been able to reconcile how 256GB is
only 231GB when reformatted as NTFS or exFAT (default). I lost 25GB
unnecessarily.
There is no confusion at all, except for you. You have to study and
learn the different units.
The industry has very clear that 1 GiB = 1024 MiB, and 1 GB = 1000 MB.
I don't agree. It may be clear to you and to me, and to others here,
but most people have never heard of GiB or MiB.
The October 2021 version of the dd manual says:
N and BYTES may be followed by the following multiplicative
suffixes: c=1, w=2, b=512, kB=1000, K=1024, MB=1000*1000, M=1024*1024,
xM=M, GB=1000*1000*1000, G=1024*1024*1024, and so on for T, P, E, Z, Y.
Binary prefixes can be used, too: KiB=K, MiB=M, and so on.
which is not what they were doing previously. The February 2018 edition
says instead:
N and BYTES may be followed by the following multiplicative suffixes: c =1, w =2, b =512, kB =1000, K =1024, MB =1000*1000, M =1024*1024, xM =M, GB =1000*1000*1000, G =1024*1024*1024,
and so on for T, P, E, Z, Y.
Carlos E.R. wrote on 29/1/23 8:42 pm:
<Snip>
The October 2021 version of the dd manual says:
N and BYTES may be followed by the following multiplicative
suffixes: c=1, w=2, b=512, kB=1000, K=1024, MB=1000*1000, M=1024*1024,
xM=M, GB=1000*1000*1000, G=1024*1024*1024, and so on for T, P, E, Z,
Y. Binary prefixes can be used, too: KiB=K, MiB=M, and so on.
which is not what they were doing previously. The February 2018
edition says instead:
N and BYTES may be followed by the following
multiplicative suffixes: c =1, w =2, b =512, kB =1000, K =1024, MB
=1000*1000, M =1024*1024, xM =M, GB =1000*1000*1000, G
=1024*1024*1024, and so on for T, P, E, Z, Y.
Hmm!! Might be Picky! Picky! but shouldn't ....
"N and BYTES may be followed by the following multiplicative
suffixes: ...."
really be ....
"N and BYTES may be *preceded* by the following multiplicative suffixes: ...."
??
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 22:51:28 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-01-28 21:30, Ravi Kapoor wrote:
On 28/01/2023 08:16, Ant wrote:
In alt.os.linux Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:Have the flash industry managed to sort out the size of 1GB yet?
On 1/27/2023 6:41 PM, Ant wrote:https://www.kingston.com/en/blog/pc-performance/difference-between-slc-mlc-tlc-3d-nand
It's hard to find good reviews on these USB flash sticks. IThat's because it is SLC.
still have old 128 MB that STILL work today.
was an interesting read.
I bought a 256GB flash drive sometime ago but it had only 231GB.
People told me that it is because nobody uses correct measurement
yet. Is 1GB = 1000MB or is it 1024MB. I have not been able to
reconcile how 256GB is only 231GB when reformatted as NTFS or
exFAT (default). I lost 25GB unnecessarily.
There is no confusion at all, except for you. You have to study
and learn the different units.
The industry has very clear that 1 GiB = 1024 MiB, and 1 GB = 1000
MB.
I don't agree. It may be clear to you and to me, and to others here,
but most people have never heard of GiB or MiB.
Carlos E.R. wrote on 29/1/23 8:42 pm:
<Snip>
The October 2021 version of the dd manual says:
N and BYTES may be followed by the following multiplicative
suffixes: c=1, w=2, b=512, kB=1000, K=1024, MB=1000*1000, M=1024*1024,
xM=M, GB=1000*1000*1000, G=1024*1024*1024, and so on for T, P, E, Z, Y.
Binary prefixes can be used, too: KiB=K, MiB=M, and so on.
which is not what they were doing previously. The February 2018 edition
says instead:
N and BYTES may be followed by the following
multiplicative suffixes: c =1, w =2, b =512, kB =1000, K =1024, MB
=1000*1000, M =1024*1024, xM =M, GB =1000*1000*1000, G =1024*1024*1024,
and so on for T, P, E, Z, Y.
Hmm!! Might be Picky! Picky! but shouldn't ....
"N and BYTES may be followed by the following multiplicative
suffixes: ...."
really be ....
"N and BYTES may be *preceded* by the following multiplicative
suffixes: ...."
On 2023-01-30 11:17, Daniel65 wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote on 29/1/23 8:42 pm:
<Snip>
The October 2021 version of the dd manual says:
N and BYTES may be followed by the following
multiplicative suffixes: c=1, w=2, b=512, kB=1000, K=1024,
MB=1000*1000, M=1024*1024, xM=M, GB=1000*1000*1000, G=1024*1024*1024,
and so on for T, P, E, Z, Y. Binary prefixes can be used, too:
KiB=K, MiB=M, and so on.
which is not what they were doing previously. The February 2018
edition says instead:
N and BYTES may be followed by the following
multiplicative suffixes: c =1, w =2, b =512, kB =1000, K =1024, MB
=1000*1000, M =1024*1024, xM =M, GB =1000*1000*1000, G
=1024*1024*1024, and so on for T, P, E, Z, Y.
