Talk:Hard disk drive

Refimprove tag

I'm glad to see the biggest problem the article has now is a lack of references in the "speed" section. My goodness, here I was worried about organization and clarity; maybe even filling in glaring holes in the content. Like, what if anything happened between 1956 and 1998, say? Instead we can just insert "feel good" tags into articles. I should have just inserted a "cleanup" tag, that's as good as actually *doing* the work, right? Or we could grab a mop. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry my actions bother you, but part of doing the work when you're added/changing material is providing references. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, right. Happy tagging. What does the "guild of copy editors" do, again? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry to have miffed you, but this article is not exempt from WP:V. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Frankly I don't see per WP:V "any material ... likely to be challenged" in the Speed section so I also wonder what particular value Nuujinn has added to the article. In the absence of specificity I am going to remove the tag. If Nuujinn wants to challenge anything within the section he could do a useful service by challenging specific material or better yet finding a reference for the material or, if it is in error, correcting it. Just sprinkling tags about really doesn't help anyone. JMO Tom94022 (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• There are large sections of this article that are not sourced, and the material here, like all material on wikipedia, should be attributed to a reliable source. You're entitled to your opinion, but using a tag to request improvement in references is a legitimate action--that's what the tags are for. Presumably editors adding material to this article have sources at hand, so why not add them. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have references, please add them. In my opinion, adding a refrence is more value to the article than adding tags. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't have sources for everything. I have added some material and a couple of references, and did some copy edits. Tags do serve a purpose in drawing attention to areas that could use some improvement, and there's no need to get wound up about them. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

RTFP — "in practice not everything need actually be attributed." The Section tagged has one reference, the article has eighty plus references. It seems to me the editors of this article are doing a reasonable job of referencing. If Nuujinn has a legitimate challenge to any statement in the section or article he should identify them or better yet fix them. Sprinkling Refimprove tags indiscriminately about serves no purpose other than to add to the 101,635 existing tags that for the most part are not being worked on. Tom94022 (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. And, according to WP:BURDEN, any material that is not sourced can be removed. Personally, I think a refimprove tag at a section level is a very polite way to ask for improvements in sources, and is less invasive than extended use of the cn tag, but since you all seem to prefer the latter I'll use them here. Whether or not articles that are tagged are not being worked on is open to discussion. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't respect it's contributors, that's why this sort of thing happens. If we trusted our contributors, we could accept that they knew what they were talking about when the sumarized perfectly standard concepts related to a topic. Instead we have the present model where in principle any random drive-by IP editor can challenge "The sky is blue" with a tag, and Stephen Hawking couldn't refute it.

I picked up an older edition of Moeller's handbook on upgrading and repairing PCs at Value Village; it's old, but my packed-away copy was even older. Anyway, it has a lot of really quotable sections on disk drives that I can cite here, though it is not useful on the 25-odd years before the XT. We still haven't done enough in the article, to this date, to explain jsut *why* we went from $2000 and 5 megabytes in 1980 to $100 and 2 terabytes 30 years later. That is a far more interesting story than the incredibly banal list of dimensions that we do have (also unreferenced), though at least someone's put in the biggest capacity of drive made in each form factor with dates. Where's giant magnetoresistance, thin-film heads, oxide vs. plated media, glass disks? Not here, and not in the History of hard disk drives article either. Though I notice one brave soul suggested a History of external disk drives article. Good luck figuring out how a disk drive actually works, from the present text; I hope we can improve this. First make it readable, then make it accurate, then make it comprehensive. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

RTFP — "It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them." Apparently you disagree with WP:V when you tag facts not likely to be challenged and don't make a reasonable effort to find sources of the facts you think might be in dispute. I have removed two of your tags because are facts that "in practice do not have to be attributed" as follows:

• The published RPMs of all HDDs are mathematically transformed in to milliseconds
• The published average seek times of all HDDs are in milliseconds
• The published data rates of all HDDs mathematically yield data transfer times for any reasonable block transfer of at most a few milliseconds.

