Template talk:Bit and byte prefixes

"Note that the IEC names are defined only up to exbi-, corresponding to the SI prefix exa-. The two SI prefixes zetta- (10²¹) and yotta- (10²⁴) have no corresponding IEC binary prefixes, though the obvious continuation would be zebi- (Zi = 2⁷⁰ = 1000⁷ × 1.180 591 620 717 411 303 424) and yobi- (Yi = 2⁸⁰ = 1000⁸ × 1.208 925 819 614 629 174 706 176)."

This standard was developed specifically to meet industry’s needs in data processing and data transmission. It eliminates confusion by setting out the prefixes and symbols for the binary, as opposed to decimal, multiples that most often apply in these fields. Zebi and yobi are the latest in this evolution. The term zebi means “two to the power 70”. The term yobi means “two to the power 80”. [1]

Byte

Shouldn't byte be on this list? --Dom thedude 0 0 1 18:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capital or small k for kilobyte

I dare to say that in 95% of the cases the abbreviation KB means 1024 bytes and that in less than 5% of the publications this is spelled as kB. The expression kB to mean 1000 bytes is even rarer. This just means that in the context of bytes the SI small k is just irrelevant. −Woodstone 17:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is explained in the kilobyte article that the abbreviation links to. — Omegatron 20:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So the template needs to have small k, but the explanation can say KB is common practice. −Woodstone 20:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the template is showing the standards, not common practice, which is too ambiguous for a concise table, anyway. — Omegatron 21:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a wierd marketing convention that RAM manufactures use 1GB=2^30, while disk manufacturers use 1GB=10^9. See gigabyte. (I wonder what flash memory makers do.) Might be worth a link back to gigabyte. --Nagle 23:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once a long time ago I got it in my head that kb/s, mb/s (both lowercase) was a good/clear convention for kilobits/megabits per second - but in the end it was just way clearer for all involved to spell out a few more letters -- kbits/mbits. 74.103.98.163 18:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification to table

The table as it was was misleading as it suggested that, for example, Megabyte had only the SI definition, and didn't take into account common usage of the binary type. I have expanded the table to make it clear that Megabyte, kilobyte etc can mean both binary and SI, whereas the new Mebibyte definitions relate to the binary numbers only. I hope everyone agrees that this helps to clarify the situation, which in itself, is unclear! --Rebroad 12:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parenthesis

I think that the parenthesis as they are used now in the left hand side quantity column are confusing. It doesn't seem clear to me that the "(SI standard meaning)" part from the row above applies to the quantity section. What about something like:

Quantities of bytes
SI prefix quantities				Binary prefix quantities from IEC 60027-2
Name	Symbol	Value in Popular Usage	Value in Standard SI	Name	Symbol	Value
kilobyte	kB	2¹⁰	10³	kibibyte	KiB	2¹⁰
megabyte	MB	2²⁰	10⁶	mebibyte	MiB	2²⁰
gigabyte	GB	2³⁰	10⁹	gibibyte	GiB	2³⁰
terabyte	TB	2⁴⁰	10¹²	tebibyte	TiB	2⁴⁰
petabyte	PB	2⁵⁰	10¹⁵	pebibyte	PiB	2⁵⁰
exabyte	EB	2⁶⁰	10¹⁸	exbibyte	EiB	2⁶⁰
zettabyte	ZB	2⁷⁰	10²¹	zebibyte	ZiB	2⁷⁰
yottabyte	YB	2⁸⁰	10²⁴	yobibyte	YiB	2⁸⁰

This way each numerical value has the usage-style directly above it, which seems clearer to me. Downside is that the table is slightly bigger. Comments? --Jakohn 19:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite big. — Omegatron 19:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantities of bytes
SI prefixes			Binary prefixes (IEC 60027-2)
Name (Symbol)	Value in Popular Usage	Value in Standard SI	Name (Symbol)	Value
kilobyte (kB)	2¹⁰	10³	kibibyte (KiB)	2¹⁰
megabyte (MB)	2²⁰	10⁶	mebibyte (MiB)	2²⁰
gigabyte (GB)	2³⁰	10⁹	gibibyte (GiB)	2³⁰
terabyte (TB)	2⁴⁰	10¹²	tebibyte (TiB)	2⁴⁰
petabyte (PB)	2⁵⁰	10¹⁵	pebibyte (PiB)	2⁵⁰
exabyte (EB)	2⁶⁰	10¹⁸	exbibyte (EiB)	2⁶⁰
zettabyte (ZB)	2⁷⁰	10²¹	zebibyte (ZiB)	2⁷⁰
yottabyte (YB)	2⁸⁰	10²⁴	yobibyte (YiB)	2⁸⁰

(Removed infobox class from both demos to make it easier to compare.) Shrunk a bit, now somewhat skinnier than current live version, just 2 lines longer. Seem better? --Jakohn 20:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How 'bout something a little simpler than that, maybe something like this? — SheeEttin {T/C} 22:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantities of bytes
Popular use (SI standard meaning)			Binary prefix standards from IEC 60027-2
Name	Symbol	Quantity	Name	Symbol	Quantity
kilobyte	kB	2¹⁰ (10³)	kibibyte	KiB	2¹⁰
megabyte	MB	2²⁰ (10⁶)	mebibyte	MiB	2²⁰
gigabyte	GB	2³⁰ (10⁹)	gibibyte	GiB	2³⁰
terabyte	TB	2⁴⁰ (10¹²)	tebibyte	TiB	2⁴⁰
petabyte	PB	2⁵⁰ (10¹⁵)	pebibyte	PiB	2⁵⁰
exabyte	EB	2⁶⁰ (10¹⁸)	exbibyte	EiB	2⁶⁰
zettabyte	ZB	2⁷⁰ (10²¹)	zebibyte	ZiB	2⁷⁰
yottabyte	YB	2⁸⁰ (10²⁴)	yobibyte	YiB	2⁸⁰

Thats confusing as well because the parenthesis are ambiguous. In previous examples it was clear that they denoted a separate way of measuring, which is really what this whole chart is about. The purpose is to denote two different ways of measuring bytes. This version of the chart may be more compact, but it does not achieve the goal of making it easier to understand the difference between the two systems.12.135.134.146 00:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like this version. See Template:Quantities of bits and Template:Bit rates as well. Keep in mind that "popular use" mostly applies to bytes, and not either of those two. — Omegatron 00:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No toya-

There's no toya-. Indeed, the claimed abbreviation "T" would conflict with "Tera". I found no citation for this claimed prefix, so I junked it. Dwheeler 00:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No byte

To bring up an old ignored topic, is there any particular reason why byte is not on the list? --Dlevenstein 16:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's quantities of bytes. A byte isn't a quantity of itself, is it? (And don't get all "reflexive property" on me, either, you know what I mean.) — SheeEttin {T/C} 20:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Nice to know somebody enjoys tampering with the template (x-ray specs for exabyte? Honestly...). --Aerodotus 01:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1024 vs 1000

I'm glad the table finally recognizes the existence of the 1,024 as the byte growth factor in binary. However, I changed the inaccurate denotation of "Legacy use" in the table header to "Binary prefix." In point of fact, "legacy" in this context is definted as "Obsolete; of or pertaining to old or outdated computer hardware, software, or data that, while still functional, does not work well with up-to-date systems." (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006).

While the 1,024 specification does qualify as "old," the fact that it is still in dominant use in nearly all PC hardware and software (including operating systems like Windows XP/Vista and Unix and byte-specific software programs like Nero 7+), proves that it is in fact neither "obsolete" or "outdated." And the "does not work well with up-to-date systems" statement doesn't work since virtually all "up-to-date systems" are still being built on the 1,024 specification.

The only difference today is that most of these systems and hardware are not being *advertised* under this specification, even though they are being *built* under it. This is nothing more than a cheap marketing ploy to make their products appear to have more byte space than they actually do.

For example, single-layer DVD+/-R discs are commonly advertised at "4.7 GB". But if you put the disc into your drive, I'd challenge you to find a single piece of software or operating system that would recognize it as containing 4.7 GB of free space. If you try to burn 4.7 GB of data onto the disc, even with overburning enabled, you're likely to get an error message. This is because 4.7 / 1.024 (MB) / 1.024 (KB) / 1.024 (B) is approximately equal to 4.377; which, surely enough, is roughly how much space most operating systems and software would recognize on the disc (if you have a blank DVD+/-R disc, stick it in your drive and see for yourself if you don't believe me). Therefore, if anything, it is in fact the 1 GB = 1000 MB (etc) standard that "does not work well with up-to-date systems."

The reason I'm making such a big deal of this is because this marketing tactic already creates a lot of confusion among consumers. Look on Google and you'll find forum posts all over the place from people trying to figure out why their burning software won't let them burn 4.6 GB onto their 4.7 GB discs. This misleading practice therefore harms consumers, even those who are otherwise well-informed. If Wikipedia legitimizes this practice by, among other things, portraying the "1024" specification as "legacy", then it will only lead to further victimization of the consumer and make it more difficult for people to get the information needed to understand why this discrepancy exists. 76.28.188.174 (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However common it may be to use K, M etc in conjunction with bytes to mean powers of 2, that does not make them binary prefixes, since in most other applications they are not binary. Perhaps a better term in the table header would be "binary usage". −Woodstone (talk) 09:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The gigabyte is an ambiguous unit and the template makes that perfectly clear. If a round plug does not fit into a square hole it is not the fault of the plug - it is the fault of the person or organisation responsible for designing the interface, in this case the computer industry as a whole. If you can't see that I suggest you read the section entitled Consumer Confusion in the GB article. Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who changed this from "historical use" to "legacy use", with the idea that it is not historical until it is in the past but active legacy systems abound. My preference would have been to automatically understand the binary meaning before either bit or byte and to forbid the decimal interpretation (what is an 8-bit byte doing with decimal prefixes, anyway?), as the IEEE did not too long ago, but IEC and several other groups, including the IEEE, have decided otherwise, so this seems like a lost cause, however much the confusion remains because decimal prefixes are not distinguishable from their other use as binary prefixes, and however nauseating the binary names (I don't see myself using them anytime soon). But to the point: I found it difficult to choose between historical, legacy, mixed, binary, deprecated, and maybe some others that I don't remember right now (entrenched?), and I thought legacy was the least inappropriate (my reference, Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, gives a more neutral definition than the one above). Actually, I hope the legacy use doesn't go away anytime soon. It is all very unfortunate, of course. RFST (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IEC prefixes have less than 1% usage in the real world. The table needs to make it clear that the use of KB, MB GB etc are used in the binary powers of two sense. The Binary usage is not sufficient for this purpose. If anything the prefixes KB, MB, GB etc in powers of two need to be shown first in the table and the IEC prefixes moved to a separate table because that reflects real world consensus. And it's not "legacy use" it's more like "common use" and actually "standard use" since the terms are defined by the JEDEC. Fnag aton 11:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) Apart from being innaccurate by missing the common use data the table is also too wide and makes the formatting on MOSNUM a bit messy. I propse a better table below:

Quantities of bytes
Common use (Somtimes known as SI)			IEC 60027-2
Name	Symbol	Quantity	Name	Symbol	Quantity
kilobyte	KB (kB)	2¹⁰ (10³)	kibibyte	KiB	2¹⁰
megabyte	MB	2²⁰ (10⁶)	mebibyte	MiB	2²⁰
gigabyte	GB	2³⁰ (10⁹)	gibibyte	GiB	2³⁰
terabyte	TB	2⁴⁰ (10¹²)	tebibyte	TiB	2⁴⁰
petabyte	PB	2⁵⁰ (10¹⁵)	pebibyte	PiB	2⁵⁰
exabyte	EB	2⁶⁰ (10¹⁸)	exbibyte	EiB	2⁶⁰
zettabyte	ZB	2⁷⁰ (10²¹)	zebibyte	ZiB	2⁷⁰
yottabyte	YB	2⁸⁰ (10²⁴)	yobibyte	YiB	2⁸⁰

This table includes the common use along with the decimal use making it clear which is which and reflects the consensus in the real world. It also includes the neologisms from IEC. Lastly it is narrower than the existing table. Fnag aton 11:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal makes the suggestion that the SI prefixes can have a binary meaning. It even suggests that powers of two might be equal to powers of 10. That is completely false and should not be encouraged. Some of the same letters (K, M, G) are sometimes used in binary meaning in specific contexts, but that should be kept clearly separate form their SI values. −Woodstone (talk) 12:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK Then how about:

Quantities of bytes
SI prefix quantities				IEC 60027-2
Name	Symbol	Common use	SI	Name	Symbol	Value
kilobyte	KB/kB	2¹⁰	10³	kibibyte	KiB	2¹⁰
megabyte	MB	2²⁰	10⁶	mebibyte	MiB	2²⁰
gigabyte	GB	2³⁰	10⁹	gibibyte	GiB	2³⁰
terabyte	TB	2⁴⁰	10¹²	tebibyte	TiB	2⁴⁰
petabyte	PB	2⁵⁰	10¹⁵	pebibyte	PiB	2⁵⁰
exabyte	EB	2⁶⁰	10¹⁸	exbibyte	EiB	2⁶⁰
zettabyte	ZB	2⁷⁰	10²¹	zebibyte	ZiB	2⁷⁰
yottabyte	YB	2⁸⁰	10²⁴	yobibyte	YiB	2⁸⁰

Fnag aton 12:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about using the existing version, but just scratching all the fluff:

v t e Quantities of bytes
Value	Name			Value	Name
		Binary usage
SI prefixes				IEC prefixes
1000¹	kB	kilobyte	KB	1024¹	kibibyte	KiB
1000²	MB	megabyte	MB	1024²	mebibyte	MiB
1000³	GB	gigabyte	GB	1024³	gibibyte	GiB
1000⁴	TB	terabyte	TB	1024⁴	tebibyte	TiB
1000⁵	PB	petabyte	PB	1024⁵	pebibyte	PiB
1000⁶	EB	exabyte	EB	1024⁶	exbibyte	EiB
1000⁷	ZB	zettabyte	ZB	1024⁷	zebibyte	ZiB
1000⁸	YB	yottabyte	YB	1024⁸	yobibyte	YiB

−Woodstone (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't specifically include the information from real world common use that kilobyte/KB etc are commonly used in powers 2. It ignores real world consensus. My proposal corrects that omission while yours does not. Fnag aton 12:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not common usage; it is only usage in certain cases (mostly memory chips). So "binary usage" is a better reflection of reality. I have added to the kB right after the decimal numbers and made it KB to the right. −Woodstone (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both of your proposals improve on the structure of the existing template, which I find confusing. I prefer Woodstone's over Fnagaton's for two reasons:

I disagree with the heading "common use" for the binary sense of the SI prefixes, because the decimal one is just as common. What's wrong with "binary use"?
"K" is not an SI prefix.

Thunderbird2 (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That proposal still does not make it clear that kilobyte can be 1024 bytes etc. As I've shown before kilobyte/megabyte etc is common use because >99% of real world sources use the terms whereas <1% use IEC terms. That is real world consensus for common. If you don't like the "SI prefixes" how about:

Quantities of bytes
Binary prefix quantities				IEC 60027-2
Name	Symbol	Binary use	SI	Name	Symbol	Value
kilobyte	KB/kB	2¹⁰	10³	kibibyte	KiB	2¹⁰
megabyte	MB	2²⁰	10⁶	mebibyte	MiB	2²⁰
gigabyte	GB	2³⁰	10⁹	gibibyte	GiB	2³⁰
terabyte	TB	2⁴⁰	10¹²	tebibyte	TiB	2⁴⁰
petabyte	PB	2⁵⁰	10¹⁵	pebibyte	PiB	2⁵⁰
exabyte	EB	2⁶⁰	10¹⁸	exbibyte	EiB	2⁶⁰
zettabyte	ZB	2⁷⁰	10²¹	zebibyte	ZiB	2⁷⁰
yottabyte	YB	2⁸⁰	10²⁴	yobibyte	YiB	2⁸⁰

Fnag aton 13:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That one gives the impression that SI prefixes are binary. How about this?

Quantities of bytes
Common use quantities				IEC 60027-2
Name	Symbol	Binary use	Decimal use	Name	Symbol	Value
kilobyte	KB/kB	2¹⁰	10³	kibibyte	KiB	2¹⁰
megabyte	MB	2²⁰	10⁶	mebibyte	MiB	2²⁰
gigabyte	GB	2³⁰	10⁹	gibibyte	GiB	2³⁰
terabyte	TB	2⁴⁰	10¹²	tebibyte	TiB	2⁴⁰
petabyte	PB	2⁵⁰	10¹⁵	pebibyte	PiB	2⁵⁰
exabyte	EB	2⁶⁰	10¹⁸	exbibyte	EiB	2⁶⁰
zettabyte	ZB	2⁷⁰	10²¹	zebibyte	ZiB	2⁷⁰
yottabyte	YB	2⁸⁰	10²⁴	yobibyte	YiB	2⁸⁰

Thunderbird2 (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That one gives the impression that SI prefixes are binary. How about this?

