Talk:Mebibyte

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion about centralization took place at Talk:Binary prefix.


Contents

[edit] What do we gain?

Considering scienific measuring and significant figures, 1 MB denotes officially from 500000 to 1499999 bytes. And 1.00 MB denotes everything from 995,000 to 1,004,999 bytes. When you write 1 MiB, this still denotes anything from 548576 to 1548575 bytes. So why should somebody want to use that MiB notation??? Imagine the big mess it causes when students (and pupils) have to learn measures in school. Even if you write 1.0 MB, this still includes the number of 1048576 bytes. When you want to say that you mean exactly 2^20 bytes then you have no other option than to spell it out as 1048576, or as 2.000000^20.00000, everything else is still imprecise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.18.253 (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Non-authoritative, but informative reference: [1]

You do not loose anything if you delete this article. No, I am wrong! Much better is to keep it but explain that there are these prefixes around, but they are quite useless for the world in most cases! --Dirk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.18.253 (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Get that crap out of here.

We don't need a council of idiots like the IEC randomly deciding that the current system of measuring data space is flawed in all possible ways and needs to be replaced. The byte has been around for over 50 years and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. If people want to stop the confusion, take the time to educate people on the differences between a binary and metric byte rather than create a whole corrupt standard that also corrupts the binary system by suddenly changing its definition.

We also don't need power tripping wikipedia admins banning people for NOT using the corrupted standard and I have seen at least one person constantly warned and punished for using it. I will also say that it violates all three rules of the WP:SOAP. I have seen admins advocate it, promote it by editing articles that don't use the terms and advertise it.

There are people saying that the _iB is the future, so why in the MANY years that the standard been in existence has it not caught on? There have only been two places I have seen it in strict use, one is here and the other is BitTorrent. You could compare it to Intel's BTX standard, they said it was the future, but in the end it failed and even Intel dropped support for it. 24.206.116.6 23:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wtf is a mebibyte?

no really, you're making it up, aren't you? I first saw usage of this term over a year ago, and since then have never seen it used outside of wikipedia. I'd swear someone from maxtor or seagate is being paid to push this contrived and backwards term here on wikipedia. See WP:SOAP for why all references to this ridiculous word should be removed. PS: it's worth noting that the term is not found in any dictionaries, and is flagged as a typo in all spell-checkers. 24.68.135.133 20:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should I Use Mebibyte? Mebi, Mebi Not

I hate it when people come along and try to redefine terms that have worked fine for a long time. I mean, I can understand the idea behind metric and can appreciate it even though I'm incapable of thinking in it (I always have to convert back to illogical customary.) But I don't even see what the point is of this mebicrap. I'd blame the Republicans for this but it's too academic of a matter for them to ever muck with. --72.17.207.50 14:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explain why it was named as such

You sound like you're trying to say "megabyte" with cold when saying "mebibyte", so where did the word come from? Who decided to name them as such? And why does wiki use it so much on certain articles. None of my college proffessers have ever mentioned this term to me, and synonomously the most recent verison of the official A+ certification book states that a "megabyte" has the both the 1000x1000 and 1024x1024 meaning (and its up to a clarification to state how many bytes it really is). What this basically means is that mebibyte is by no means wide spread and I dont think its up to wikipedia authors to slap it into articles as if it was standard usage. The floppy article, for example, alternates on the term all the time and it gives it an unproffessional look.

See binary prefix for the origin of the term.
We use it in Wikipedia because it is a standard, it's unambiguous, and we use binary units in many fields; not just computer science. See the Manual of Style and this discussion. — Omegatron 16:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the Manual of Style has been modified since your comment and binary prefixes are currently not welcome anymore. --NotSarenne 01:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
"Standard"? What did you smoke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.206.116.54 (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
From the article: "On March 19, 2005 the IEEE standard IEEE 1541-2002 (Prefixes for Binary Multiples) was elevated to a full-use standard by the IEEE Standards Association after a two-year trial period". I guess that's what he smoked. Disclaimer: Smoking may cause lung cancer. --NotSarenne 01:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This naming seams forced

Again, there should be vote and more options, this naming is just ridiculous. Aesthetically, phoneticaly, ortographicaly I don't like it and is confusing with 'bit' measures. Megabyte is 2^20, so its not 1,000,000 but 1,048,576. The reasoning behind the separate names for both is good, but the name for the 1,048,576=MiB is just bad chosen. -- IEEE 01:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WTF is a mebibyte? Who made this up?

The IEC. It makes a lot of sense actually, even if it's a stupid sounding word. - Omegatron 22:37, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, which IEC? That page has 20 seperate choices, some obviously wrong but not enough. In any case I'm sure it's the IEC whose members make money by being able to continue to sell hard drives completely against the common usage of the term in the computer world as it has stood for 40 years. And the "even if it's stupid sounding" means avoiding the realities of language. Emtymology of the meanings of words by academics/committe/corporation is a horrible method of creating language you hope to become common use. Come up with a word that's not stupid looking, stupid sounding, and hard/stupid to pronounce - and people might use it. Better yet, why not change the ONE thing that's "causing confusion" - hard drive capacity values printed on boxes - instead of asking everyone else in the rest of the world to change 10e12 other locations and the usage by 3e9 people. Sigh. Yes yes, I'll go somewhere else to complain about this :) 74.103.98.163 18:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

In any case I'm sure it's the IEC whose members make money by being able to continue to sell hard drives completely against the common usage of the term in the computer world as it has stood for 40 years.'

Surely you meant to refer to Microsoft making money using a measurement incorrectly in spite of a common usage that has stood for hundreds of years.  :-) — Omegatron 21:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The use of mebibyte is being discussed at [2] --Thax 8 July 2005 02:56 (UTC)

A vote has been started on whether Wikipedia should use these prefixes all the time, only in highly technical contexts, or never. - Omegatron 14:49, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Vote over, here's the Manual of Style on the subject. - Trevyn 04:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to see the archived vote and discussion, but good luck finding it in the 62 pages of archives of the discussion page. Wikipedia needs the ability to search for simple text "on all pages directly linked from the current page" or something. Google is of no help. 74.103.98.163 20:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Google works, but you have to use the right search terms.  :-/ [3] A direct link is here. — Omegatron 21:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I think they should, as base 10 is really for you humans, we computers are base 2 freaks... 10 + 10 = 100

THANK YOU FOR YOUR INPUT - Omegatron 13:56, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Omegatron, please seek help. - Anonymous

How can I help you? — Omegatron 01:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to include a pronounciation key -- I would like to know if the "i" in Mebibyte should by short (as in "think") or long (as in "time").

It is suggested that in English, the first syllable of the name of the binary-multiple prefix should be pronounced in the same way as the first syllable of the name of the corresponding SI prefix, and that the second syllable should be pronounced as "bee." [4] — Omegatron 00:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! I added this to the main article on prefixes.


[edit] THIS IS BS

This is complete BS! Who gave the IEC complete control over the use of bits and bytes in everyday language. I bet they are receiving payola from marketing/sales industry to keep consumers confused.. I wrote this into the talk page of IEC 60027, I elaborated more on it in my blog at www.bl3nder.com:


Since computers calculate and manage data in base two, of which there are two states for each bit (often represented 0 and 1). It makes no sense to discuss information in base ten. A Kilobit thus must be counted in units that are aligned with byte quantitites.

   * One Kilobit = 1024 bits.
   * One Megabit = 1024 Kilobits.
   * One Gigabit = 1024 Megabits.
   * One Terabit = 1024 Gigabits.

This would make the conversion from bits to bytes easier:

   * 1/8 Kilobyte = One Kilobit.
   * 1/8 Megabyte = One Megabit.
   * 1/8 Gigabyte = One Gigabit.
   * 1/8 Terabyte = One Terabit.

When data rates are discussed in base ten, those data rates should be given a seperate unit of quantity and something impossible to confuse with the above.

Like

   * 1000 bits = Decabit = Deca-bit
   * 1000000 bits = DecaDecabit = BiDeca-bit
   * 1000000000 = DecaDecaDecabit = TriDeca-bit
   * 1000000000000 = DecaDecaDecaDecabit = Quad-Deca-bit
   * 1000000000000000 = DecaDecaDecaDecaDecabit = Penta-Deca-bit

Make the unit names different for base 10 measurement versus base 2 measurement. Since in the use of bits and bytes, base 2 was the preference, documentation shouldn't have to be changed to make discussion relevant to base-10 measurements as it would over-complicate existing documentation on existing systems.

Choose a human-friendly unit name for base-10 unit sizes, and a computer-friendly unit name for base-2 unit sizes.

BTW Sales/Advertising people use Mbps, MBps interchangeably, the purpose for this is to cheat/confuse consumers when discussing storage capacities and data rates, this topic is more political than practical.

Some may not consider this to be a big deal, but it makes the language sound funny and it forces the computing industry to change it's documents and not those of the communications and marketing/advertising industry. There was never a time when bits were used without reference to bytes. If a Kilobit should be 1000 bits, tell me how you intend to count that in bits, as 1000 bits represented with in binary is "1111101000", or in hexadecimal "3E8". 1024 in binary is represented as "10000000000", in Hexidecimal it is "400". Okay so which is more concise? To represent bit quantities in base 10 or in base 2?

I'm sick and tired of seeing advertising inserts that refer to "Megabits" as a scale of communication.. When you know, if it was discussed in bytes, it would not look as significant.

  • 1 Kbps = 1 Kilobit per second = 128 bytes per second
  • 1 Mbps = 1 Megabit per second = 128 Kilobytes per second = .125 Megabytes.
  • 10 Mbps = 10 Megabits per second = 1.25 Megabytes per second.
  • 100 Mbps = 100 Megabits per second = 12.5 Megabytes per second.
  • 1 Gbps = 1000 Megabits per second = 125 Megabytes per second.

The only confusion here is how to represent a quantity in terms useful to a computer programmer and in terms useful to a human. The only people that would want to represent this information in base 10 are those who are confused or who do not do well with math and want to talk about thousands of bits and bytes without looking like a fool. Note that Mac users refer to graphics screens as having millions of colors and not 16,777,216 colors, which is 2^24th.

--Rofthorax 00:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. Wikipedia was not made for opinion, it was made for fact." - Wikipedia is not a soapbox — Omegatron 03:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
While I agree with the principle that the wikipedia is not a soapbox, keep in mind: This is a discussion about word usage, not about "facts". Common usage is still "mega" not "mebi." I've yet to see "mebi" on any consumer product. CobraA1 10:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why 'Mebibyte' won't work

KB, MB, GB, etc are inaccurate because it's used by leighmen to mean "about 1000 bytes". Colloquial speech has then forced the notion into ambiguity, and i think Mebibyte will suffer the same fate. Here is my reasoning:

Fractional representation When a human sees a filesize, for instance, in bytes, it often amounts to a really large number, often in the millions. Such a large number is not really easy to glance over, so you'd like to express it in a higher unit. For instance, a file that's 8496792 bytes is expressed as 8297.6484375 KB, or 8.10317230224609375 MB. Not an exact representation since it does not divide even with 1024, and i'd say the overwhelming majority of numbers don't. So when Microsoft reports a file size to a user, they'd give a user-friendly representation, but sacrificing accuracy.

Even when i as a programmer want to express a filesize in bytes, i would hardly ever use the term Mebibyte or Megabyte for that matter as an exact term, because i know that accuracy will be lost in the translation. If i wanted to express a filesize accurately to the byte, i'd express it in bytes, never in megabytes, and if the mebibyte was the unambiguous gold standard i STILL wouldn't use it, because it STILL wouldn't be accurate unless the number divided evenly with 1024.

So the term mebibyte, and such, are useless. The only thing they contribute are confusion, and another layer of jargon. How often are you going to have to express something that's exactly 1 KiB, MiB, or TiB? hardly ever! And if you did, you'd probably be better off expressing it in exact number of bytes, or the "evil Micro$oft" *rolleyes* MB, because it's a pretty specific situation where you have an audience that knows what MiB is, and that's it supposedly unambiguos.

Anyway, i thought i'd drop that here in discussion. 64.173.240.130 01:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I fought the law and the law won

I refer you to this article for some history on this definition and some legal cases taht have been influenced by it. Nothing has actually made it in front of a judge yet, though.

I am working in a corporate environment and we are looking for a way of differentiating the two amounts (mega and mebi) for consumers so this is actually a useful term. It's a real pain to be specific with customers when they don't understandthe difference and need explanatons of basic terms (and their contexts.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Craigwbrown (talk • contribs) 04:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Laymen are confused by the terms that computer experts have been using for years so what do they do? They rename the widely accepted value. MiB makes more sense as being short for Million Bytes than it does for Megabytes. BiB for Billion bytes, etc. This is a standard that won't stick even if a standards body is behind it.Jimberg98 22:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Another thing about MiB is an abbreviation for Mebibyte which is an abbreviation for Mega Binary Byte. That's pretty lame in itself, but it's also lame since it is redundant. Byte is an abbreviation for Binary Term. So MiB all expanded is Mega Binary Binary Term.Jimberg98 16:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hee hee - some time ago I posted negative comments here about the term. But just the other day I was using a linux disk partitioning utility, and it was giving numbers in "MiB" ... and I knew exactly what it was saying. No confusion. It was ... actually nice. And if I pronounce it "mib" (just like an snmp mib) it actually doesn't sound half bad. Not as nice as "meg" and "gig", "gib" and "tib" sound especially silly.
Of course now we've got this clash between all the old documentation/software that has KB/MB/GB. Huge numbers of us are ALWAYS going to think MB=MiB, GB=GiB, and we're just going to continue thinking poorly of the disk manufacturers. I think the main negative connotation that makes us all so mad about this is that it's clearly a bunch of greedy corporations that were violating the common accepted usage of the language/terms who have forced this through solely for their benefit, as a "way out".
74.103.98.163 14:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
But hard disks have been measured in decimal since they were first invented, way back to the days when drums only held "60K" (= 60,000 words).[5]
The hard drive manufacturer size inflation conspiracy theory is bogus. Microsoft and MacOS are the culprits here for showing disk size in the wrong units. — Omegatron 16:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is worse than worthless

Another sickening example of catering to the most stupid people of all. This is a made up word which will only cause problems, not solve any. If someone is unable to comprehend a base-2 number, what makes you think they could even tell you how many zeros are in the number one-million?

Agreed. This is stupid terminology and it smacks of political correctness, which doesn't belong in a technical discussion. "MiB" and "GiB" was probably invented by the same people who came up with "BCE" and "CE". Art Cancro 13:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Political correctness"?? — Omegatron 21:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote for purging this heresy from Wikipedia

Should we start a vote for purging thise heresy from Wikipedia? And enforce it by bots. 82.229.207.75 16:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


Great idea. Yesterday I also added an article I found that gives a Greasemonkey script for all those mebibyte haters to get rid of all this crap web-wide. Someone did not like my addition. I think Wikipedia should give mouth for adversaries as well. Therefore I believe the greasemonkey options is a complete liable addition to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.107.155.140 (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KB/KiB???

That table is wrong for a start... 1KB = 1024B not 1000B who ever wrote this article is stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benyr (talk • contribs) 08:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leave this article here, but...

...get rid of this stupid notation all over Wikipedia. I just stumbled on it in the German version (where I am writing as "TheBug") and I really have to say I seldom have seen anything as useless as this.

77.177.18.229 22:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The use of these terms should be immediately banned from Wikipedia. If you look up Mebibyte or Gibibyte on Goolge you will find that more than 1/3 of the references are found on Wikipedia and the rest seem to be other sites that define the terms. This a self referencing act here. Nobody in the industry uses this tuff but Wikipedia tries to push it. Again TheBug from Germany. 87.187.36.14 13:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree! With 20 years in the computer industry under my belt, I can say with a straight face I have never seen the "*ebi-" prefixes outside Wikipedia. I never even knew about them before coming to WP. Everyone knows "gigabyte" (for example) means "1,000,000,000 bytes" as used by hard disk manufacturers to rip off consumers, but in every other instance (including every OS's directory feature) "gigabyte" means "2^30 bytes". Manufacturers' spec sheets and webpages even have footnotes saying as much... "One gigabtye, or GB, equals one billion bytes..." Sound familiar? I don't see why we need to bother with an artificial and phonemically awkward system which is not used anywhere. It just discredits Wikipedia as a whole and makes us all look silly. --Jquarry 06:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

On the German Wikipedia we have initiated a ballot about this issue. It is amazing how distorted the view is of those who are in favour of the binary prefixes. They do not even admit that about 40-50% google search hits for "mebibyte" are generated by Wikipedia is a proper indication that nobody uses this standard. There are lots of standards out there that nobody uses. If Wikipedia picks them all up just because some bored students find them in the dumpster we will be the silliest looking enzyclopedia of the world. (TheBug from Germany). --77.177.15.147 22:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No one is denying that the term megabyte is used by the computer industry to mean one mebibyte. The problem is that it is also used by the computer industry to mean one million bytes. In other words, the computer industry has created a situation in which it was impossible to make unambiguous statements about computer memory without introducing a new term, either for 2^20 or for 10^6. That is why the mebibyte was introduced by the IEC. The purpose of this article is to define the mebibyte and to describe how it is used. There is nothing silly about that. Thunderbird2 09:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem with defining what mebibyte means, but I do have a severe problem with how its importance in the industry is portrayed. We do have the same problem in the German Wikipedia, which is why I have looked what is going on here. Wikipedia is the only significant user of the binary prefixes and since it tries to be an encyclopedia this is definitely wrong as it deviates from reality. 77.177.175.136 20:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC) (TheBug)

In what way does the article deviate from reality? Thunderbird2 07:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Not the article, but the fact that mebibytes are all over the computer-related articles here on wiki, as if it was a generally accepted standard, which it's not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.206.116.54 (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't usually encounter this unit myself, but I can see its value to someone wishing to make an unambiguous statement about computer storage capacity. Can you suggest a better way? Thunderbird2 20:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure - leave things as they were for the past few decades. Some n00b doesn't know why things are that way and not the other? FAQ him until he does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.206.116.54 (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
You are missing the point. The discussion is not about why there is a mess, but about how to fix it. An encyclopaedia needs to be unambiguous and you have not explained how the megabyte can be used without ambiguity. (As I understand the term is used by the computer industry to mean three different quantities of information). Thunderbird2 11:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Very simple. Wikipedia is really great because of the easy linking you can do. Just use the MB, GB etc. in the binary form that is used by the majority of the industry (except for the marketing departments of the storage manufacturers). Link "MB" to an article about storage units and explain the problem as well as the fact that Wikipedia does use the binary interpretation. No need to try to introduce a notation that close to nobody uses in the industry.
The confusion about the Megabytes comes from misuse of the units that was triggered by storage manufacturers to be able to claim higher capacities. In technical context it makes no sense to use a decimal format since memory is build and used in binary multiples. 77.177.18.95 21:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC) (TheBug)
I see that you agree with me that the confusion is created by the computer industry. You also claim that the megabyte is used (unambiguously) to mean 2^20 bytes. That would mean that a 1.4 MB floppy disk contains 1.4 * 2^20 bytes, right? Thunderbird2 06:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't claim that only intelligent people walk on this planet, there are marketing departments. The 1.4M Disk is the worst example of all since its capacity really is 1400KB, a mix of decimal and binary. What I do claim is that close to nobody in the industry is using the IEC binary prefixes and wikipedia should do neither. Defining and enforcing that wikipedia uses the binary interpretation (while documenting the existence of the IEC prefixes) should be the right way. Wikipedia has to be precise but also has to stay with the terminology in use in the real world. 77.177.246.205 07:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC) (TheBug)
First you tell me that a megabyte is always 2^20 bytes. Now you say it is sometimes 1024000 bytes. That is a contradiction, and it also proves that the megabyte is an ambiguous unit. Thunderbird2 08:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, the same sort of arguments as used in the German wikipedia. No, I did not say that, I only said that there are people who use units in the wrong way. Are you going to redefine each unit which gets misused? But the main point is that wikipedia is no documenting here, it is trying to change reality. 87.187.12.51 16:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC) (TheBug)
In that case I misunderstood you. You say that a megabyte is is always defined as 2^20 bytes, and those who use this unit in a different way do so incorrectly. Is that your position? Thunderbird2 16:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Correct. Until the IEC spec there was a IEEE spec that defined the Megabyte and the other multiples of bytes as binary. But it seems like the hard disk manufacturers have succeeded in getting the IEC to redefine the units which have been in use in computer science for a long time. While this is about the most stupid thing you could do (redefining a unit in use) the industry has completely ignored this, manufacturers of rotating media keep defining the units however they see fit, the rest of the world is using binary megabytes. And that is what wikipedia should document, instead of using units that nobody knows or uses. 77.177.246.205 23:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC) (TheBug)
I see. That's the most sensible reasoning I've ever heard from a "mebibyte basher" [I hope you don't mind me calling you that - it's not meant to be impolite, just a statement of fact :)]. Let us accept, for the sake of argument, that there is one and only one (correct) definition of the megabyte, namely the binary one. My next question would be, how many megabits are there in a megabyte? I would also appreciate a precise reference to the IEEE standard to which you refer. Thanks Thunderbird2 06:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
IEEE 100 ("The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms") unfortunately not available online it has to be paid for. It has been some time since there were more or less than 8 bits in a byte, current use of byte is equal 8 bits. But in any case the major point is that wikipedias task is to document, not to try to change things. 87.187.11.41 13:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC) (TheBug)

That's not really what I meant. Rather, how does IEEE 100 define the megabit? Is it 2^20 bits (so that 1 MB = 8 Mbit) or 10^6 bits (so that 1 MB = (2^23/10^6) Mbit)? A separate question is whether the standard is now out of date. When was IEEE 100 published? If there are more recent IEEE standards, shouldn't they take precedence? Thunderbird2 17:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

IEEE100 was published in 1986 and it defines the MB * 8 = Mb = 2^20 * 8. The current IEC standard has no binding status. It would not be the first IEC standard that gets ignored by the industry (actually I know of standardisation efforts in IEC that are opposed by the industry). Redefining a unit is about the most stupid thing you can do, it will make it impossible to find out which interpretation has been used for writing docuemnts. Right now we know that rotating memories are specified decimal by their manufacturers, the rest of the industry uses binary.

But the main point still is that almost nobody execpt some overeager wikipedia users does use the IEC spec. 77.177.7.22 08:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC) (TheBug)

If you want other editors to take your main point seriously, you need to give them a credible alternative to IEC. The main weakness I see in your proposal to adopt IEEE 100 instead is that it is superseded (or contradicted) by later IEEE standards. Why should WP adopt an IEEE standard that the IEEE itself does not recognise? Thunderbird2 19:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should stick with reality. This IEC standard is more than 8 years old and some part of wikipedia is the only user. 77.177.157.253 08:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC) (TheBug)

The IEC and its proposals are irrelevant to this line of reasoning, which was an attempt to explore the viability of the alternative you propose (IEEE100). Please answer the question in my previous post. Thunderbird2 10:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia should use the common notation as used in the computer industry (read this as technical, not marketing department) and that is 1MB = 2^20 Bytes. All physical implementation and organisation of memory is binary based. The interpretation 1MB = 10^6 is used by marketing because it yields higher numbers but technicall this is irrelevant. Articles in Wikipedia should use 1MB = 2^20 Bytes and where necessary eyplain the difference from the manufacturers number and link to relevant articles (including this one here). 77.177.172.244 21:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC) (TheBug)
You know very well that common is not equivalent to correct. Also you better back up claims like "used by marketing because it yields higher numbers". You know very well that this is nonsense because every harddisk vendor specifies capacities in the same way and always has. Why exactly should Wikipedia stick to MB as 1024^2 and then explain in each single case which of the two (or even three) thinkable meanings applies? Isn't it much easier and efficient to use MiB whenever possible? You're proposal means we have to edit each and every article which uses kilo/mega/giga or the SI prefixes even for articles that are unrelated to IT. Or how should someone who read everything about computer hardware know that in physics SI prefixes are always decimal? You're really just looking at it from your IT expert corner. You're not trying to look at it from the perspective of a reader who knows little to nothing about computer hardware. I hope you understand that such people may be very intelligent and highly educated. --NotSarenne 01:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Articles correctly use 1MB = 2^20 bytes. From the perspective of a reader who knows little to nothing about computer hardware it is not better to use MiB because the IEC prefixes are from a failed standard. QuinellaAlethea 05:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Please, define "failed standard". It is a current standard. It has even be adopted by and integrated into other standards. It is not failed until the same organizations decide to scrap it. It is also a fact that articles do not universally use "1MB = 2^20". A so called "1.44 MB floppy" does not hold 1.44 x 1024^2 bytes, similar applies to DVDs, HDDs etc. --NotSarenne 15:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
It is obvious. The "standard" you prefer has been around for many years and is not being used by anything like the majority of the industry. Doing a quick Google comparison of kilobyte/kibibyte and the same of megabyte and gigabyte as a rough guess I would say use of the "standard" you prefer is currently being used by less than 5% of sources. As such it is a failed "standard". Also the JEDEC standards body defines KB, MB, GB etc in terms of binary values. Your other point about not being universal and floppy drive sizes are irrelevant because the sources and context relevant to articles remove ambiguity. Fnagaton 13:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
"Don't count your chicken before they're hatched". This standard has been adopted and the resistance in Europe is definitely smaller than in the USA. This almost correlates with IPv6 which already widely deployed especially in Asia and still many people are claiming it will never "come" when in fact several deadlines are approaching and IPv6 will definitely and finally have it's break through. The USA may very well be the last to accept this - again for hysterical raisins. You are ignoring the fact that everyone who conforms to MB=1,000,000 is already using this IEC standard whether they also use units like MiB is irrelevant. So, please, look again and realize that HDD/DVD/HD-DVD/BluRay/Flash/Network capacity is already specified in accordance with the current IEC/IEEE standards. I'm almost certain that's more than 5% of the industry. JEDEC applies only to the USA and semiconductors and if your compare the number of members, you'll see that the IEEE is much larger and covers a lot more areas of IT/computing. --NotSarenne 17:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring anything so do not try to claim otherwise. Your "argument" is to keep on throwing up red herrings however the fact is that the "standard" is not common usage and therefore it has no place being forced into wikipedia articles. That is consensus. Fnagaton 18:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
"Common usage" and "standard" are different concepts. The IEC standard for binary prefixes is even older than Wikipedia itself, so careful editors would have used it right from the start. I don't blame them and I fully understand that this standard is not yet widely known and also heavily suppressed. Fortunately, the recent lawsuit settlement involving Seagate is helping to spread the knowledge. So every day that passes there are fewer people who can claim they are not aware of this standard. I dare to say, any IT/computer expert who still has never heard of it, is seriously out of the loop. Using the word "to force" is highly non-neutral. One could as well claim that the standard is being forced out of Wikipedia. Basically, it's not useful to argue this way. It is only confirming that some editors are highly emotionally and subjective about this issue. A consensus decided by a minority of all involved editors decided deep down in the labyrinth of Wikipedia is simply invalid especially if it goes against the current international standards and even more so if you consider that the previous consensus stated the exact opposite. If you see any kind of consensus it is at best a highly disputed one, thus fairly useless. I'm also certain that most people do not have time and energy to discuss this endlessly and running in circles, especially as the "consensus" can be reverted any time in any way, letting all previous effort go to waste. --NotSarenne 18:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia is descriptive and not prescriptive your points are irrelevant red herrings. For the majority of articles here the correct binary units to use are KB, MB, GB, kilobyte, megabyte and gigabyte. Fnagaton 20:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Definition of "failed standard": A standard which fails to get accepted by industry in any significant scale. This is in contrast to something like IPv6 which is a standard that is accepted but takes time to get implemented due to infrastructural changes. Another example for a failed standard is IEC 60617-12, interestingly initiated by the very same institute and also widely adopted by international standarization bodies including the German DIN. But for some reason industry did not like it, maybe due to the fact that it tried to solve a non-problem. 77.177.165.170 00:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC) (TheBug)

In what sense is the use of an ambiguous unit a "non-problem"? Thunderbird2 10:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
That's a rhetoric stunt. "non-problem" refers to IEC 60617-12 trying to discredit IEC and DIN. It's about how to draw OR- and AND-gates in diagrams (or similar) which was potentially not any real problem (I'm not really familiar with the details of that case). I admit, it was a nice try. Too bad I've seen it being used before. :) --NotSarenne 12:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see. In that case I misunderstood. I mistakenly thought the discussion was about the mebibyte (and its ambiguous, more widely used counterpart, the megabyte). Thunderbird2 12:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You asked what a failed standard is, I gave an example. We ARE on the topic of the binary prefixes which are heading to the dumpster, except here in Wikipedia. 77.177.162.215 22:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC) (TheBug)

It what was not I who asked about the failed standard (I think that was NotSarenne). The question I asked, which you have so far not addressed, was why anyone should adopt a standard (IEEE 100) that the IEEE itself no longer uses. Thunderbird2 08:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This is not about adopting the IEEE100 standard, this is about wether to follow the standardisation institutes in dropping it, or to do the same as >99% of the world does: Ignore the MebiByte stuff. 77.177.24.251 00:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC) (TheBug)
That's all very well, but an encyclopaedia should strive to be unambiguous. Further, if 99% of the world causes confusion through ambiguity, it is the job of an encyclopaedia to explain the confusion and its cause. The relevance of IEEE 100 is that this is the closest you have come to offering an unambiguous alternative to IEC. Should I conclude that you prefer ambiguity to clarity? Thunderbird2 11:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
You should conclude that a standard that redefines (contrary to replaces) a unit which is in widespread use should be ignored. At least >99% of the world has decided to do so. 77.184.41.229 00:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC) (TheBug)
Do you mean 99% of the world apart from the entire telecommunications industry and computer disk manufacturers? Thunderbird2 07:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
No, he means, he's right no matter what your arguments are. --217.87.96.157 22:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
IEC 60617-12 is a fairly ridiculous example. IPv6 just like Megabytes concern experts and non-experts alike. Technical diagrams do not concern any consumers in the least. Just like IPv6 though the problem gets more and more severe, the longer you wait. I apologize for bringing in a analogy (IPv6) because discussions based on comparisons almost always diverge from the topic and cause red herrings. Sorry, for that. Regarding the failure, you might realize that more and more software and documentation is being updated to conform with the IEC standard for binary prefixes. At some point a critical mass will be reached and then almost everyone will quickly adopt it. It also seems you're just pissed off that the German Wikipedia has widely adopted them based on the observation that you frequently resort to profanity regarding this issue. I'm pretty sure the IEC binary prefixes are never going to win the google race because nobody is going to update a 10 years old home page and shouldn't have to. Just like we don't burn old books because of they use outdated language, units or contain politically incorrect content. Anyway, it's not like you have to use KiB, MiB, GiB in order to conform to the new standard. --NotSarenne 01:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I've yet to see a single example of any software or documentation that uses these new prefixes. Maybe one or two really do exist as you claim, but I am most definitely not seeing any momentum building at all.  —CobraA1 06:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
IEC60617-12 was just an example for what happens if standardization institutes try to force something on the industry. Binary prefixes are more than 8 years old and Wikipedia is about the only user. This is a failed standard. 77.177.2.13 22:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC) (TheBug)