Hmm!! Might be Picky! Picky! but shouldn't ....
"N and BYTES may be followed by the following multiplicative
suffixes: ...."
really be ....
"N and BYTES may be *preceded* by the following multiplicative
suffixes: ...."
??
Tell them :-)
On 2023-01-29 15:27, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 22:51:28 +0100, "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
The industry has very clear that 1 GiB = 1024 MiB, and 1 GB = 1000 MB.
I don't agree. It may be clear to you and to me, and to others here,
but most people have never heard of GiB or MiB.
Then learn.
The computer industry have done it wrong for decades (looking at
Microsoft and others).
On 2023-01-28 21:30, Ravi Kapoor wrote:
Have the flash industry managed to sort out the size of 1GB yet? I
bought a 256GB flash drive sometime ago but it had only 231GB. People
told me that it is because nobody uses correct measurement yet. Is 1GB =
1000MB or is it 1024MB. I have not been able to reconcile how 256GB is
only 231GB when reformatted as NTFS or exFAT (default). I lost 25GB
unnecessarily.
There is no confusion at all, except for you. You have to study and
learn the different units.
The industry has very clear that 1 GiB = 1024 MiB, and 1 GB = 1000 MB.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte#Multiple-byte_units>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte#Consumer_confusion>
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
On 2023-01-28 21:30, Ravi Kapoor wrote:
Have the flash industry managed to sort out the size of 1GB yet? I
bought a 256GB flash drive sometime ago but it had only 231GB. People
told me that it is because nobody uses correct measurement yet. Is 1GB = >>> 1000MB or is it 1024MB. I have not been able to reconcile how 256GB is
only 231GB when reformatted as NTFS or exFAT (default). I lost 25GB
unnecessarily.
There is no confusion at all, except for you. You have to study and
learn the different units.
The industry has very clear that 1 GiB = 1024 MiB, and 1 GB = 1000 MB.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte#Multiple-byte_units>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte#Consumer_confusion>
The storage industry, yes. But RAM is still routinely sold with >1GB=2^30bytes, leading to the rather bizarre situation where a laptop
spec might claim, for example, 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD, with different >meanings for GB in each case.
On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 18:43:57 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-01-29 15:27, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 22:51:28 +0100, "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
The industry has very clear that 1 GiB = 1024 MiB, and 1 GB = 1000 MB.
I don't agree. It may be clear to you and to me, and to others here,
but most people have never heard of GiB or MiB.
Then learn.
The computer industry have done it wrong for decades (looking at
Microsoft and others).
Many English words, phrases, and abbreviations have been used
incorrectly for much longer than decades. But after a while their new
usage gets established, and nearly everyone uses it. What was once
wrong doesn't remain wrong forever. That's the nature of language; it changes.
So as far as I'm concerned, despite the existing standards, KB mean
1024, MB means 1024 x 1024, GB means 1024 x 1024 x 1024, etc. and KiB,
MiB, Gib, etc. are almost never used and shouldn't be. A disk drive
that's called 2GB should have 2,147,483,648 bytes, not 2,000,000,000.
On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 18:43:57 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-01-29 15:27, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 22:51:28 +0100, "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
The industry has very clear that 1 GiB = 1024 MiB, and 1 GB = 1000 MB.
I don't agree. It may be clear to you and to me, and to others here,
but most people have never heard of GiB or MiB.
Then learn.
The computer industry have done it wrong for decades (looking at
Microsoft and others).
Many English words, phrases, and abbreviations have been used
incorrectly for much longer than decades. But after a while their new
usage gets established, and nearly everyone uses it. What was once
wrong doesn't remain wrong forever. That's the nature of language; it changes.
On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 18:43:57 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-01-29 15:27, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 22:51:28 +0100, "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
The industry has very clear that 1 GiB = 1024 MiB, and 1 GB = 1000 MB.
I don't agree. It may be clear to you and to me, and to others here,
but most people have never heard of GiB or MiB.
Then learn.
The computer industry have done it wrong for decades (looking at
Microsoft and others).
Many English words, phrases, and abbreviations have been used
incorrectly for much longer than decades. But after a while their new
usage gets established, and nearly everyone uses it. What was once
wrong doesn't remain wrong forever. That's the nature of language; it changes.
So as far as I'm concerned, despite the existing standards, KB mean
1024, MB means 1024 x 1024, GB means 1024 x 1024 x 1024, etc. and KiB,
MiB, Gib, etc. are almost never used and shouldn't be. A disk drive
that's called 2GB should have 2,147,483,648 bytes, not 2,000,000,000.
On 30/01/2023 18:10, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 18:43:57 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-01-29 15:27, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 22:51:28 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
The industry has very clear that 1 GiB = 1024 MiB, and 1 GB = 1000 MB. >>>>
I don't agree. It may be clear to you and to me, and to others here,
but most people have never heard of GiB or MiB.
Then learn.
