Bitsavers size in historical units

[Dave McGuire]

On May 4, 2009, at 10:50 AM, Christian Corti wrote:
>> Maybe I did not make myself clear enough. When I wrote
>> 100 Gigabytes, I meant 10**11 bytes, because as I see the archive  
>> with
>
> A factor like kilo or giga implies a base of 2 when used in  
> conjunction with with bytes, basta! And I hate those babybytes -  
> ehm - mebibytes and so on.

   You and me both.  The people who came up with that need to be  
beaten severely.  Then they need to find a hobby to take up their  
obvious excess of free time so they won't try something like this again.

   The other one that really gets me was the (thankfully short-lived)  
effort to replace the traditional "master/slave" ATA terminology with  
"master/subordinate", because some professionally offended person  
couldn't handle even the mention of the word "slave".

            -Dave

-- 
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL