Many (or at least the one at cs.dolphin.csuci) scientific circles have taken to writing megabytes, in the sense of decimal million bytes, as MB, kilobytes in the sense of decimal thousand bytes as KB, etc., and the binary forms as MiB ("binary million bytes"), ...
In my opinion, it's more cricket to write the binary millions/thousands/... because that's what the computer sees. Oh, and in the past, that's what KB and MB meant.
Also correct. It wouldn't make much sense if Windows did have both, since
1) It would confuse the user
2) It _might_ confuse the file management/disk management subsystem.
Windows uses the binary sense of KB/MB, as in 1024bytes = 1K(i)B and 4096bytes = 4K(i)B...This is why a quote-on-quote 120GB hard drive has less than 120GB available in Windows.
I don't know why you use the term quote-on-quote for hard drives showing less than their rated capacity in windows. This is an issue with windows, not the drive. The 120GB drive does in fact have 120 billion bytes of storage available. In linux, the drive space is reported just fine, as is the case with macintosh computers. Must I mention unix as well?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.