I'd prefer this for formatting reasons of the "Decimal use" being too wide:

Quantities of bytes
Common use quantities				IEC 60027-2
Name	Symbol	Binary use	Decimal use	Name	Symbol	Value
kilobyte	KB/kB	2¹⁰	10³	kibibyte	KiB	2¹⁰
megabyte	MB	2²⁰	10⁶	mebibyte	MiB	2²⁰
gigabyte	GB	2³⁰	10⁹	gibibyte	GiB	2³⁰
terabyte	TB	2⁴⁰	10¹²	tebibyte	TiB	2⁴⁰
petabyte	PB	2⁵⁰	10¹⁵	pebibyte	PiB	2⁵⁰
exabyte	EB	2⁶⁰	10¹⁸	exbibyte	EiB	2⁶⁰
zettabyte	ZB	2⁷⁰	10²¹	zebibyte	ZiB	2⁷⁰
yottabyte	YB	2⁸⁰	10²⁴	yobibyte	YiB	2⁸⁰

Fnag aton 13:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. What do others think? Thunderbird2 (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about this slightly condensed form:

Quantities of bytes
Common prefix				Binary prefix
Name	Symbol	Decimal SI	Binary JEDEC	Name	Symbol	Binary IEC
kilobyte	KB/kB	10³	2¹⁰	kibibyte	KiB	2¹⁰
megabyte	MB	10⁶	2²⁰	mebibyte	MiB	2²⁰
gigabyte	GB	10⁹	2³⁰	gibibyte	GiB	2³⁰
terabyte	TB	10¹²	2⁴⁰	tebibyte	TiB	2⁴⁰
petabyte	PB	10¹⁵	2⁵⁰	pebibyte	PiB	2⁵⁰
exabyte	EB	10¹⁸	2⁶⁰	exbibyte	EiB	2⁶⁰
zettabyte	ZB	10²¹	2⁷⁰	zebibyte	ZiB	2⁷⁰
yottabyte	YB	10²⁴	2⁸⁰	yobibyte	YiB	2⁸⁰

−Woodstone (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer it without the "SI" and "JEDEC" column headers, i.e. my last version, because "Binary use" and "decimal use" is more immediately understood and then if the reader wants more info they can click on the links to find out more. Fnag aton 18:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the values in the table it's immedately clear which values are binary or decimal, so such column headers do no add any information. Note that the standards are still linked. −Woodstone (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the Fnagaton that the headers "binary use" and "decimal use" are more helpful than "JEDEC" and "SI". Both versions are good though. Thunderbird2 (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the edit to the headers to add "Decimal" and "Binary" I am not that enamored with the "Special use" as it has all sorts of wishy-washy point-of-view about the word. How about "Uncommon use" instead? Since we all know they are not that commonly used. Or just change it to the "IEC 60027-2" I put before? Either one would be OK with me, but "special" isn't. Fnag aton 00:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like this example below:

Quantities of bytes
Common use				IEC 60027-2
Name	Symbol	Decimal SI	Binary JEDEC	Name	Symbol	Binary IEC
kilobyte	KB/kB	10³	2¹⁰	kibibyte	KiB	2¹⁰
megabyte	MB	10⁶	2²⁰	mebibyte	MiB	2²⁰
gigabyte	GB	10⁹	2³⁰	gibibyte	GiB	2³⁰
terabyte	TB	10¹²	2⁴⁰	tebibyte	TiB	2⁴⁰
petabyte	PB	10¹⁵	2⁵⁰	pebibyte	PiB	2⁵⁰
exabyte	EB	10¹⁸	2⁶⁰	exbibyte	EiB	2⁶⁰
zettabyte	ZB	10²¹	2⁷⁰	zebibyte	ZiB	2⁷⁰
yottabyte	YB	10²⁴	2⁸⁰	yobibyte	YiB	2⁸⁰

Hmm, looking at the example the table actually looks better than I expected it would. Fnag aton 00:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The titles should be balanced, not one a word, the other a standard. Whay not use: "common prefix" and "binary prefix"? (changed in my version above). Common can both be understood in the sense of "used for both" and also of "often used". −Woodstone (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Fnag aton 17:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IT prefixes
Name	Symbol	Value	Value	Name	Symbol	Value
Common		SI	JEDEC	IEC
kilobyte	kB, KB	1000¹	1024¹	kibibyte	KiB	1024¹
megabyte	MB	1000²	1024²	mebibyte	MiB	1024²
gigabyte	GB	1000³	1024³	gibibyte	GiB	1024³
terabyte	TB	1000⁴	1024⁴	tebibyte	TiB	1024⁴
petabyte	PB	1000⁵	1024⁵	pebibyte	PiB	1024⁵
exabyte	EB	1000⁶	1024⁶	exbibyte	EiB	1024⁶
zettabyte	ZB	1000⁷	1024⁷	zebibyte	ZiB	1024⁷
yottabyte	YB	1000⁸	1024⁸	yobibyte	YiB	1024⁸

