It is not the result of inflating the data, but the consequence of the base 2 (binary system).
2^2 =4
2^3 = 8
…16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024 (1Kb), 2048, 4096, 8192, …
I know of the new designations, but they are in my opinion unnecessary. It is true that K is the abbreviation for Kelvin, but in computing, if you don’t use a liquid-cooled super game computer, it’s clear to anyone that Kb has nothing to do with temperature.
The power of 2 version 2^10 or 1024, is indeed a result of the binary system, and since that’s how computers work, that’s what everyone used, but by listing a 1 billion byte disk as “1GB” instead of its actual, measured quantity, which, in gibibytes, I billion bytes is actually 953.67 MiB, companies can artificially inflate the perceived size of a disk, instead of buying a 953 MB disk, you’re buying a 1GB disk and only getting 953 MiB as a result.
It makes the disk look larger than it is on paper and almost every newcomer to technology has questioned this at some point, and been disappointed that the x GB disk is nontrivially smaller than they expected.
It’s a technicality that is disengenious, and creates confusion. All the disk makers had to do was conform to the same number of bytes per kB, and kBs per MB… Etc, that literally everyone else was using, but they wanted to deceive people about it, I guess. Make their marketing look better than the competition… There’s a few disk makers out there that are more or less reversing the trend, but the damage is done. It’s why the MiB and GiB (etc) terms even exist.
It is not the result of inflating the data, but the consequence of the base 2 (binary system). 2^2 =4 2^3 = 8 …16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024 (1Kb), 2048, 4096, 8192, …
I know of the new designations, but they are in my opinion unnecessary. It is true that K is the abbreviation for Kelvin, but in computing, if you don’t use a liquid-cooled super game computer, it’s clear to anyone that Kb has nothing to do with temperature.
The power of 2 version 2^10 or 1024, is indeed a result of the binary system, and since that’s how computers work, that’s what everyone used, but by listing a 1 billion byte disk as “1GB” instead of its actual, measured quantity, which, in gibibytes, I billion bytes is actually 953.67 MiB, companies can artificially inflate the perceived size of a disk, instead of buying a 953 MB disk, you’re buying a 1GB disk and only getting 953 MiB as a result.
It makes the disk look larger than it is on paper and almost every newcomer to technology has questioned this at some point, and been disappointed that the x GB disk is nontrivially smaller than they expected.
It’s a technicality that is disengenious, and creates confusion. All the disk makers had to do was conform to the same number of bytes per kB, and kBs per MB… Etc, that literally everyone else was using, but they wanted to deceive people about it, I guess. Make their marketing look better than the competition… There’s a few disk makers out there that are more or less reversing the trend, but the damage is done. It’s why the MiB and GiB (etc) terms even exist.