Bits & bobs

[zappaDPJ]

MODERATOR: This thread has been split off from the original bug report thread.

Incorrect use of MB vs MiB

I'm aware that this is pretty nitpicky, but XenForo is using a base 1024 system for filesystem sizes and then incorrectly labeling them as KB, MB, GB, TB, etc (those are base 1000 labels) in XF\Language.php. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megabyte The numbering system XenForo uses is...

xenforo.com

I've always understood data to be stored as binary (Base 2), so a megabyte to me has always been 1024 bytes. So 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024 etc.

When I taught myself to program there was machine code or binary so I can only think in those terms (1024) regardless of how it's labeled although MiB does remind me of a movie rather than anything else

 

[FTL]

I've always understood data to be stored as binary (Base 2), so a megabyte to me has always been 1024 bytes. So 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024 etc.

Indeed, modern computers work in base 2, but there's nothing stopping base 2 storage with a non power of 2 design from being created, eg 1000GB, 1013GB, 1024GB etc and this is what we see with hard discs.

---

Incidentally, computers don't strictly have to work in base 2 and could instead work in a higher number base like 10, familiar to humans, for example, or even arbitrarily higher bases.

On paper, the computer would actually be more powerful by working in a higher number base, be faster and with more storage for the same hardware footprint and clock speed. Digital transmission over a network, or over the air for TV, radio etc could all work in base 10, or any other base. Of course, the catch is building the hardware, since far more accurate voltage comparators would have to be created, which is much more difficult to do. When it comes to transmissions, they would become much more susceptible to interference and hence uncorrectible errors. In short, robustness goes down as the number base goes up, which is why modern computers work in base 2. There have actually been computers designed to work in other number bases dating from around 50 years ago or so.

An exampe of higher number bases are modern SSDs which store more than one bit per cell, ie 2, 3, 4 etc. This allows the same SSD hardware to store more data, doubling for every level added. The output of course, is still base 2 though. Again, it's harder to design and build such SSDs to work reliably and have a long lifetime, which is why the higher density drives tend to be cheaper. They tend to be slower, too.

 

[FTL]

When I taught myself to program there was machine code or binary so I can only think in those terms (1024) regardless of how it's labeled although MiB does remind me of a movie rather than anything else

lol love it. Good movie, that.

 

[MySiteGuy]

Indeed, modern computers work in base 2, but there's nothing stopping base 2 storage with a non power of 2 design from being created, eg 1000GB, 1013GB, 1024GB etc and this is what we see with hard discs.

---

Incidentally, computers don't strictly have to work in base 2 and could instead work in a higher number base like 10, familiar to humans, for example, or even arbitrarily higher bases.

Not with digital computers. They must be powers of two.

On paper, the computer would actually be more powerful by working in a higher number base, be faster and with more storage for the same hardware footprint and clock speed. Digital transmission over a network, or over the air for TV, radio etc could all work in base 10, or any other base. Of course, the catch is building the hardware, since far more accurate voltage comparators would have to be created, which is much more difficult to do. When it comes to transmissions, they would become much more susceptible to interference and hence uncorrectible errors. In short, robustness goes down as the number base goes up, which is why modern computers work in base 2. There have actually been computers designed to work in other number bases dating from around 50 years ago or so.

An exampe of higher number bases are modern SSDs which store more than one bit per cell, ie 2, 3, 4 etc. This allows the same SSD hardware to store more data, doubling for every level added. The output of course, is still base 2 though. Again, it's harder to design and build such SSDs to work reliably and have a long lifetime, which is why the higher density drives tend to be cheaper. They tend to be slower, too.

Indeed, modern computers work in base 2, but there's nothing stopping base 2 storage with a non power of 2 design from being created, eg 1000GB, 1013GB, 1024GB etc and this is what we see with hard discs.

---

Incidentally, computers don't strictly have to work in base 2 and could instead work in a higher number base like 10, familiar to humans, for example, or even arbitrarily higher bases.

On paper, the computer would actually be more powerful by working in a higher number base, be faster and with more storage for the same hardware footprint and clock speed. Digital transmission over a network, or over the air for TV, radio etc could all work in base 10, or any other base. Of course, the catch is building the hardware, since far more accurate voltage comparators would have to be created, which is much more difficult to do. When it comes to transmissions, they would become much more susceptible to interference and hence uncorrectible errors. In short, robustness goes down as the number base goes up, which is why modern computers work in base 2. There have actually been computers designed to work in other number bases dating from around 50 years ago or so.

An exampe of higher number bases are modern SSDs which store more than one bit per cell, ie 2, 3, 4 etc. This allows the same SSD hardware to store more data, doubling for every level added. The output of course, is still base 2 though. Again, it's harder to design and build such SSDs to work reliably and have a long lifetime, which is why the higher density drives tend to be cheaper. They tend to be slower, too.

This thinking doesn't work.

Digital computers, by their very nature, use on or off. Everything must be a power of 2. SSDs no matter how many bits per cell, still use powers of 2. When you say "other number" bases, sure there were 4-bit, 12 bit, 36 and others but with any of them you end up with storage numbering that is a power of 2.

Talking in K is simply an easy way to translate that to numbers our minds work easy with. That K is there simply to make it easier for our minds to work with a human version of a power of two, whether we are counting bits, nibbles, octets, bytes, words, etc. None of these powers of two can line up with base 10 numbering.

 

[digitalpoint]

I think you guys are getting too deep into it. Personally, I don't care if it's base 123, as long as file sizes match.

Labeling base 1000 as MB (correct):

• iOS
• Android
• Mac OS
• Linux
• Cloudflare
• AWS
• Google Drive
• Github
• Google Photos

Labeling base 1024 numbers as MB (incorrect, it's technically MiB)

• Windows
• XenForo

Rather than label what XenForo produces as MiB, the easiest/cleanest solution is for that number to be base 1000 rather than base 1024. Users don't get confused by what MiB is and they also aren't confused about why a 3.1 MB image they uploaded is only showing as 3.0 MB after they upload it to XenForo.

 

[FTL]

Not with digital computers. They must be powers of two.




This thinking doesn't work.

Digital computers, by their very nature, use on or off. Everything must be a power of 2. SSDs no matter how many bits per cell, still use powers of 2. When you say "other number" bases, sure there were 4-bit, 12 bit, 36 and others but with any of them you end up with storage numbering that is a power of 2.

Talking in K is simply an easy way to translate that to numbers our minds work easy with. That K is there simply to make it easier for our minds to work with a human version of a power of two, whether we are counting bits, nibbles, octets, bytes, words, etc. None of these powers of two can line up with base 10 numbering.

Nope, you've fallen into the trap, because all you've ever seen are base 2 computers so you think that's the only way to build a computer. Any base could actually be used, in principle. I had a feeling someone would try to "correct" me. As I explained, in practice the best base to use is base 2, which is why virtually all modern computers are built that way.

Here's an article on base 3 computers which have been built, to prove you wrong:

Ternary computer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[FTL]

I think you guys are getting too deep into it. Personally, I don't care if it's base 123, as long as file sizes match.

I love waxing lyrical about number bases and how they apply to computers.

 

[Forsaken]

Nope, you've fallen into the trap, because all you've ever seen are base 2 computers so you think that's the only way to build a computer. Any base could actually be used, in principle. I had a feeling someone would try to "correct" me. As I explained, in practice the best base to use is base 2, which is why virtually all modern computers are built that way.

Here's an article on base 3 computers which have been built, to prove you wrong:

Ternary computer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Most of those computers have been built as theoretical, or purpose built for experiments and would not be usable on modern platforms. The last known ternary computer I know of was in 2016, and it was literally done as a form of historical computer project.

 

[FTL]

Most of those computers have been built as theoretical, or purpose built for experiments and would not be usable on modern platforms. The last known ternary computer I know of was in 2016, and it was literally done as a form of historical computer project.

Yes, that's right. My argument isn't that other number bases are better and I've been at pains to explain why base 2 is normally best. I believe that there are special purpose ones based on other bases in use now, but don't quote me on it, I'd have to do more furious Googling to research it.

As a proof of concept project, I'd love to build a base 10 computer from scratch, CPU, memory, storage, everything, just to show the concept off as a matter of techy and very nerdy interest. In another life I might have well done so too, sigh.

Such a machine, even a simple one, would require careful calibration at power-on, possible recalibration as it works, extremely robust error correction and very precise engineering for it to work at all. Oh and temperature would tend to make the 10 voltage levels and level detection drift and produce errors, so that would have to be factored in, too.

 

[VBX Co]

Yes, that's right. My argument isn't that other number bases are better and I've been at pains to explain why base 2 is normally best. I believe that there are special purpose ones based on other bases in use now, but don't quote me on it, I'd have to do more furious Googling to research it.

As a proof of concept project, I'd love to build a base 10 computer from scratch, CPU, memory, storage, everything, just to show the concept off as a matter of techy and very nerdy interest. In another life I might have well done so too, sigh.

Such a machine, even a simple one, would require careful calibration at power-on, possible recalibration as it works, extremely robust error correction and very precise engineering for it to work at all. Oh and temperature would tend to make the 10 voltage levels and level detection drift and produce errors, so that would have to be factored in, too.

A bit is either off (0) or on (1); binary, base two. 8 binary bits combine to make a byte.

How would your theoretical base 10 computer store data?

 

[FTL]

A bit is either off (0) or on (1); binary, base two. 8 binary bits combine to make a byte.

How would your theoretical base 10 computer store data?

Another one with an attitude who thinks he knows what he's talking about.

I've already explained it in my original post which you choose to stupidly mock as you didn't understand it and then in my second one to @MySiteGuy. Go read that Wikipedia article on base 3 computers that I linked to and then come back to me and try to explain why they don't work lol.

It's simply a matter of reading voltage levels. A base 10 computer will have 10 of them for each digit, a base 2 computer, like the vast majority, 2 voltage levels. If this simple principle isn't clear to you, then I can't help you. Sorry.

 

[MySiteGuy]

As with other topics here, you process enough about many technological matters to practice what is commonly known as baffling with BS. Giving SSD's as examples shows what you know about this at a 500000 ft level, at most - that kind of storage is apples to oranges versus actual computing.

Digging yourself further in the hole with Google-foo doesn't help.

 

[FTL]

As with other topics here, you process enough about many technological matters to practice what is commonly known as baffling with BS. Giving SSD's as examples shows what you know about this at a 500000 ft level, at most - that kind of storage is apples to oranges versus actual computing.

Digging yourself further in the hole with Google-foo doesn't help.

Whatever. If you don't wanna understand it either, it really makes no difference to me.

Just remember that the original SSDs stored one bit per cell, later ones two bits, then 3 and now up to 4. They achieve this with multiple voltage levels per cell and with the more levels there are, the more data they store for the same hardware, but it gets harder to read those voltage levels accurately, especially if they start to drift over time. Seriously, just read up on SSD operation and you might finally understand what I'm saying.

btw interesting that you ignored my link to the Wikipedia article on base 3 computers after you'd claimed that they can only work in base 2. Of course you did, because otherwise you'd have to concede that you're wrong, but you can't face that, can you?

You know, I simply made an interesting technical point to fellow techies was all, but now there's two of you who don't know what you're talking about ruining it instead. I wonder how many others there will be.

 

[VBX Co]

Just remember that the original SSDs stored one bit per cell, later ones two bits, then 3 and now up to 4. They achieve this with multiple voltage levels per cell and with the more levels there are, the more data they store for the same hardware, but it gets harder to read those voltage levels accurately, especially if they start to drift over time.

That's (binary [base 2]) bits per cell. You said, and I quote:

As a proof of concept project, I'd love to build a base 10 computer from scratch, CPU, memory, storage, everything, just to show the concept off as a matter of techy and very nerdy interest. In another life I might have well done so too, sigh.

Such a machine, even a simple one, would require careful calibration at power-on, possible recalibration as it works, extremely robust error correction and very precise engineering for it to work at all. Oh and temperature would tend to make the 10 voltage levels and level detection drift and produce errors, so that would have to be factored in, too.

And I simply asked:

How would your theoretical base 10 computer store data?

So, how would your base 10 computer store bits of data?

 

[Suzanne O]

Love a good nerdy/geeky thread on computers.

Me personally I'm a brand follower.

My brand of computer is an Apple Mac.

You have a few choices out there with brands but ideally you'd want something that has either microsoft or linux on it.

@VBX Co
Simply if you have a good Harddrive that can save all your stuff on there that you need. You probably should be looking at a Toshiba harddrive. Something that you can carry in your bag and use for a wide range of computers.

Hope that one helps.

I also don't go into the fine detail of all the features i would like on my Mac.
Although i do wish that this one i'm using had it's on cdrom so you could add your own programs that you already own.

 

[Suzanne O]

I can actually see some people getting into this a little deeply.

It's eye opening deep stuff that i'm seeing here. All good and it's something that can be really important if you're looking for another computer in your life.
When i did Certificate IV in Information technology i always had problems with the hardware and part of the programming.
Now that i'm kind of used to all of this i think i'd be able to work out a few little things that i've done in the past on my old Microsoft computers.

Reason why i'm with an Apple Mac is because i had heaps of problems with all microsoft based computers. There's a lot of errors with the software and don't even talk to me about the internet browsers they have. They're nothing but

It's funny because what i'm reading in this thread is like what i'd get in a hardware/networking lesson at uni.
It will be even funnier if you get into the whole Cisco discussions as well.

 

[Forsaken]

Whatever. If you don't wanna understand it either, it really makes no difference to me.

Just remember that the original SSDs stored one bit per cell, later ones two bits, then 3 and now up to 4. They achieve this with multiple voltage levels per cell and with the more levels there are, the more data they store for the same hardware, but it gets harder to read those voltage levels accurately, especially if they start to drift over time. Seriously, just read up on SSD operation and you might finally understand what I'm saying.

btw interesting that you ignored my link to the Wikipedia article on base 3 computers after you'd claimed that they can only work in base 2. Of course you did, because otherwise you'd have to concede that you're wrong, but you can't face that, can you?

You know, I simply made an interesting technical point to fellow techies was all, but now there's two of you who don't know what you're talking about ruining it instead. I wonder how many others there will be.

Ternary computing is still theoretical, and the last successful project was Setun; the only recent project is by someone who has not provided an update since 2016.

Everyone who has researched ternary computing (as it is still mostly theoretical, as there have been no practical systems) has stated that to use modern hardware or platforms would require a translation layer... Which would support what @MySiteGuy is saying in that current computers only work with base 2.

If you're going to argue theoretical semantics, do so with someone who is not a professional IT person who has decades of experience and more familiarity with the subject that you're arguing about.

 

[mjda]

Love a good nerdy/geeky thread on computers.

Me personally I'm a brand follower.

My brand of computer is an Apple Mac.

You have a few choices out there with brands but ideally you'd want something that has either microsoft or linux on it.

@VBX Co
Simply if you have a good Harddrive that can save all your stuff on there that you need. You probably should be looking at a Toshiba harddrive. Something that you can carry in your bag and use for a wide range of computers.

Hope that one helps.

I also don't go into the fine detail of all the features i would like on my Mac.
Although i do wish that this one i'm using had it's on cdrom so you could add your own programs that you already own.

I can actually see some people getting into this a little deeply.

It's eye opening deep stuff that i'm seeing here. All good and it's something that can be really important if you're looking for another computer in your life.
When i did Certificate IV in Information technology i always had problems with the hardware and part of the programming.
Now that i'm kind of used to all of this i think i'd be able to work out a few little things that i've done in the past on my old Microsoft computers.

Reason why i'm with an Apple Mac is because i had heaps of problems with all microsoft based computers. There's a lot of errors with the software and don't even talk to me about the internet browsers they have. They're nothing but

It's funny because what i'm reading in this thread is like what i'd get in a hardware/networking lesson at uni.
It will be even funnier if you get into the whole Cisco discussions as well.

 

[mjda]

I think you guys are getting too deep into it. Personally, I don't care if it's base 123, as long as file sizes match.

Labeling base 1000 as MB (correct):

• iOS
• Android
• Mac OS
• Linux
• Cloudflare
• AWS
• Google Drive
• Github
• Google Photos

Labeling base 1024 numbers as MB (incorrect, it's technically MiB)

• Windows
• XenForo

Rather than label what XenForo produces as MiB, the easiest/cleanest solution is for that number to be base 1000 rather than base 1024. Users don't get confused by what MiB is and they also aren't confused about why a 3.1 MB image they uploaded is only showing as 3.0 MB after they upload it to XenForo.

I've never even noticed this but, yeah, I'd agree that XF needs to join the rest and let Windows just keep doing Windows things...

 

[TPerry]

Go read that Wikipedia article on base 3 computers that I linked to and then come back to me and try to explain why they don't work lol.

Oh lord.. the site of all factuality on the interwebz, the almighty WikiPedia... somewhere that allows any idiot to post/edit/update a "topic" and folks use it for "veracity".