From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


The article opens with "The International System of Units (SI) defines the prefix kilo as 1000 (103); therefore one kilobyte is 1000 bytes.", which sounds like it was added by someone with strong opinions about the value of a kilobyte. Since the programmer community still largely insists on the value being 1024 bytes (whether or not the SI agrees with them), I argue the article should start by explaining the variance in definitions to resolve the ambiguity. Thoughts? Hppavilion1 (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The fourth sentence in the lede isn't soon enough? I think it is. I don't think the article should start with "teach the controversy".
Did you know that data and clock rates very commonly use the decimal meanings of k, M, etc.? K=1024 is nowhere near as universal as many believe.
btw, you don't have to end a post here with "thoughts?" That's implicit. Jeh (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The lede seems fine to me. It opens with the international standard definition of kilobyte, followed by one specialist use that uses the term in a different way. Two other remarks
  • The kilobyte is not an SI unit. It is defined by major standards organizations (ISO, IEC, IEEE, etc) as 1000 kB
  • I cannot agree with "the programmer community still largely insists on the value being 1024 bytes" because programming goes far beyond the realm of random access memory.
Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not really Wikipedia's job to teach (nor prescribe or otherwise soapbox) though; it's supposed to document, and a KB as 1024 bytes is too commonplace to start off with the somewhat contentious saying that actually it's 1,000. --Vometia (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Nowhere do I see a statement that KB is 1000, or even 1000 bytes. I guess we must be reading different articles. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
per this definition, one kilobyte is 1000 bytes
Second line of this article. --Vometia (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I have changed that wording a bit so it's less "this is the word from on high". Jeh (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that was my issue in the first place: "this respected organization defines it as this, therefor that is what it must mean" when actual usage very often disagrees. Hppavilion1 (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
That's the compromise version; the original was (as mentioned) "The International System of Units (SI) defines the prefix kilo as 1000 (103); therefore one kilobyte is 1000 bytes.", which seemed like a rather adversarial way to deal with the different definitions- akin to starting the article for 'child' with "Under US law, a minor is someone under 18 years of age; therefor, anyone less than 18 is a child", when different cultures and countries use different standards. This version at least says "per this definition", making it clear that this is the case when following one particular definition. Hppavilion1 (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hppavilion1, can you please provide an official "different standards" that supports kilo as 1024? 2A02:AA12:3141:1780:5163:3641:47F1:EA04 (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The typically cited industry-specific source for that is one of the JEDEC publications. It's referenced at the Binary prefix article. Jeh (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster, among dozens of sites which confirm this standard computing usage. If I understand this aright, this older usage is now deprecated, but denying that it ever existed does seem foolish. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
No one is denying that anything ever existed. "kilobyte = 1024 bytes" is a current use in some contexts, not at all "deprecated". 1000 bytes is also current usage, generally in different contexts. This is all thoroughly documented at the Binary prefix article. Jeh (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Um, you are missing the point that has clearly been made in this discussion, not by me, that the text at the top of the article boldly and incorrectly implies that kilobyte is, was, and ever shall be 1000.000, a simple untruth. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Uh, no. I'm denying the point. I see no way to read the "text at the top of the article", however you define that, and derive the meaning you ascribe to it. The previous wording was problematic in that way but it's been changed, to the apparent satisfaction of User:Hppavilion1 , who opened this discussion - at least, they did not raise further objections. Jeh (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kilobyte. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)