So, since HD manufacturers use inflated numbers the solution is for everyone else to change?
Does this mean we're going to stop using base 2 for things like network speeds as well? What will users think when they have lets say a photo management program, that says that their library is 495 GB (base 2) and then they try to transfer that over to a disk that has 500 gb (base 10) available, only to find 495 doesn't fit in 500. That's going to be pretty confusing.
The fact is the ONLY place I've ever seen base 10 numbers for storage has been on storage media to fool people about filesize. The programs users use have standardized on base 2, and this is just going to be confusing.
I actually don't find this pragmatic at all. The current scenario is that storage numbers are consistent in software (base 2) and consistent in hardware (base 10).
The end result of this is that storage numbers will be inconsistent in software, and consistent in hardware. How is that an improvement?
I don't know where you're getting the "consistent in software" bit. OSX already switched to base 10 seven months ago with 10.6—this is, like with the window caption buttons thing, probably where Ubuntu got the idea. Now the only one doing it differently (that non-technical users are aware of) is Windows—and I'm guessing they'll be right along in W8.
Wow, I had to idea OSX did that, I only use Linux and Windows. Well, I guess things aren't as constant as I thought they were.
I still think the overwhelming majority of software uses base 2, and that base 2 for that reason alone should be the standard. Neither standard is really better than the other, the more popular one should win.
Yes and no, network speeds are base 10 when you buy it and when you spec hardware. Most users interaction with quantifying network speeds, however, is the browser download progress bar, which always uses base 2.
Comments
So, since HD manufacturers use inflated numbers the solution is for everyone else to change?
Does this mean we're going to stop using base 2 for things like network speeds as well? What will users think when they have lets say a photo management program, that says that their library is 495 GB (base 2) and then they try to transfer that over to a disk that has 500 gb (base 10) available, only to find 495 doesn't fit in 500. That's going to be pretty confusing.
The fact is the ONLY place I've ever seen base 10 numbers for storage has been on storage media to fool people about filesize. The programs users use have standardized on base 2, and this is just going to be confusing.
The pragmatic solution, yes. Idealistically, it might feel wrong, but idealism has never made for a better UX.
I actually don't find this pragmatic at all. The current scenario is that storage numbers are consistent in software (base 2) and consistent in hardware (base 10).
The end result of this is that storage numbers will be inconsistent in software, and consistent in hardware. How is that an improvement?
I don't know where you're getting the "consistent in software" bit. OSX already switched to base 10 seven months ago with 10.6—this is, like with the window caption buttons thing, probably where Ubuntu got the idea. Now the only one doing it differently (that non-technical users are aware of) is Windows—and I'm guessing they'll be right along in W8.
Wow, I had to idea OSX did that, I only use Linux and Windows. Well, I guess things aren't as constant as I thought they were.
I still think the overwhelming majority of software uses base 2, and that base 2 for that reason alone should be the standard. Neither standard is really better than the other, the more popular one should win.
Network speeds have always been base-10.
Yes and no, network speeds are base 10 when you buy it and when you spec hardware. Most users interaction with quantifying network speeds, however, is the browser download progress bar, which always uses base 2.