It is currently Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:11 am

All times are UTC




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:25 am
Posts: 2031
Location: Sadly in Germany
Marten wrote:
Case in point: Recordable DVDs are SI-accurate. 4.7GB is not 4.7 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024. It's 4.7 billion bytes, or 4,700,000,000.


Whereas, on the other hand, CDs are designated by MiBs, not MBs. The typical "650 MB" CD-Rs are actually almost 682 MBs, or a little over 650 MiBs.

_________________
Sören Nils 'chucker' Kuklau

(Or something.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 4:24 pm
Posts: 3120
Location: Aachen, Germany
Raniass'i wrote:
Wikipedia is more then likely wrong. Look at it like this. Your RAM is in Megabytes. If you have a gig of RAM. You don't have 1000 megabytes you have 1024 megabytes. I would say Kilo is the same with it being 1024 and Kibi, or kika or whatever it is, is 1000.


No, RAM module sizes are always a multitude of 2. A Gigabyte (correctly: Gibi Byte) module has 2^30 bytes and not 10^9 bytes.

k or Kilo is always 10^3
mega = 10^4
giga = 10^5

The correct name for 1024 MB is 1024 MiB or one Gigi Byte. But most people (including me) are used to say Gigabyte. Hard disk manufactures are using Mega, Giga and Tera in the right way. A 300 GB hard disk has 300*1000*1000*1000 byte

_________________
Image
[KI again #01792364]| Uru images | KI guide


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:25 am 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 9:00 pm
Posts: 610
Location: Germany
Tiran wrote:
A Gigabyte (correctly: Gibi Byte) module has 2^30 bytes and not 10^9 bytes.
[...]
The correct name for 1024 MB is 1024 MiB or one Gigi Byte.

How can you honestly expect people to use the "correct" denominations when you who brought up this topic yourself gets confused about it on numerous occasions?

_________________
KI# 48956 - Bartle Test: ESAK (87/53/47/13)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 1:53 pm 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:29 pm
Posts: 1284
Location: UK
Hang on, hang on, can someone explain how a thread on loading times has gone so drastically off-topic?

---

Back on-topic, I find loading times more than acceptable at present. If I'm l;oading an age for the first time, it takes around 2-3 minutes. Thereafter, 10-15 seconds is normal, and only up to about 30 seconds in a crowded instance (eg the City with 39 people in it).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron