I often find myself explaining the same things in real life and online, so I recently started writing technical blog posts.
This one is about why it was a mistake to call 1024 bytes a kilobyte. It’s about a 20min read so thank you very much in advance if you find the time to read it.
Feedback is very much welcome. Thank you.
As the article mentions, windows also uses KB/MB/GB to refer to powers of 2 when calculating disk space. AFAIK Linux somes does too, although the article says otherwise. Apparently OSX uses the KB=1000 definition.
It may be outdated, but it’s still incredibly common for people to use KB/MB/GB to refer to powers of 2 in computing. Best not to assume KB is always 1000.
Windows and Mac both use KB = 1000. With Linux I think it depends on the distro.
You’re thinking of very old versions of Windows… old versions of MacOS were also 1024.
It’s honestly irrelevant anyway - if you want to actually know how much space a file is using on disk, you should look up how many pages / sectors are being used.
A page (on an SSD) or sector (on a HDD) is 32768 bits on most modern drives. They can’t store a file smaller than that and all of your files take up a multiple of that. A lot of modern filesystems quietly use zip compression though. Also they have snapshots and files that exist in multiple locations other shit going on which will really mess with your actual usage.
I’m not going to run
du -h /on my laptop, because it’d take forever, but I’m pretty sure it would be a number significantly larger than my actual disk. Wouldn’t surprise me if it’s 10x the size of my disk. Macs do some particularly interesting stuff in the filesystem layer - to the point where it’s hard to even figure out how much free space you have… my Home directory has 50 GB of available space on my laptop. Open the Desktop directory (which is in the Home directory…) and the file browser shows 1.9 TB of available space.