There are numerous cites to HDD specs already in the article than make the adding of such cites to these facts superfluous. Tom94022 (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, respectfully, you are missing the point. The text reads "These two delays are on the order of milliseconds each. The bit rate or data transfer speed once the head is in the right position creates lesser delays." Yes, drive speeds are measured in milliseconds. Any delay can be measured milliseconds. It would be more useful to have a specific reference with an actual speed. Also, please refrain from making assumptions about whether or not I have made a reasonable effort to find sources.

Wtshymanski, I agree completely with you regarding the lack of history and scope of the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Geologic time can be measured in milliseconds, but the sentence says the delays are "on the order of milliseconds" - "on the order" usually means " not millions of times larger" but comparable. Does it really serve the reader's interest to know the seek time of a RAMAC was 650 milliseconds and of an IBM XT drive was 83 milliseconds, but the Binford 6100 disk drive has a seek time of 7 milliseconds and the model 6100A (with a Windows logo on it) takes only 6 milliseconds? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Many of the 80+ "references" are press releases or data sheets for drives. We can do better than *that*. Let's find some references that don't fall out of Google or at least come from real books, not data sheets. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

IMO data sheets are good enough in the sense and spirit of WP:RS. What if a manufacturer cheated? The competition would blame them faster than you can spell l-a-w-y-e-r. They might be a bit optimistic, ie a new drive in perfect condition, not one which barely made the quality check. I do think however that the resulting error is <1ms. The seek time paragraph within the Speed section is well-written IMO; by providing one to two significant figures, it des not trespass into false precision.

Maybe the form factor, capacity, shock resistance, and access time characteristics, along with the data sheets should be moved into the History article, as they are still changing. User.Zero.Zero.Zero.One (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between a parts catalog and an encyclopedia article, but less difference between a parts catalog and a Wikipedia article. We love parts lists on Wikipedia because they are so easy to write. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

List in History Section

I suggest we all should feel free to add a FEW more highlight measurements and possibly metric conversion to the list of measurements in History Section, but I think the list should be short with all product specific examples in the main history article. I also think the values of the measurements in the list should be generic so that the list does not have to be continuously updated as the areal density progression continues.

Accordingly I backed out some recent changes that reflected the latest products and prices but really didn't add to the point of the section. As it reads now I believe the progression is reasonably accurate for today's state of the art. Comments? Tom94022 (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Technology > Components and overall quality

After having read the whole article, here are my thoughts:

• The overall quality is quite high and very accessible. It is well written and has a good flow.
• The components subsection inside the technology section is a bit obscure to me. I think it needs rewording.
• There are many images showing the same things in the articles. Maybe consider removing some of them?

Kudos to the writers anyway.

#!/bin/DokReggar -talk 09:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I took a first hack at the components section; it still needs some work which I will get to later. Tom94022 (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the components section: it seems better to me, however needs a further bit of editing; it is really unclear for me, and I think I have more knowledge on physics and mechanics than the lay person who would read this article. #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 09:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You can tell me here what u think is unclear but why don't u take a stab at improving the section - it's usually better when the work is done interactively? Tom94022 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What is Speed

disk drive speed can be measured by? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.178.52.166 (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Just above: Depends on what you call speed: data rate or angular velocity? #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 09:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Speed can also refer to seek times or average access time, it all depends upon context.Tom94022 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Damaged hard disk photos

hi guys! i have damaged hard disk photos!! could anyone update it in wikipedia? thanks a lot!!! roberto spadim - brazil - são paulo/sp http://www.spadim.com.br/hd%20agra.zip —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.161.132.95 (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Write Verification

Can anyone confirm whether writes are verified immediately or at all? If so, is this done by the read head being just behind the write head, or is it re-read on the next revolution? Ajoiner (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

In the vast majority of drives there is just one head per surface. (A few high-performance server drives have two heads and two separate actuators, but this is used for seek performance improvement, not for read-after-write verification.) They don't do read-after-write on the next rev either. If they did, writing would be markedly slower than reading, and it isn't... if you want read-after-write verification you'd have to program that in the host. Jeh (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Ajoiner (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

error wiht harddisk

my harddisk when i press power button . doesnotngoto thw BIOS mode and safemode it hanged....... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.237.222 (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

please update revenue

Worldwide revenue from shipments of HDDs is expected to reach $27.7 billion in 2010, up 18.4% from $23.4 billion in 2009[77] corresponding to a 2010 unit shipment forecast of 674.6 million compared to 549.5 million units in 2009.[78]