First optional parameter gives the unit name, defaults to “byte”.
Second optional parameter gives the unit symbol, defaults to first parameter or “B”.

</noinclude> The symbol ‘B’ is actually incompatible with the SI– it already is used for the bel –, ‘byte’ is suggested instead, the French ‘o’ for octet would work too. — Christoph Päper 16:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But we're not blindly following SI here ;) and Wikipedia uses terms found in the sources relevant to the topic. In the real world (and defined by the JEDEC who produce the standard relevant to the topic) "B" can be byte. Fnag aton 16:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you would like that observation, because in consequence it gives something like the following tables. — Christoph Päper 12:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prefixes for byte
Common	SI		JEDEC		IEC
	Decimal		Binary
Name	Symbol	Value	Symbol	Value	Name	Symbol	Value
kilobyte	kbyte	1000¹	KB	1024¹	kibibyte	KiB	1024¹
megabyte	Mbyte	1000²	MB	1024²	mebibyte	MiB	1024²
gigabyte	Gbyte	1000³	GB	1024³	gibibyte	GiB	1024³
terabyte	Tbyte	1000⁴	TB	1024⁴	tebibyte	TiB	1024⁴
petabyte	Pbyte	1000⁵	PB	1024⁵	pebibyte	PiB	1024⁵
exabyte	Ebyte	1000⁶	EB	1024⁶	exbibyte	EiB	1024⁶
zettabyte	Zbyte	1000⁷	ZB	1024⁷	zebibyte	ZiB	1024⁷
yottabyte	Ybyte	1000⁸	YB	1024⁸	yobibyte	YiB	1024⁸

Prefixes for byte
Decimal	SI	Name	Binary	JEDEC	IEC
1000¹	kbyte	kilobyte	1024¹	KB	KiB	kibibyte
1000²	Mbyte	megabyte	1024²	MB	MiB	mebibyte
1000³	Gbyte	gigabyte	1024³	GB	GiB	gibibyte
1000⁴	Tbyte	terabyte	1024⁴	TB	TiB	tebibyte
1000⁵	Pbyte	petabyte	1024⁵	PB	PiB	pebibyte
1000⁶	Ebyte	exabyte	1024⁶	EB	EiB	exbibyte
1000⁷	Zbyte	zettabyte	1024⁷	ZB	ZiB	zebibyte
1000⁸	Ybyte	yottabyte	1024⁸	YB	YiB	yobibyte

IT prefixes for bit and byte
Decimal	SI		Binary	JEDEC		IEC
1000¹	k	kilo	1024¹	K	kilo	Ki	kibi
1000²	M	mega	1024²	M	mega	Mi	mebi
1000³	G	giga	1024³	G	giga	Gi	gibi
1000⁴	T	tera	1024⁴	T	tera	Ti	tebi
1000⁵	P	peta	1024⁵	P	peta	Pi	pebi
1000⁶	E	exa	1024⁶	E	exa	Ei	exbi
1000⁷	Z	zetta	1024⁷	Z	zetta	Zi	zebi
1000⁸	Y	yotta	1024⁸	Y	yotta	Yi	yobi

IT prefixes for bit and byte
n	Decimal: 1000ⁿ		Binary: 1024ⁿ
n	SI		JEDEC		IEC
1	k	kilo	K	kilo	Ki	kibi
2	M	mega	M	mega	Mi	mebi
3	G	giga	G	giga	Gi	gibi
4	T	tera	T	tera	Ti	tebi
5	P	peta	P	peta	Pi	pebi
6	E	exa	E	exa	Ei	exbi
7	Z	zetta	Z	zetta	Zi	zebi
8	Y	yotta	Y	yotta	Yi	yobi

I'm the one who started this "1024 vs 1000" section with the opening argument, and to be honest this is the first time I've checked it out since then. I just wanted to say, after reading all the subsequent discussion, I am extremely pleased with the thought and effort you all put into fixing this. I also wanted to say that I really like the final table format you guys came up with! It's accurate, concise, and aesthetically compatible.

So yeah, I'm very satisfied with it now. Thank you all, and well done! =)

71.231.87.53 (talk) 08:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It was icily silent after the last change. Now we might as well kill (redirect) the sister template:quantities of bits. −Woodstone (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The kilo- prefix

The current version of the template indicates "KB" as a valid form of kilobyte. This is not very accurate, because KB is only accepted by JEDEC. The organization which regulates the SI only accepts "k" as a prefix for "kilo-" (standard prefixes). The SI is a regulation mandatory by the law in lots of countries and used worldwide while JEDEC is only a the standardization part of a trade group. I think the text "KB/kB" should be shortened to just "kB" to be terse while still correct. --RoberPL (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The practice of using K to mean 2¹⁰ is even frowned upon by JEDEC’s own standard with the words

The definitions of kilo, giga, and mega based on powers of two are included only to reflect common usage. IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997 states "This practice frequently leads to confusion and is deprecated." Further confusion results from the popular use of a "megabyte" consisting of 1 024 000 bytes to define the capacity of the familiar "1.44-MB" diskette. An alternative system is found in Amendment 2 to IEC 60027-2: Letter symbols to be used in electrical technology – Part 2

Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't "frowned upon" by the JEDEC. It clearly states in the standard "kilo (K) [note uppercase K] (as a prefix to units of semiconductor storage capacity): A multiplier equal to 1024 (2¹⁰)." Quoting the notes that are after the standard definition without including the standard definition is taking them out of context. Fnag aton 19:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to misrepresent what is said there. Here's the complete definition, for anyone interested.

mega (M) (as a prefix to units of semiconductor storage capacity): A multiplier equal to 1 048 576 (2²⁰ or K² , where K = 1024).

NOTE 1 Contrast with the SI prefix mega (M) equal to 10⁶ , as in a 1-Mb/s data transfer rate, which is equal to 1 000 000 bits per second.

NOTE 2 The definitions of kilo, giga, and mega based on powers of two are included only to reflect common usage. IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997 states “This practice frequently leads to confusion and is deprecated.” Further confusion results from the popular use of a “megabyte” consisting of 1 024 000 bytes to define the capacity of the familiar “1.44-MB” diskette.

I was quoting from NOTE 2. Thunderbird2 (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like more of a glossary definition than an endorsement. They're not saying "do this if you want to be JEDEC-compliant"; they're just saying "this is what some people do". — Omegatron 23:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From page 2 of the standards document: "No claims to be in conformance with this standard may be made unless all requirements stated in the standard are met." So logically if a memory company wanted to state they are in conformance with the JEDEC standard then they would need to use KB/MB/GB in the binary sense. Fnag aton 23:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm looking at that document right now, and they include both the "kilo-" style written out and the "kibi-" style in a table, with a note that "kilo-" is "included only to reflect common usage". So which of these is to be followed in order to be considered in conformance? Has anyone written them to ask for a clarification?

Are there any other standards or "official" documents that state that the "KB = 1024" style is preferred? I thought I read that there was an old (possible superseded) IEEE standard that did. — Omegatron 00:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notes attached to the standard JEDEC definitions for kilo/mega/giga are there for comparison (for example "Contrast with the...") and are not expected to be seen for conformance with the JEDEC standard. You'll note the terms kibi/mebi/gibi do not have their own entries and only exist in the notes. IEEE 100 defined kilo = 1024. User:Swtpc6800/Binary Fnag aton 00:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

kibi/mebi/gibi do have their own entries in JEP120-A, though, which also has the same "conformance" clause and a link to the other document. This doesn't seem to be as clearly defined as you make it out to be.

Does IEEE 1541-2002 supersede IEEE 100-2000 or do they conflict? Maybe our headings should be "IEEE 100" and "IEEE 1541" instead of "JEDEC" and "IEC"? — Omegatron 01:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JEP120-A does not have its own entries for kibi etc. The only mention for kibi is to look at the note for kilo. The only mention of mebi is to look at the note for mega. This is exactly the same as JESD100B.01 which is what I linked earlier. Also JEP120-A published May 2000, the standard document I linked (JESD100B.01) published December 2002. So yes it is as clearly defined as I said it was above. Fnag aton 12:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]