The computer industry have done it wrong for decades (looking at
Microsoft and others).
Many English words, phrases, and abbreviations have been used
incorrectly for much longer than decades. But after a while their new
usage gets established, and nearly everyone uses it. What was once
wrong doesn't remain wrong forever. That's the nature of language; it
changes.
So as far as I'm concerned, despite the existing standards, KB mean
1024, MB means 1024 x 1024, GB means 1024 x 1024 x 1024, etc. and KiB,
MiB, Gib, etc. are almost never used and shouldn't be. A disk drive
that's called 2GB should have 2,147,483,648 bytes, not 2,000,000,000.
But...
We use decimal for most other stuff, why would we want to use binary for
this special case? K means 10^3 not 2^10, M means 10^6, G means 10^9.
Why introduce complexity, unnecessary special cases?
What advantage do you think 2^10, 2^20 offers?
On 2023-01-30 19:10, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 18:43:57 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-01-29 15:27, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 22:51:28 +0100, "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
The industry has very clear that 1 GiB = 1024 MiB, and 1 GB = 1000 MB. >>>>
I don't agree. It may be clear to you and to me, and to others here,
but most people have never heard of GiB or MiB.
Then learn.
The computer industry have done it wrong for decades (looking at
Microsoft and others).
Many English words, phrases, and abbreviations have been used
incorrectly for much longer than decades. But after a while their new
usage gets established, and nearly everyone uses it. What was once
wrong doesn't remain wrong forever. That's the nature of language; it
changes.
So as far as I'm concerned, despite the existing standards, KB mean
1024, MB means 1024 x 1024, GB means 1024 x 1024 x 1024, etc. and KiB,
MiB, Gib, etc. are almost never used and shouldn't be. A disk drive
that's called 2GB should have 2,147,483,648 bytes, not 2,000,000,000.
Well, that has decreed wrong.
On 30/01/2023 18:10, Ken Blake wrote:
So as far as I'm concerned, despite the existing standards, KB mean
1024, MB means 1024 x 1024, GB means 1024 x 1024 x 1024, etc. and KiB,
MiB, Gib, etc. are almost never used and shouldn't be. A disk drive
that's called 2GB should have 2,147,483,648 bytes, not 2,000,000,000.
But...
We use decimal for most other stuff, why would we want to use binary
for this special case? K means 10^3 not 2^10, M means 10^6, G means
10^9. Why introduce complexity, unnecessary special cases?
What advantage do you think 2^10, 2^20 offers?
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 10:58:15 +0000, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me>
wrote:
My point, once again, is that when drive manufacturers use the
established standard for disk drives when almost the rest of the
computer world does it differently, it confuses people and is a bad
thing to do. In my view, this is a case where consistency is more
important than standards.
On 30/01/2023 18:10, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 18:43:57 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-01-29 15:27, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 22:51:28 +0100, "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
The industry has very clear that 1 GiB = 1024 MiB, and 1 GB = 1000 MB. >>>>
I don't agree. It may be clear to you and to me, and to others here,
but most people have never heard of GiB or MiB.
Then learn.
The computer industry have done it wrong for decades (looking at
Microsoft and others).
Many English words, phrases, and abbreviations have been used
incorrectly for much longer than decades. But after a while their new
usage gets established, and nearly everyone uses it. What was once
wrong doesn't remain wrong forever. That's the nature of language; it
changes.
So as far as I'm concerned, despite the existing standards, KB mean
1024, MB means 1024 x 1024, GB means 1024 x 1024 x 1024, etc. and KiB,
MiB, Gib, etc. are almost never used and shouldn't be. A disk drive
that's called 2GB should have 2,147,483,648 bytes, not 2,000,000,000.
But...
We use decimal for most other stuff,
why would we want to use binary for
this special case?
K means 10^3 not 2^10, M means 10^6, G means 10^9.
Why introduce complexity, unnecessary special cases?
What advantage do you think 2^10, 2^20 offers?
On 2023-01-31 16:32, Ken Blake wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 10:58:15 +0000, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me>
wrote:
My point, once again, is that when drive manufacturers use the
established standard for disk drives when almost the rest of the
computer world does it differently, it confuses people and is a bad
thing to do. In my view, this is a case where consistency is more
important than standards.
Mine is that those computer people are doing it wrong, and the rest of
the world is right.
Computer people have to adapt and say 1 GiB instead og 1 GB.
Hard disk
people are doing it right since decades.
Microsoft, typically, hates standards and goes against.
But...
We use decimal for most other stuff, why would we want to use binary
for this special case? K means 10^3 not 2^10, M means 10^6, G means 10^9.
Why introduce complexity, unnecessary special cases?
What advantage do you think 2^10, 2^20 offers?
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 16:54:57 +0100, "Carlos E. R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-01-31 16:32, Ken Blake wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 10:58:15 +0000, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me>
wrote:
My point, once again, is that when drive manufacturers use the
established standard for disk drives when almost the rest of the
computer world does it differently, it confuses people and is a bad
thing to do. In my view, this is a case where consistency is more
important than standards.
Mine is that those computer people are doing it wrong, and the rest of
the world is right.
Going by the standards, you are of course correct.
But it doesn't matter. What matters is what considered correct by most people.
Computer people have to adapt and say 1 GiB instead og 1 GB.
"Have to"? Not a chance. It will never happen. There's only one way to
get consistency and that's for the drive manufacturers to use the
common understanding of KB, MB, GB etc. that the rest of the computer
world uses.
You will have course say that the drive manufacturers shouldn't change
and the rest of the computer world should. That might be a good choice
if it were possible, but it's not. There are only a handful of drive manufacturers, but *millions* of computer users. You're not going to
change those millions.
Hard disk
people are doing it right since decades.
Technically, yes. Practically, no.
Microsoft, typically, hates standards and goes against.
We agree on that. Is Microsoft responsible for the common meanings of
MB, GB, TB, etc. being different from the standards and being used the
way they are? Probably.
But it doesn't matter who is responsible. Whether you or I like it or
not (I also don't like it, but I have no real choice other than to
accept it), that's the way it is, and we are not going to change it.
On 1/31/2023 5:58 AM, Pancho wrote:
But...
We use decimal for most other stuff, why would we want to use binary
for this special case? K means 10^3 not 2^10, M means 10^6, G means 10^9.
Why introduce complexity, unnecessary special cases?
What advantage do you think 2^10, 2^20 offers?
Decoding logic is simpler when you use powers-of-two.
This was important... a long time ago.
In this example, someone uses a '139 to decode an address and select a
device with it.
https://blog.idorobots.org/media/upnod3/ram.png
Paul
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> writes:
On 30/01/2023 18:10, Ken Blake wrote:
So as far as I'm concerned, despite the existing standards, KB mean
1024, MB means 1024 x 1024, GB means 1024 x 1024 x 1024, etc. and KiB,
MiB, Gib, etc. are almost never used and shouldn't be. A disk drive
that's called 2GB should have 2,147,483,648 bytes, not 2,000,000,000.
But...
We use decimal for most other stuff, why would we want to use binary
for this special case? K means 10^3 not 2^10, M means 10^6, G means
10^9. Why introduce complexity, unnecessary special cases?
Well, it’s hardly ‘introduce’ any more, the convention is decades old.
What advantage do you think 2^10, 2^20 offers?
Being able to talking about 16GB RAM (or 16GiB if you really must)
instead of 17.179869184GB RAM.
On 1/31/23 14:40, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> writes:
On 30/01/2023 18:10, Ken Blake wrote:Well, it’s hardly ‘introduce’ any more, the convention is decades
So as far as I'm concerned, despite the existing standards, KB mean
1024, MB means 1024 x 1024, GB means 1024 x 1024 x 1024, etc. and KiB, >>>> MiB, Gib, etc. are almost never used and shouldn't be. A disk drive
that's called 2GB should have 2,147,483,648 bytes, not 2,000,000,000.
But...
We use decimal for most other stuff, why would we want to use binary
for this special case? K means 10^3 not 2^10, M means 10^6, G means
10^9. Why introduce complexity, unnecessary special cases?
old.
What advantage do you think 2^10, 2^20 offers?Being able to talking about 16GB RAM (or 16GiB if you really must)
instead of 17.179869184GB RAM.
RAM is never 16 GiB either, areas will be reserved by the OS. For
instance, 4 GiB on Windows XP 32 only had about 3.1 GiB available for
my use.
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> writes:
On 1/31/23 14:40, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> writes:
On 30/01/2023 18:10, Ken Blake wrote:Well, it’s hardly ‘introduce’ any more, the convention is decades
So as far as I'm concerned, despite the existing standards, KB meanBut...
1024, MB means 1024 x 1024, GB means 1024 x 1024 x 1024, etc. and KiB, >>>>> MiB, Gib, etc. are almost never used and shouldn't be. A disk drive >>>>> that's called 2GB should have 2,147,483,648 bytes, not 2,000,000,000. >>>>
We use decimal for most other stuff, why would we want to use binary
for this special case? K means 10^3 not 2^10, M means 10^6, G means
10^9. Why introduce complexity, unnecessary special cases?
old.
What advantage do you think 2^10, 2^20 offers?Being able to talking about 16GB RAM (or 16GiB if you really must)
instead of 17.179869184GB RAM.
RAM is never 16 GiB either, areas will be reserved by the OS. For
instance, 4 GiB on Windows XP 32 only had about 3.1 GiB available for
my use.
Why did you bother to ask the question when you’re not going to accept
the answer?
On 01/02/2023 08:35, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> writes:
On 1/31/23 14:40, Richard Kettlewell wrote:Why did you bother to ask the question when you’re not going to
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> writes:
What advantage do you think 2^10, 2^20 offers?Being able to talking about 16GB RAM (or 16GiB if you really must)
instead of 17.179869184GB RAM.
RAM is never 16 GiB either, areas will be reserved by the OS. For
instance, 4 GiB on Windows XP 32 only had about 3.1 GiB available for
my use.
accept
the answer?
Seriously? "The answer".
When I see something I consider bad practice, I always ask why? What
benefit does it offer?
Quite often I have missed something important, other times I haven't.
Don't you do that? How else do we understand stuff?
Anyway, I wasn't even rejecting your answer. I just didn't feel the
concise notation merited the complexity of a special case.
On 1/31/23 14:40, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> writes:
On 30/01/2023 18:10, Ken Blake wrote:
So as far as I'm concerned, despite the existing standards, KB mean
1024, MB means 1024 x 1024, GB means 1024 x 1024 x 1024, etc. and KiB, >>>> MiB, Gib, etc. are almost never used and shouldn't be. A disk drive
that's called 2GB should have 2,147,483,648 bytes, not 2,000,000,000.
But...
We use decimal for most other stuff, why would we want to use binary
for this special case? K means 10^3 not 2^10, M means 10^6, G means
10^9. Why introduce complexity, unnecessary special cases?
Well, its hardly introduce any more, the convention is decades old.
What advantage do you think 2^10, 2^20 offers?
Being able to talking about 16GB RAM (or 16GiB if you really must)
instead of 17.179869184GB RAM.
RAM is never 16 GiB either,
areas will be reserved by the OS. For
instance, 4 GiB on Windows XP 32 only had about 3.1 GiB available for my >use.
On 2023-01-31 19:21, Ken Blake wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 16:54:57 +0100, "Carlos E. R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-01-31 16:32, Ken Blake wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 10:58:15 +0000, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me>
wrote:
My point, once again, is that when drive manufacturers use the
established standard for disk drives when almost the rest of the
computer world does it differently, it confuses people and is a bad
thing to do. In my view, this is a case where consistency is more
important than standards.
Mine is that those computer people are doing it wrong, and the rest of
the world is right.
Going by the standards, you are of course correct.
But it doesn't matter. What matters is what considered correct by most
people.
Computer people have to adapt and say 1 GiB instead og 1 GB.
"Have to"? Not a chance. It will never happen. There's only one way to
get consistency and that's for the drive manufacturers to use the
common understanding of KB, MB, GB etc. that the rest of the computer
world uses.
Not going to happen :-)
You will have course say that the drive manufacturers shouldn't change
and the rest of the computer world should. That might be a good choice
if it were possible, but it's not. There are only a handful of drive
manufacturers, but *millions* of computer users. You're not going to
change those millions.
Give it time, and teach units in schools.
Hard disk
people are doing it right since decades.
Technically, yes. Practically, no.
Microsoft, typically, hates standards and goes against.
We agree on that. Is Microsoft responsible for the common meanings of
MB, GB, TB, etc. being different from the standards and being used the
way they are? Probably.
But it doesn't matter who is responsible. Whether you or I like it or
not (I also don't like it, but I have no real choice other than to
accept it), that's the way it is, and we are not going to change it.
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 21:44:02 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-01-31 19:21, Ken Blake wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 16:54:57 +0100, "Carlos E. R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-01-31 16:32, Ken Blake wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 10:58:15 +0000, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me>
wrote:
My point, once again, is that when drive manufacturers use the
established standard for disk drives when almost the rest of the
computer world does it differently, it confuses people and is a bad
thing to do. In my view, this is a case where consistency is more
important than standards.
Mine is that those computer people are doing it wrong, and the rest of >>>> the world is right.
Going by the standards, you are of course correct.
But it doesn't matter. What matters is what considered correct by most
people.
Computer people have to adapt and say 1 GiB instead og 1 GB.
"Have to"? Not a chance. It will never happen. There's only one way to
get consistency and that's for the drive manufacturers to use the
common understanding of KB, MB, GB etc. that the rest of the computer
world uses.
Not going to happen :-)
We agree on that.
You will have course say that the drive manufacturers shouldn't change
and the rest of the computer world should. That might be a good choice
if it were possible, but it's not. There are only a handful of drive
manufacturers, but *millions* of computer users. You're not going to
change those millions.
Give it time, and teach units in schools.
Not going to happen :-)
On 2/1/23 15:25, Ken Blake wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 22:12:13 +0000, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me>
wrote:
On 1/31/23 14:40, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> writes:
On 30/01/2023 18:10, Ken Blake wrote:
So as far as I'm concerned, despite the existing standards, KB mean >>>>>> 1024, MB means 1024 x 1024, GB means 1024 x 1024 x 1024, etc. and KiB, >>>>>> MiB, Gib, etc. are almost never used and shouldn't be. A disk drive >>>>>> that's called 2GB should have 2,147,483,648 bytes, not 2,000,000,000. >>>>>But...
We use decimal for most other stuff, why would we want to use binary >>>>> for this special case? K means 10^3 not 2^10, M means 10^6, G means
10^9. Why introduce complexity, unnecessary special cases?
Well, its hardly introduce any more, the convention is decades old. >>>>
What advantage do you think 2^10, 2^20 offers?
Being able to talking about 16GB RAM (or 16GiB if you really must)
instead of 17.179869184GB RAM.
