Here’s my favorite part.

“In addition, the conversions were sometimes not even self-consistent and applied completely arbitrary. The 3½-inch floppy disk for example, which was marketed as “1.44 MB”, was actually not 1.44 MB and also not 1.44 MiB. The size of the double-sided, high-density 3½-inch floppy was 512 bytes per sector, 18 sectors per track, 160 tracks, that’s 512×18×16 = 1’474’560 bytes. To get to “1.44” you must first divide 1’474’560 by 1024 (“bEcAuSE BiNaRY obviously”) to get 1440 and then divide by 1000 for perfect inconsistency, because dividing by 1024 again would get you an ugly number and we definitely don’t want that. We finally end up with “1.44”. Now let’s add “MB” because why the heck not. We already abused those units so much it’s not like they still mean anything and it’s “close enough” anyways. By the way, that “close enough” excuse never “worked when I was in school but what would I know compared to the computer “scientists” back then.

When things get that messy, numbers don’t even mean anything any more. Might as well just label the products using entirely qualitative terms like “big” or “bigger”.

The mistake is thinking that a 1000 byte file takes up a 1000 bytes on any storage medium. The mistake is thinking that it even matters if a kB means 1000 or 1024 bytes. It only matters for some programmers, and to those 1024 is the number that matters.

Disregarding reality in favor of pedantics is the real mistake.

A lot of people are replying as if OP asked a question. It’s a link to a blog post explaining why a kilobyte is 1000 and not 1024 bytes (exactly as the title says!). OP knows the answer, in fact they know it so well they wrote an extensive post about it.

Thank you for the write up! You should re-check the spelling and grammar as some sections had some troubles. I have a sentence I need to go to the post to get, so let me edit this later!

Edit: the second half of this sentence is a mess: “The factors don’t solely consist of twos, but ten are certainly lot of them.” Otherwise nothing jumped out at me but I would reread it just in case!

This has been my pet rant for a long time, but I usually explain it … almost exactly the other way around to you.

You can essentially start off with nothing using binary prefixes. IBM’s first magnetic harddrive (the IBM 350 - you’ve probably seen it in the famous “forklifting it into a plane” photo) stored 5 million characters. Not 5*1024*1024 characters, 5,000,000 characters. This isn’t some consumer-era marketing trick - this is 1956, when companies were paying half a million dollars a year (2023-inflated-adjusted) to lease a computer. I keep getting told this is some modern trick - doesn’t it blow your mind to realise hdd manufacturers have been using base10 for nearly 70 years? Line-speed was always a lie base 10, where 1200 baud laughs at your 2^n fetish (and for that matter, baud comes from telegraphs, and was defined before computers existed), 100Mbit ethernet runs on a 25MHz clock, and speaking of clocks - kHz, MHz, MT/s, GT/s etc are always specified in base 10. For some reason no-one asks how we got 3GHz in between 2 & 4GHz CPUs.

As you say, memory is the trouble-maker. RAM has two interesting properties for this discussion. One is that it heavily favours binary-prefixed “round numbers”, traditionally because no-one wanted RAM with un-used addresses because it made address decoding nightmarish (tl;dr; when 8k of RAM was usually 8x1k chips, you’d use the first 3 bits of the address to select the chip, and the other 10 bits as the address on the chip - if chips didn’t use their entire address space you’d need to actually calculate the address map, and this calculation would have to run multiples of times faster than the cpu itself) . The second, is that RAM was the first place non-CSy types saw numbers big enough for k to start becoming useful. So for the entire generation that started on microcomputers rather than big iron, memory-flavoured-k were the first k they ever tasted.

I mean, hands up who had a computer with 8-64k of RAM and a cassette deck. You didn’t measure the size of your stored program in kB, but in seconds of tape.

This shortcut than leaked into filesystems purely as an implementation detail - reading disk blocks into memory is much easier if you’re putting square pegs into square holes. So disk sectors are specified in binary sizes to enable them to fit efficiently into memory regions/pages. For example, CP/M has a 128-byte disk buffer between 0x080 and 0x100 - and its filesystem uses 128-byte sectors. Not a coincidence.

This is where we start getting into stuff like floppy disk sizes being utter madness. 360k & 720k were 720 and 1440 512-byte sectors. When they doubled up again, we doubled 2800 512-byte sectors gave us 1440k - and because nothing is ever allowed to make sense (or because 1.40625M looks stupid), we used base10 to call this 1.44M.

So it’s never been that computers used 1024-shaped-k’s. It should be a simple story of “everything uses 1,000s, except memory because reasons”. But once we started dividing base10-flavoured storage devices into base2-flavoured sectors, we lost any hope of this ever looking logical.

I was confused when I just read the headline. Should be “Why I (that would be you not me) think a kilobyte should be 1000 instead of 1024”. Unpopular opinion would be a better sub for it.

I know it’s already been explained but here is a visualization of why.

0 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024

Removed by mod

This whole mess regularly frustrates me… why the units can’t be used consistently?!

The other peeve of mine with this debacle is that drive capacities using SI units do not use the full available address space (since it’s binary). Is the difference between 250GB and 256GiB really used effectively for wear-levelling (which only applies to SSDs) or spare sectors?

I suggest considering this from a linguistic perspective rather than a technical perspective.

For years (decades, even), KB, MB, GB, etc. were broadly used to mean 2^10, 2^20, 2^30, etc. Throughout the 80s and 90s, the only place you would likely see base-10 units was in marketing materials, such as those for storage media and modems. Mac OS exclusively used base-2 definitions well into the 21st century. Windows, as noted in the article, still does. Many Unix/POSIX tools do, as well, and this is unlikely to change.

I will spare you my full rant on the evils of linguistic prescriptivism. Suffice it to say that I am a born-again descriptivist, fully recovered from my past affliction.

From a descriptivist perspective, the only accurate way to define kilobyte, megabyte, etc. is to say that there are two common usages. This is what you will see if you look up the words in any decent dictionary. e.g.:

• https://www.dictionary.com/browse/kilobyte
• https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kilobyte
• https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kilobyte

I don’t recall ever seeing KiB/MiB/etc. in the 90s, although Wikipedia tells me they “were defined in 1999 by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), in the IEC 60027-2 standard”.

While I wholeheartedly agree with the goal of eliminating ambiguity, I am frustrated with the half-measure of introducing unambiguous terms on one side (KiB, MiB, etc.) while failing to do the same on the other. The introduction of new terms has no bearing on the common usage of old terms. The correct thing to have done would have been to introduce two new unambiguous terms, with the goal of retiring KB/MB/etc. from common usage entirely. If we had KiB and KeB, there’d be no ambiguity. KB will always have ambiguity because that’s language, baby! regardless of any prescriptivist’s opinion on the matter.

Sadly, even that would do nothing to solve the use of common single-letter abbreviations. For example, Linux’s ls -l -h command will return sizes like 1K, 1M, 1G, referring to the base-2 definitions. Only if you specify the non-default --si flag will you receive base-10 values (again with just the first letter!). Many other standard tools have no such options and will exclusively use base-2 numbers.

The only place where kilobyte is 1000 bytes has been Google and everywhere else it’s 1024 so even if it’s precise I don’t see the advantage of changing usage. It would just cause more confusion at my work than make anything clearer.

It’s a scam by HDD makers to sell less storage for more money.

i mean, you can’t get to 1000 by doubling twos, so, no?

Reality doesn’t care what you prefer my dude

They changed it for easier convinence. 1024 bytes is now a “kibibyte”.

It is only a mistake from a Human PoV. It is more efficient for the chip since 1000 bytes and 1024 bytes take up the same space. But Humans find anything not base 10 difficult.

WD needed to sell a drive with more advertised space than real space.