Re: [SLE] 4.4GB iso desn't fit on dvd
Darryl Gregorash wrote:
On 11/20/2005 06:15 AM, steve wrote:
suse_no64.iso 4.4Gb (4,736,907,264)
K3B tells me that it will not fit onto a 4.7GB DVD-R
The capacity of a DVD-R is 4.7 billion bytes, and contrary to what most programmers would like us to believe, that *is* 4.7 gigabytes. Also contrary to what many programmers would like us to believe, the fault is theirs, not the rest of the planet.
I don't know what collective group of morons decided to deviate from the standard international definitions of "kilo" etc, but those were defined in science, engineering, and whatever else you want to consider, long before the first computer was ever conceived. We are told that we are always able to tell what the prefixes K, M and G mean "in context," but clearly this is not so.
4.7 Gyga-Byte to Gibi-Byte= (4.7 * 2^9 ) / 2^20 = 4,48227 Gibi-byte Sorry, I'm a physicist. A gigabyte is a billion (milliard in Europe) bytes, and that is 1 GB. When the international scientific community makes an announcement to the contrary, I'll buy into this, but I can assure you, "G" will always mean 10^9. If programmers want to try to undo the mess they've made, let *them* create a new, different, notation for their concoction. Otherwise, they make no more sense than the mother who complained her son the brand-new soldier was not out of step, it was
On 11/20/2005 09:51 AM, DavideListello wrote: the rest of the army that was out of step.
4.7 Gyga-Byte to Gibi-Byte= (4.7 * 2^9 ) / 2^20 = 4,48227 Gibi-byte Sorry, I'm a physicist. A gigabyte is a billion (milliard in Europe) bytes, and that is 1 GB. When the international scientific community makes an announcement to the contrary, I'll buy into this, but I can assure you, "G" will always mean 10^9. If programmers want to try to undo the mess they've made, let *them* create a new, different, notation for their concoction. Otherwise, they make no more sense than the mother who complained her son the brand-new soldier was not out of step, it was the rest of the army that was out of step.
1GB in computer memory is = to 1,073,741,824 so there for 4x1,073,741,824 = 4,294,967,296 1GB does not =1,000,000,000 as some think when applied to computer memory. I hit reply instead of ctrl+l sorry -- Poneyboy Gregory D. Watts 931-498-4341\Cell 931-260-0414 http://www.tasana.biz
On 11/20/2005 10:51 AM, Tasana Computers wrote:
<snip> 1GB in computer memory is = to 1,073,741,824 so there for 4x1,073,741,824 = 4,294,967,296 1GB does not =1,000,000,000 as some think when applied to computer memory. Only because we failed to shoot the very first person who said it in public.
Now, I have a couple of very serious questions for you: you allege K=1024, M=1048576 and G=1073741824 when it comes to computers. Question 1: is a teraflop 2^40 flops, 10^12 flops, or one million times 2^20 flops? I really want to know, because I just read about a Linux cluster that IBM built very recently, that is capable of 176 teraflops; they say it is the fastest of its kind in the world, nearly by a factor of 2, and I really want to know just how fast "fast" is. Question 2: The inverse of "giga" is "nano", and I have heard of new transistors having a 2 nm (nanometer) boundary at the P-N interface layer. Would that be 2 times 10^-9 meters, or would it be 2^-29 meters? Getting this question right is critical, because it has a direct bearing on your answer to question 1. Oh, what the heck, I'll give you the bonus question now. My CPU is (nominally) rated at 400 MHz. Is that 400*10^6 Hz, or is it 100*2^22 Hz?
Darryl Gregorash wrote:
On 11/20/2005 10:51 AM, Tasana Computers wrote:
<snip>
1GB in computer memory is = to 1,073,741,824 so there for 4x1,073,741,824 = 4,294,967,296 1GB does not =1,000,000,000 as some think when applied to computer memory.
Only because we failed to shoot the very first person who said it in public.
Now, I have a couple of very serious questions for you: you allege K=1024, M=1048576 and G=1073741824 when it comes to computers.
Question 1: is a teraflop 2^40 flops, 10^12 flops, or one million times 2^20 flops? I really want to know, because I just read about a Linux cluster that IBM built very recently, that is capable of 176 teraflops; they say it is the fastest of its kind in the world, nearly by a factor of 2, and I really want to know just how fast "fast" is.
Question 2: The inverse of "giga" is "nano", and I have heard of new transistors having a 2 nm (nanometer) boundary at the P-N interface layer. Would that be 2 times 10^-9 meters, or would it be 2^-29 meters? Getting this question right is critical, because it has a direct bearing on your answer to question 1.
Oh, what the heck, I'll give you the bonus question now. My CPU is (nominally) rated at 400 MHz. Is that 400*10^6 Hz, or is it 100*2^22 Hz?
Simple. 400MHz (in computing terms) = 400 * 2^20Hertz
On 11/21/2005 10:30 AM, John wrote:
Darryl Gregorash wrote:
<major snippage>
Oh, what the heck, I'll give you the bonus question now. My CPU is (nominally) rated at 400 MHz. Is that 400*10^6 Hz, or is it 100*2^22 Hz?