Wow! I've been a computer programmer for almost two decades, and I never heard of this MiB business until this week when I saw what looked like a misspelling in a Wikipedia article. I thought that the writer wrote Gigabyte as GiB and then kept going to MiB for "Migabyte" in a funny accent. I've always gotten a bit disappointed each time I've been reminded that my spinning media didn't contain all the bytes that the package claimed to, and I kept realizing intuitively that it was a marketing ploy, but I never really sat and thought about it and realized that it had spread to all the spinning media sellers. Now they want to make it a "standard"? Well, if it ever becomes standard then fine, but meanwhile Wikipedia looks pretty silly using it. (There's something plain cutesy and icky about it, actually.) Eliezerh 03:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately IEC charges $140 for their standard. I would love to take a look at the list of contributors, I have some suspicions about the involved parties. 77.177.24.251 00:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC) (TheBug)

So, the Wikipedia is backing up a standard that is not available publicly, but rather requires payment for? No wonder I've never seen this standard outside the Wikipedia. Personally, I'd rather not encourage the use of a standard that most people won't bother to access.  —CobraA1 03:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm an unregistered user so it will be hard for me to defend a point of view about MiB, MB, KiB, KB and the like. To be honest, I'm tempted to revert MiB to MB in every article I find...but it's pointless because I'm an unregistered user and there are others here who wish to push this MiB thing. This new standard will not solve any problem because the layman would still be confused and for those initiated in the field, it isn't hard to understand what MB means for a hard drive or for a memory chip.
As a matter and fact, the layman would still see on his hard drive something like 128GB...and in windows (assuming MS will stick to this standard) a file size like 4KiB. And what the layman would think? Oh...the KiB thing is a spelling error...it looks funny!
And my hard drive has about 128 gigs. But for him, KiB and KB or MiB and MB would still be the same.
Waht kind of gigs? It doesn't matter for him. Indeed, the error between MiB and MB is only about 5%...The error between TiB and TB is about 10%. So where does this go for the layman? His drive has still about 128gigs whether there are 128GB or 119.21GiB. In fact, only for drives in the vecinity of 1000TB there will be about 20% difference between TiB and TB and it will start to be really noticeable. 1000TB?? I mean that's huge!
A "minor" correction, I've done the math wrong... the error will be around 20% for drives around 1 tera TB (o thousand billions Tera Bytes). For a 1000TB drive, the error is around 12.5%...not that much. And still, 1000TB for a drive is huge!!
The only units that should be redefined here are those used for measuring spinning disks/discs capacities and not the already de-facto standard binary powers!
It is strange that Wikipedia wants to endorse the use of this standard. Why isn't Wikipedia interested in imposing a standard only 4 years older than this one? Like IEEE 1284 standard from 1994? A standard which recommends the use of 36 pins, half-pitch Centronics connectors for newer devices? Or that the SPP mode should be called Compatiblity mode? I'm yet to see a new computer fitted with that mini-centronics connector and a BIOS option that lets me select the Compatibility mode for my parallel port!
If a standard fails (because the industry doesn't care about it) then Wikipedia should not consider its use on its pages/articles! (like it doesn't care about the mini-centronics and compatibility mode).
So please, leave this article here, but do not endorse the use of this standard!89.137.187.188 (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Apass

The German Wikipedia just did a vote on the use of the binary prefixes. The result was 2 to 1 for using the traditional notation and to use it consequently in the binary meaning when data amounts are addressed (data rates, i.e. MB/sec are decimal). In addition we designed a set of tool tips and footnotes that can be used to provide further information. --TheBug (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PLEASE STOP EDITING IN MEBIBYTE ALL OVER WIKIPEDIA

Okay I get it some of you are fanatically behind this but PLEASE stop editing stuff all around Wikipedia to meet your agenda of forcing this mebibyte stuff on everyone. It's annoying.