Can someone update this? Also, it would be nice to get the help requests out of here. This isn't tech support.130.166.41.124 (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"Someone" could be you. Take the existing references and see if you can find later versions, for example. Jeh (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

I saw that 194.72.129.29 has made several vandalism edits (all reverted) in this page and others. Maybe a temporary block would be useful? #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 08:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

User:194.72.129.29 -talk is a school that seems to have periodic vandalism spasms, I suggest u report it Tom94022 (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Performance Section Vandalism

RaptorHunter has reverted my attempts to consolidate and update the Performance Section of this article. Speed previously a separate section is more accurately a subsection of Performance and is more accurately entitled Access Time. The subsection of Performance on Data Transfer Rate has a "non-sequitor on manipulation of sequential data" which is better off eliminated. The recently added sentences on comparing rotational speed is just wrong. Its hard for me to understand what RaptorHunter disagrees with since he reverts with minimal comment, the latest of which is a personal attack. I would appreciate it if other editors took a look at my proposed edits and tried to make them better. Tom94022 (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Just looked.. They look fine to me., and I agree with your assessment of the discussion of "manipulation of sequential data". (Fact is that most drives spend most of their time operating in a very much NON-sequential manner, so even if there had been some valid, properly RS'd points in that text its real-world applicability is in question.) Jeh (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

IEC prefixes and WP:MOSNUM

Per Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Quantities_of_bytes_and_bits: One of the exceptions for binary prefixes is:

" in articles specifically about or explicitly discussing the IEC prefixes. "

This table compares SI and binary prefixes. That counts as "explicitly discussing" it. Saying that 1000 TB = 931 TB is just confusing. For the purpose of this table, it makes much more sense to use binary prefixes for comparison purposes: 1000 TB = 931 TiB

Also, some editors are under the mistaken impression that no one uses IEC prefixes, ergo they are not worth mentioning. Here is a list of all the software using IEC prefixes: Binary_prefix#Software and Timeline_of_binary_prefixes#2000s The second most popular OS: Mac OSX defines SI units properly. (1GB = 1000000000 bytes) The entire linux kernel use the IEC standard. Is it really so terrible to have a table comparing them in this article?

To the guy that keeps changing IPs to edit the table, yes WP:MOSNUM does say that. I have directly quoted it. If you can't refute my point on this talk page, then you don't get to continually revert. --RaptorHunter (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is about hard drives not IEC prefixes so that exception in MOSNUM does not apply. The table is to compare kilobyte with numbers of bytes. The consensus on Wikipedia is to not use IEC. WP:MOSNUM says do not use this disambiguation. According to MOSNUM it makes more sense to numbers and not use IEC. Why are you editing against that consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.169 (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I asked for feedback on WT:MOSNUM. Now we can wait to see if the claimed exception applies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.155 (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The whole point of the table...is lost...if it doesn't show the binary prefixes! Using 6 different IPs in 30 minutes is not usual behavior for a contributor. Assuming it's the same person and that all of Singapore hasn't develped a grudge against the IEC at the same time. Referring the multi-IP to the Manual of Style, Numbers, Quantities of Bits and BYtes, doesn't seem to be sinking in as the IP is misquoting the version we can read. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This ISP uses a shared HTTP proxy for all HTTP requests, that explains the range of IPs changing. I cannot turn off this feature because it is part of the network setup at the ISP. Nothing suspicious there. The point of the table is not lost since it uses the WP:MOSNUM disambiguation method of using the number of bytes. MOSNUM says IEC must not be used. I am asking you both instead of editing against consensus and reverting my changes I am asking you both to leave those changes there and wait for feedback from the MOSNUM talk page where people who know about MOSNUM will be able to tell us is IEC is allowed to be used or not. I think it is not allowed to be used and that is why I think my edits have consensus and improve the article. I ask you both, will you accept the consensus of MOSNUM? 220.255.2.81 (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I encourage you to create an account so we can leave messages to each other more easily. Please see Wikipedia:Why_create_an_account?--RaptorHunter (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The manual of style explicitly says...oh to heck with it. Off to ANI for a rangeblock request....--Wtshymanski (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