RAM is never 16 GiB either,
Yes it is.
areas will be reserved by the OS. For
instance, 4 GiB on Windows XP 32 only had about 3.1 GiB available for my >>> use.
Yes, but how much RAM there is and how much is available for your use
are two different things. The amount of RAM installed on your computer
is 4GB, not 3.1GB.
I care about what is usable to me, just like with disk storage.
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 22:12:13 +0000, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me>
wrote:
On 1/31/23 14:40, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> writes:
On 30/01/2023 18:10, Ken Blake wrote:
So as far as I'm concerned, despite the existing standards, KB meanBut...
1024, MB means 1024 x 1024, GB means 1024 x 1024 x 1024, etc. and KiB, >>>>> MiB, Gib, etc. are almost never used and shouldn't be. A disk drive >>>>> that's called 2GB should have 2,147,483,648 bytes, not 2,000,000,000. >>>>
We use decimal for most other stuff, why would we want to use binary
for this special case? K means 10^3 not 2^10, M means 10^6, G means
10^9. Why introduce complexity, unnecessary special cases?
Well, it’s hardly ‘introduce’ any more, the convention is decades old.
What advantage do you think 2^10, 2^20 offers?
Being able to talking about 16GB RAM (or 16GiB if you really must)
instead of 17.179869184GB RAM.
RAM is never 16 GiB either,
Yes it is.
areas will be reserved by the OS. For
instance, 4 GiB on Windows XP 32 only had about 3.1 GiB available for my
use.
Yes, but how much RAM there is and how much is available for your use
are two different things. The amount of RAM installed on your computer
is 4GB, not 3.1GB.
For example If I go to System>About, here under Windows 11, it says
Installed RAM 32.0 GB (31.8 usable). How much is installed and how
much is usable are two different things.
On 2/1/23 15:25, Ken Blake wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 22:12:13 +0000, Pancho
<Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 1/31/23 14:40, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> writes:
On 30/01/2023 18:10, Ken Blake wrote:
So as far as I'm concerned, despite the existing standards,
KB mean 1024, MB means 1024 x 1024, GB means 1024 x 1024 x
1024, etc. and KiB, MiB, Gib, etc. are almost never used
and shouldn't be. A disk drive that's called 2GB should
have 2,147,483,648 bytes, not 2,000,000,000.
But...
We use decimal for most other stuff, why would we want to use
binary for this special case? K means 10^3 not 2^10, M means
10^6, G means 10^9. Why introduce complexity, unnecessary
special cases?
Well, it’s hardly ‘introduce’ any more, the convention is
decades old.
What advantage do you think 2^10, 2^20 offers?
Being able to talking about 16GB RAM (or 16GiB if you really
must) instead of 17.179869184GB RAM.
RAM is never 16 GiB either,
Yes it is.
areas will be reserved by the OS. For instance, 4 GiB on Windows
XP 32 only had about 3.1 GiB available for my use.
Yes, but how much RAM there is and how much is available for your
use are two different things. The amount of RAM installed on your
computer is 4GB, not 3.1GB.
I care about what is usable to me, just like with disk storage.
On 2/1/23 15:25, Ken Blake wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 22:12:13 +0000, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me>
wrote:
On 1/31/23 14:40, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> writes:
On 30/01/2023 18:10, Ken Blake wrote:
So as far as I'm concerned, despite the existing standards, KB mean >>>>>> 1024, MB means 1024 x 1024, GB means 1024 x 1024 x 1024, etc. andBut...
KiB,
MiB, Gib, etc. are almost never used and shouldn't be. A disk drive >>>>>> that's called 2GB should have 2,147,483,648 bytes, not 2,000,000,000. >>>>>
We use decimal for most other stuff, why would we want to use binary >>>>> for this special case? K means 10^3 not 2^10, M means 10^6, G means
10^9. Why introduce complexity, unnecessary special cases?
Well, it’s hardly ‘introduce’ any more, the convention is decades old.
What advantage do you think 2^10, 2^20 offers?
Being able to talking about 16GB RAM (or 16GiB if you really must)
instead of 17.179869184GB RAM.
RAM is never 16 GiB either,
Yes it is.
areas will be reserved by the OS. For
instance, 4 GiB on Windows XP 32 only had about 3.1 GiB available for my >>> use.
Yes, but how much RAM there is and how much is available for your use
are two different things. The amount of RAM installed on your computer
is 4GB, not 3.1GB.
I care about what is usable to me, just like with disk storage.
For example If I go to System>About, here under Windows 11, it says
Installed RAM 32.0 GB (31.8 usable). How much is installed and how
much is usable are two different things.
For me, it says 16 GB and 15.8 GB. I don't know if that 15.8 GB is
exactly 15.8 GiB or only accurate to 1 dp. Either way, the prettiness of exactly 16 has gone.
The prettiness is gone, but I'm still left with the problem that if I
want to calculate the amount of usable RAM my software data structures require, in GiB, I have to convert my natural decimal calculations to a binary format, to avoid the 7.4% difference between the GiB, and the
more orthodox decimal GB. Maybe other programmer don't estimate memory requirements, don't use algorithms that require a lot of memory? It
wouldn't surprise me, innumeracy is surprisingly high in IT.
