20 Nov
2007
20 Nov
'07
2:11 a.m.
> I don't think that there is any question
that 102400 is
>a totally indefensible, irresponsible, and ridiculous number
>for defining a "Megabyte".
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Ensor wrote:
You're quite right, the actual number is
"1048576" or 1024KB. But that's not
your point is it?
Yes, it is.
There are arguments for 2 ^ 20 (1048576)
There are arguments for 10 ^ 6 (1000000)
But (10 ^ 3) * (2 ^ 10) (1024000) manages to combine the disadvantages
of both systems.