As this is a content dispute, I have protected the page for a day. Favonian (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that this is just one editor who keep hoping IPs so he can edit the table. We already have consensus from the username editors that a table comparing binary prefixes to SI prefixes should use both for clarity. This clearly falls under the exception of Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Quantities_of_bytes_and_bits, quoted above. I hope that the editor who keeps hoping IPs will grow tired of this game by the time the page protection expires.--RaptorHunter (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Duly noted. Hopefully the extra day will bring a clear consensus involving uninvolved editors as well. Favonian (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, I agree that this is an appropriate use of IEC Binary Prefixes. Tom94022 (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I also agree. It is Just Plain Wrong to have 1000 TB and 931 TB in the same row of the same table representing the same amount, regardless of what WP:MOSNUM says. Jeh (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• This is an appropriate and useful application of IEC prefixes, per WP:COMMON, and arguments by Wtshymanski, RaptorHunter, and Jeh. I believe the IP editor means well, but an inflexible application of the guideline WP:MOSNUM leads in this case to the logical absurdity of saying that 1 TB is equivalent to 0.9095 TB, using exactly the same unit of measurement. It should be obvious that any guideline cannot possibly cover all conceivable circumstances, and this use does seem to fall within the spirit of the exemption noted there and above. The argument that using both prefixes improves clarity seems to be the best for our readers. Although I have edited this article in the past, I'm uninvolved in this particular edit war or issue. Good call on the page protection. — Becksguy (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that WP:MOSNUM proclaims itself to be a guideline, which is a different thing from policy. And it even says at the very top: "Use common sense in applying [this guideline]; it will have occasional exceptions." This looks like one of them. Even if there was no credible argument that the exceptions in the WP:COMPUNITS section applied here (and there is), there's certainly credible argument that the global "escape clause" applies. Jeh (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• I do not think this is an appropriate use of IEC prefixes for a few reasons.
  1. Is the column of extra values needed? I think not because there are already two columns of values to disambiguate, one in the decimal sense and one in the binary sense. It looks overly messy to include fractional values with the IEC prefix.
  2. As far as I know there have been no instances of hard drive manufacturers using IEC prefixes and certainly none cited for the use in the table so it is against WP:OR and WP:NPOV to try to make it look like they are used for this topic. Since the sources for this topic do not use IEC prefixes then this article should not do so especially since WP:MOSNUM gives alternatives.
  3. Even assuming the extra column of values is needed with the fractional values the question then becomes one of how to write these values and on this WP:MOSNUM is clear where it says "Disambiguation should be shown in bytes or bits, with clear indication of whether in binary or decimal base." There are some exceptions "when the article is on a topic where the majority of cited sources use the IEC prefixes" but this is not relevant since the sources do not use IEC prefixes. Or "when directly quoting a source that uses the IEC prefixes" again this is not relevant for the same reason. Lastly there is "in articles specifically about or explicitly discussing the IEC prefixes" which does not apply because this this article is not specifically about or explicitly discussing IEC prefixes.
• Instead the table can be edited in this way which makes it smaller and easier to read as well as following the guidelines.

SI prefixes (hard drive)	Decimal equivalent	In the binary sense
1 TB (Terabyte)	1 * 10004 B	0.9095 * 10244 B
1000 GB (Gigabyte)	1000 * 10003 B	931.3 * 10243 B
1,000,000 MB (Megabyte)	1,000,000 * 10002 B	953,674.3 * 10242 B
1,000,000,000 kB (Kilobyte)	1,000,000,000 * 1000 B	976,562,500 * 1024 B
1,000,000,000,000 B (byte)	-	-

• As everyone can see the table still makes it clear what numbers are in the binary or decimal sense. So as you can all see when written like this it is superfluous to include the third column. Keep in mind the text in WP:MOSNUM regarding IEC prefixes was written to give guidance on how to reduce the use of IEC prefixes to places where it is strictly necessary to use them. In this case it is obviously not necessary. It follows WP:OR and WP:NPOV by specifically not including any conversions to IEC prefixes. It follows WP:MOSNUM by using powers.
• Now then, does anyone have any disagreements about using that edited table? Glider87 (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

For some strange reason you are doing everything in your power to avoid using these binary prefixes. You even changed the words binary prefix to the very strange "in the binary sense". Now how is that vague description better than using the actual term. "in the binary sense" is nothing more than a euphemism for binary prefix.