Clinging to unnecessary complexity reminds me of the metric martyrs and
their insistence on using imperial weights and measures. When automating
some business process, you often see veterans of the industry try to
cling to unnecessary complexity. I guess if you remove the complexity,
the competitive advantage they have in understanding it disappears, they
are diminished.
As far as I can see, the US government and the standards organizations
have agreed on the decimal GB.
On 2023-02-01 23:21, Pancho wrote:
On 2/1/23 15:25, Ken Blake wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 22:12:13 +0000, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me>
wrote:
On 1/31/23 14:40, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> writes:
On 30/01/2023 18:10, Ken Blake wrote:
So as far as I'm concerned, despite the existing standards, KB mean >>>>>>> 1024, MB means 1024 x 1024, GB means 1024 x 1024 x 1024, etc. and >>>>>>> KiB,But...
MiB, Gib, etc. are almost never used and shouldn't be. A disk drive >>>>>>> that's called 2GB should have 2,147,483,648 bytes, not 2,000,000,000. >>>>>>
We use decimal for most other stuff, why would we want to use binary >>>>>> for this special case? K means 10^3 not 2^10, M means 10^6, G means >>>>>> 10^9. Why introduce complexity, unnecessary special cases?
Well, its hardly introduce any more, the convention is decades old. >>>>>
What advantage do you think 2^10, 2^20 offers?
Being able to talking about 16GB RAM (or 16GiB if you really must)
instead of 17.179869184GB RAM.
RAM is never 16 GiB either,
Yes it is.
areas will be reserved by the OS. For
instance, 4 GiB on Windows XP 32 only had about 3.1 GiB available for my >>>> use.
Yes, but how much RAM there is and how much is available for your use
are two different things. The amount of RAM installed on your computer
is 4GB, not 3.1GB.
I care about what is usable to me, just like with disk storage.
For example If I go to System>About, here under Windows 11, it says
Installed RAM 32.0 GB (31.8 usable). How much is installed and how
much is usable are two different things.
For me, it says 16 GB and 15.8 GB. I don't know if that 15.8 GB is
exactly 15.8 GiB or only accurate to 1 dp. Either way, the prettiness of
exactly 16 has gone.
The prettiness is gone, but I'm still left with the problem that if I
want to calculate the amount of usable RAM my software data structures
require, in GiB, I have to convert my natural decimal calculations to a
binary format, to avoid the 7.4% difference between the GiB, and the
more orthodox decimal GB. Maybe other programmer don't estimate memory
requirements, don't use algorithms that require a lot of memory? It
wouldn't surprise me, innumeracy is surprisingly high in IT.
Clinging to unnecessary complexity reminds me of the metric martyrs and
their insistence on using imperial weights and measures. When automating
some business process, you often see veterans of the industry try to
cling to unnecessary complexity. I guess if you remove the complexity,
the competitive advantage they have in understanding it disappears, they
are diminished.
As far as I can see, the US government and the standards organizations
have agreed on the decimal GB.
If all software and docs stick to the units as described by the
standards organizations, there would be no doubts about what that "16 GB
and 15.8 GB" of yours actually means. If some one writes GB it is
decimal, or else he writes GiB. No need to second guess.
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 10:37:29 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 23:21, Pancho wrote:
On 2/1/23 15:25, Ken Blake wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 22:12:13 +0000, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me>
wrote:
On 1/31/23 14:40, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> writes:
On 30/01/2023 18:10, Ken Blake wrote:
So as far as I'm concerned, despite the existing standards, KB mean >>>>>>>> 1024, MB means 1024 x 1024, GB means 1024 x 1024 x 1024, etc. and >>>>>>>> KiB,But...
MiB, Gib, etc. are almost never used and shouldn't be. A disk drive >>>>>>>> that's called 2GB should have 2,147,483,648 bytes, not 2,000,000,000. >>>>>>>
We use decimal for most other stuff, why would we want to use binary >>>>>>> for this special case? K means 10^3 not 2^10, M means 10^6, G means >>>>>>> 10^9. Why introduce complexity, unnecessary special cases?
Well, it’s hardly ‘introduce’ any more, the convention is decades old.
What advantage do you think 2^10, 2^20 offers?
Being able to talking about 16GB RAM (or 16GiB if you really must) >>>>>> instead of 17.179869184GB RAM.
RAM is never 16 GiB either,
Yes it is.
areas will be reserved by the OS. For
instance, 4 GiB on Windows XP 32 only had about 3.1 GiB available for my >>>>> use.
Yes, but how much RAM there is and how much is available for your use
are two different things. The amount of RAM installed on your computer >>>> is 4GB, not 3.1GB.
I care about what is usable to me, just like with disk storage.
For example If I go to System>About, here under Windows 11, it says
Installed RAM 32.0 GB (31.8 usable). How much is installed and how
much is usable are two different things.
For me, it says 16 GB and 15.8 GB. I don't know if that 15.8 GB is
exactly 15.8 GiB or only accurate to 1 dp. Either way, the prettiness of >>> exactly 16 has gone.
The prettiness is gone, but I'm still left with the problem that if I
want to calculate the amount of usable RAM my software data structures
require, in GiB, I have to convert my natural decimal calculations to a
binary format, to avoid the 7.4% difference between the GiB, and the
more orthodox decimal GB. Maybe other programmer don't estimate memory
requirements, don't use algorithms that require a lot of memory? It
wouldn't surprise me, innumeracy is surprisingly high in IT.
Clinging to unnecessary complexity reminds me of the metric martyrs and
their insistence on using imperial weights and measures. When automating >>> some business process, you often see veterans of the industry try to
cling to unnecessary complexity. I guess if you remove the complexity,
the competitive advantage they have in understanding it disappears, they >>> are diminished.
As far as I can see, the US government and the standards organizations
have agreed on the decimal GB.
If all software and docs stick to the units as described by the
standards organizations, there would be no doubts about what that "16 GB
and 15.8 GB" of yours actually means. If some one writes GB it is
decimal, or else he writes GiB. No need to second guess.
I completely agree. But alternatively if all software and docs would
stick to the powers of two definitions of GB, etc. there would be no
doubt about what KB, MB, GB, TB, etc. meant. What's most important is consistency in the computer world, not what definitions are used.
I don't think we'll ever get consistency.
On 2023-02-02 16:41, Ken Blake wrote:
Should we all go on strike until Society accepts that the smallerI completely agree. But alternatively if all software and docs would
stick to the powers of two definitions of GB, etc. there would be no
doubt about what KB, MB, GB, TB, etc. meant. What's most important is
consistency in the computer world, not what definitions are used.
But there would be confusion to the many people for which K is 1000, and
have to deduce from context if this is 1000 or 1024.
Carlos E. R. wrote on 3/2/23 3:12 am:
On 2023-02-02 16:41, Ken Blake wrote:
<Snip>
Should we all go on strike until Society accepts that the smallerI completely agree. But alternatively if all software and docs would
stick to the powers of two definitions of GB, etc. there would be no
doubt about what KB, MB, GB, TB, etc. meant. What's most important is
consistency in the computer world, not what definitions are used.
But there would be confusion to the many people for which K is 1000, and
have to deduce from context if this is 1000 or 1024.
letter, 'k', represents the smaller number, 1000, and the larger letter
. 'K', represents the larger number, 1024?? Etc., etc.!
Who's with me?? ;-P
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 22:24:01 +1100, Daniel65
<daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote on 3/2/23 3:12 am:
On 2023-02-02 16:41, Ken Blake wrote:
<Snip>
Should we all go on strike until Society accepts that the smallerI completely agree. But alternatively if all software and docs would
stick to the powers of two definitions of GB, etc. there would be no
doubt about what KB, MB, GB, TB, etc. meant. What's most important is
consistency in the computer world, not what definitions are used.
But there would be confusion to the many people for which K is 1000, and >>> have to deduce from context if this is 1000 or 1024.
letter, 'k', represents the smaller number, 1000, and the larger letter
. 'K', represents the larger number, 1024?? Etc., etc.!
Who's with me?? ;-P
Not me. I don't think that's a great idea. It would be too hard to
recognize the difference and too hard to remember what's what.
On 2023-02-03 15:12, Ken Blake wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 22:24:01 +1100, Daniel65
<daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote on 3/2/23 3:12 am:
On 2023-02-02 16:41, Ken Blake wrote:
<Snip>
Should we all go on strike until Society accepts that the smallerI completely agree. But alternatively if all software and docs would >>>>> stick to the powers of two definitions of GB, etc. there would be no >>>>> doubt about what KB, MB, GB, TB, etc. meant. What's most important is >>>>> consistency in the computer world, not what definitions are used.
But there would be confusion to the many people for which K is 1000,
and
have to deduce from context if this is 1000 or 1024.
letter, 'k', represents the smaller number, 1000, and the larger letter
. 'K', represents the larger number, 1024?? Etc., etc.!
Who's with me?? ;-P
Not me. I don't think that's a great idea. It would be too hard to
recognize the difference and too hard to remember what's what.
Right.
And the SI already says it is "k", lower case, which means "kilo". There
is no "K". So that would be a new change on the standards.
B and b are used for byte and bits, respectively. And we forget.
On 03-02-2023 15:48, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-02-03 15:12, Ken Blake wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 22:24:01 +1100, Daniel65
<daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote on 3/2/23 3:12 am:
On 2023-02-02 16:41, Ken Blake wrote:
And the SI already says it is "k", lower case, which means "kilo".Furthermore, a lowercase m stands for milli (which, for bytes, seems
There is no "K". So that would be a new change on the standards.
B and b are used for byte and bits, respectively. And we forget.
rather silly).
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 295 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 20:42:26 |
| Calls: | 6,640 |
| Files: | 12,188 |
| Messages: | 5,325,291 |