Furthermore, your argument that HDD manufacture's do not use binary prefixes is invalid here. The table is comparing how the OS measures space to how the hard drive manufacturer's measure space.

It's as if some Wikipedia editor's want to do everything they can to censor any Byte measurement that has a little "i" in it. The "i" is accepted by an international standard's body. It's used any many tools, open source programs and websites. It adds clarity to the article when distinguishing SI versus binary units. I know the computer industry has been using MB and GB to refer to non-SI units of data for a long time now. That doesn't make it correct. The SI units have existed long before the computer age and it seems that finally computer software is catching up to the fact that they have been doing it wrong for all this time. Accept it.--RaptorHunter (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It does no good to waste one single line of this article to using units of measure (gibibytes) when such units and terminology are not used by one single computer manufacturer in any materials directed to their customer base—not in their advertising, brochures, packaging, or instruction manuals. Because of this fact, no computer-related magazines that are directed to a general-interest readership use such terminology. It is not the proper role of Wikipedia to try to lead the world by using such language here in hopes the rest of the world will see how way-cool and logical the IEC prefixes are; we follow the way the real world works. Greg L (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

So if it doesn't appear in a magazine it must not exist? Here is a nice list of a whole bunch of software that all uses binary prefixes: Binary_prefix#Software. Binary prefixes are here. Get used to it.--RaptorHunter (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not say "if it doesn't appear in a magazine it must not exist". The consensus is that if it is not how the real world works then Wikipedia does not report it. Binary prefixes are not commonly used, so theyt are not to be used in this article.Glider87 (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

See also Timeline_of_binary_prefixes#2000s. The tide of history is turning against you.--RaptorHunter (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

RaptorHunter replying to your comment: The article about binary prefixes uses the phrases "in the decimal sense" and "in the binary sense" so it is not my use, nor is it "very strange" or vague. It is very relevant that HDD manufactures do not use IEC prefixes because to try to use IEC prefixes in an article about hard drives is against WP:NPOV. That is the consensus that was agreed for WP:MOSNUM. As for "is accepted by an international standard's body" WP:MOSNUM says "Wikipedia follows common practice regarding bytes and other data traditionally quantified using binary prefixes" and then says "Despite the IEC's 1998 guideline creating several new binary prefixes". It is not relevant what a "international standard's body" thinks because what is relevant is Wikipedia showing what is in common use. A question for you, keepng in mind Wikipedia follows common practice is it common practice to use IEC prefixes for the subject of hard drives? The answer is, of course not. Another question, has consensus changed to show a common practice of using IEC prefixes? Answer, no of course not. The sources do not use IEC prefixes for this topic so to be neutral this article has to follow that example. Do you have any argument against the proposed table that is not WP:IJDLI? Glider87 (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be under the impression that no one is using this or that it's at least not in common usage. I've have posted a link to a long list of people using it in software everyday: Binary_prefix#Software. All the table does is compare to different methods of measuring data. Deal with it.--RaptorHunter (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That list is not relevant to this topic. Can you provide a long list of sources for hard drive manufacturers using IEC prefixes? The answer is you have not. Since you have not then IEC prefixes are not to be used in this article since that would be against WP:NPOV WP:OR and WP:SOAP. The edited table I provided above still compares different methods of measuring data and does this without going against WP:NPOV. Glider87 (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Greg yes we do we "follow the way the real world works". Wikipedia is not a soap box for IEC prefixes. Glider87 (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the goal of the table is to contrast correct numbers with how they are displayed by a very commonly used operating system (among other software). And Windows does say e.g. "500 GB", but using "GB" in the binary sense. One solution: in the table proposed above by Glider87, change the "binary sense" column head to "As displayed by Windows and some other software", use the TB or GB notation in that column, and not use it at all elsewhere in the table? That is after all how Windows displays hard drive and file sizes - with SI-like prefixes but used in the binary sense. And it sidesteps the "1000 GB = 931 GB" issue. It does not however address the software that exists that does use IEC prefixes, or SI prefixes in their decimal sense. Do we just pretend that no such software exists? That HD and file sizes are never displayed with either SI prefixes used in the decimal sense, or with IEC prefixes? Jeh (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Another solution is to punt the issue entirely and refer to the Binary prefixes article, which no one seems to have a major problem with (at least not yet). Jeh (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we have to consider what most software uses in the real world and not what a minority of software uses. In this case this article is not about the minute details specifically about IEC prefixes used by some software. That kind of topic is already discussed in the binary prefix article. This article is not on the same subject and is not meant to rehash detailed information in binary prefix. This article is a level or two removed from such minute details. Reference WP:UNDUE and ask is it relevant to this article that a minority of software uses IEC prefixes or is it relevant that the majority of software does not use IEC prefixes. So I think for this article it is best not to use IEC prefixes and instead adopt a neutral disambiguation advocated by WP:MOSNUM. This stance is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Remove the table completely and just link to binary prefixes would be an alternative. Glider87 (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote in my 01:25, 8 April 2011 post, Glider87? Yes, I agree with you 100%. You are correct and this debate is moot. This was settled a long time ago and it’s final. See WT:MOSNUM#Avoiding confusing IEC prefixes. This attempt to use the IEC prefixes in a computer-related article is precisely what MOSNUM’s guidelines are intended to prevent. There isn’t a snowball’s chance in h-e-double hockey sticks that there would ever be a consensus to allow the IEC prefixes to be used in this fashion. The admin might as well unlock the article for this isn’t a close call and the argument that the IEC prefixes can be brought back is without any foundation.

To RaptorHunter: Please take two readings of Complete rewrite of Units of Measurements (June 2008) and call me in the morning if you still don’t *get it*. We don’t use the IEC prefixes like you are trying to do because it doesn’t matter if they are way-cool. The consensus after long debate was that they are clearly unfamiliar with our readership and will not be used on Wikipedia unless the article is squarely on the issue of discussing the units of measure—not by merely using them in a table.

User:Jeh offers a perfectly satisfactory solution to this, none of which relies upon using a stuttering unit of measure (gibibytes) that precious too few readers have ever heard of. Greg L (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be under the assumption that because you and Glider have written so much more text that anyone else, that you have a consensus here. You do not. Even if we all don't have the ability to vomit text forth like some other editors here, the fact remains that you don't have a consensus. It's a hotly debated issue.

Futhermore, I don't want IEC prefixes because they are "way cool". In fact I think they sound kind of stupid. (kibibyte?) They need to stay because they clarify the difference between SI units and computer units. The software industry has been misappropriating SI prefixes to mean something they don't for decades. The ideal solution of course would be for software makers to actually use SI prefixes correctly, just like hard drive manufactures are now. 1 GB = 1 billion bytes and 1 MB = 1 million bytes. Then we can forget about the kibibytes.--RaptorHunter (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is defined "by the quality of the arguments posted" and good quality arguments are those that cite relevant policy and guidelines and also cite existing consensus. Consensus is not defined by a small group of editors appearing at a certain point in time. Existing consensus in the archive that Greg posted says not to use IEC prefixes because of many good reasons which was discussed for a long period of time by many editors. You have not posted anything that refutes those very good reasons in the archive or the very good reasons I have posted here on this talk page. What you have written looks a lot like WP:IJDLI which is a "weak and feeble an argument" and "hold little to no water at Wikipedia". Glider87 (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well if you had actually read any of my arguments (which appear at the top of this scetion), then you would know that I am not arguing that WP:MOSNUM ought to be repealed. I am simply stating that the rules provide a clear exception in this one case because the table is explicitly discussing the difference between binary and SI prefixes.--RaptorHunter (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don’t agree with you at all and find your arguments unconvincing. MOSNUM’s guidelines are clear on this and your continuing to harp on it and say that up is down is merely tendentious. That this article had to be locked down because of this shows that this is bordering on disruptive. Sorry. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

RaptorHunter I have read your arguments and they are refuted by the arguments I just posted. That is to say the exception you cite is not valid given the consensus found in WP:MOSNUM WP:NPOV WP:UNDUE WP:IJDLI and WP:SOAP. Glider87 (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Greg L's stance. Let's avoid units that are so far from common usage as to be derisible. If there must be a note to another article that explains a tiny issue, well perhaps; but it isn't the job of this article to "clarify the difference between SI units and computer units".  GFHandel.   02:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• So given that RaptorHunter's arguments have been refuted. I agree with Jeh that we should "punt the issue entirely" and refer to the Binary prefixes article. Remove the "Following are the several ways of reporting one Terabyte." and the table. Instead replace the text "some operating system utilities" with some operating system utilities. That should solve the issues. Anyone have any problems with that? Glider87 (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Everyone but you and Greg has a problem with that. You are attempting to censor the existence of a unit recommended from an international standards body. We are not trying to force it on every article in the pedia. Just explain the difference with a handy chart.--RaptorHunter (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The chart makes more sense without IEC prefixes because the WP:MOSNUM consensus says IEC prefixes "are not familiar to most Wikipedia readers". I am not attempting to censor anything. I am attempting to find the middle ground by agreeing with Jeh that the issue should be punted to the relevant article. It helps to organise and simplify this article and delegate the superfluous information to the text already in the other article. Glider87 (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• RaptorHunter, quoting you: You are attempting to censor the existence of a unit recommended from an international standards body. “Censored” “Banned”. “Matter of style”. Call it what you will. That argument was the very foundation of the IEC-prefix proponents over on MOSNUM when this issue was settled. Ultimately, that argument was rejected by a consensus. So you are re-raising arguments that were carefully considered and soundly dismissed by the community. Do you understand this point? Or do you understand that this is a sad fact but think that by convincing Glider87 and me you can turn MOSNUM on its ear?

  The BIPM (the SI gods) say that a space must be used between the numeric value and the unit symbol. Thus, it is supposed to be 75 % and not the 75% the rest of the world (including Wikipedia) uses. It matters not that there is a standard from a widely respected organization saying we are supposed to do otherwise. If you want to debate the issue here, then—by definition—an outcome per your wishes on this article will be contrary to MOSNUM. So if you want to change MOSNUM, go argue your point there and see how far you get. Sorry. Greg L (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again: I am not arguing that WP:MOSNUM ought to be repealed. I am simply stating that the rules provide a clear exception in this one case because the table is explicitly discussing the difference between binary and SI prefixes.--RaptorHunter (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Splendid. Well then, the crux of the dispute is what MOSNUM means. So this discussion clearly belongs there then. Your argument that you may merely mention the units in a table so that means they are de facto “being discussed directly” is totally absurd and everyone else at MOSNUM would be able to see that.

  Forgive me, but your manner of posting here and your clear intent reminds me of 'Thunderbird, who would be intimately familiar with all the goings-on at MOSNUM back in the day and would know full well what MOSNUM currently means. By any chance, are you the editor who was behind the old Thunderbird of MOSNUM fame account? Please flatly declare that you did not operate that account so that no Check User will need to be performed anytime soon. Greg L (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

RaptorHunter, going back and editing [1] old comments that have already been replied to (and also refuted) is generally frowned upon because it disrupts the ebb and flow of the discussion. Now then as explained a couple of times already the exception you cite does not allow what you claim in this particular topic. The conclusion formed by the WP:MOSNUM consensus is that IEC prefixes are not to be used in this article. The alternative, Jeh proposed and I just fleshed out, is to punt the entire detail to the existing text in another article. Glider87 (talk) 03:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't change my post. I appended to it, to clear up some confusion. It's an important fact that: The second most popular OS: Mac OSX defines SI units properly. (1GB = 1000000000 bytes) and that The entire linux kernel use the IEC standard.--RaptorHunter (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You added text claiming "Also, some editors are under the mistaken impression that no one uses IEC prefixes" which misrepresents the ebb and flow of the discussion. It also misrepresents the argument I actually posted further on down the talk page. Now back on topic, since your arguments are refuted what is left is the proposed change to remove the table and modify the article text to include a link to another article. Glider87 (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)