Simple. 400MHz (in computing terms) = 400 * 2^20Hertz
kidding. be to got have You
Darryl Gregorash wrote:
On 11/21/2005 10:30 AM, John wrote:
Darryl Gregorash wrote:
<major snippage>
Oh, what the heck, I'll give you the bonus question now. My CPU is (nominally) rated at 400 MHz. Is that 400*10^6 Hz, or is it 100*2^22 Hz?
Simple. 400MHz (in computing terms) = 400 * 2^20Hertz
kidding. be to got have You
!epoN
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 08:12 -0600, Darryl Gregorash wrote:
On 11/20/2005 10:51 AM, Tasana Computers wrote:
<snip> 1GB in computer memory is = to 1,073,741,824 so there for 4x1,073,741,824 = 4,294,967,296 1GB does not =1,000,000,000 as some think when applied to computer memory. Only because we failed to shoot the very first person who said it in public.
Now, I have a couple of very serious questions for you: you allege K=1024, M=1048576 and G=1073741824 when it comes to computers.
Question 1: is a teraflop 2^40 flops, 10^12 flops, or one million times 2^20 flops? I really want to know, because I just read about a Linux cluster that IBM built very recently, that is capable of 176 teraflops; they say it is the fastest of its kind in the world, nearly by a factor of 2, and I really want to know just how fast "fast" is.
Question 2: The inverse of "giga" is "nano", and I have heard of new transistors having a 2 nm (nanometer) boundary at the P-N interface layer. Would that be 2 times 10^-9 meters, or would it be 2^-29 meters? Getting this question right is critical, because it has a direct bearing on your answer to question 1.
Oh, what the heck, I'll give you the bonus question now. My CPU is (nominally) rated at 400 MHz. Is that 400*10^6 Hz, or is it 100*2^22 Hz?
You have taken a quantum leap beyond my little understanding. In preparing for my test base 2 and base 16 and the above were the hardest for me to grasp. I still have so trouble with it. it is something I will need to spend time on one of these days. The figures involved with computers are like those with space, iAU is an awesome amount a light year and light speeds are hard to explain. and it took a long time for my mind to absorb that. in time I will grasp all the above. I could Google it but it would not be my answers.
On Monday 21 November 2005 17:34, Tasana Computers wrote:
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 08:12 -0600, Darryl Gregorash wrote:
On 11/20/2005 10:51 AM, Tasana Computers wrote:
<snip>
1GB in computer memory is = to 1,073,741,824 so there for 4x1,073,741,824 = 4,294,967,296 1GB does not =1,000,000,000 as some think when applied to computer memory.
Only because we failed to shoot the very first person who said it in public.
Now, I have a couple of very serious questions for you: you allege K=1024, M=1048576 and G=1073741824 when it comes to computers.
Please keep it simple. All I want is a solution to making an i386 SuSE 10.0 on a dvd that says 4.7GB on it from the pain in the a** dual layer dvd that I have bought.
Darryl Gregorash wrote:
Sorry, I'm a physicist. A gigabyte is a billion (milliard in Europe) bytes, and that is 1 GB. When the international scientific community makes an announcement to the contrary, I'll buy into this, but I can assure you, "G" will always mean 10^9.
I thought it meant 9.8 ms^-2 :)
If programmers want to try to undo the mess they've made, let *them* create a new, different, notation for their concoction. Otherwise, they make no more sense than the mother who complained her son the brand-new soldier was not out of step, it was the rest of the army that was out of step
It doesn't really cause a problem in most cases, since just about everything in the world of computers is measured in powers of 2, the problem only arises because hard drive makers decided to be different. And I don't think they did it out of deference to ISO/SI, they did it for marketing reasons (hey, we get to call a 150GB drive 160GB!)
On Sunday 20 November 2005 09:11, Anders Johansson wrote:
Darryl Gregorash wrote:
Sorry, I'm a physicist. A gigabyte is a billion (milliard in Europe) bytes, and that is 1 GB. When the international scientific community makes an announcement to the contrary, I'll buy into this, but I can assure you, "G" will always mean 10^9.
I thought it meant 9.8 ms^-2 :)
If programmers want to try to undo the mess they've made, let *them* create a new, different, notation for their concoction. Otherwise, they make no more sense than the mother who complained her son the brand-new soldier was not out of step, it was the rest of the army that was out of step
It doesn't really cause a problem in most cases, since just about everything in the world of computers is measured in powers of 2, the problem only arises because hard drive makers decided to be different. And I don't think they did it out of deference to ISO/SI, they did it for marketing reasons (hey, we get to call a 150GB drive 160GB!)
Actually, all line speeds, like bandwidth is measured in base 10. The fact is that computer technology is a hodge-podge of base 10 and base 2. The base 2 stuff is a legacy of memory where all the data was on on a binary tree. This does not have any bearing on hard drives, cpu speed, bus speed, etc. This confusing situation is why we now have Kib, MiB, GiB, Tib, etc. I already had a patch accepted for KDE 4.0 to follow this standard. So as of KDE 4.0, if it says GiB, you know it means base 2, and if it says GB, you know it means base 10. This is not a panacea due to really weird things like 1.44 MB floppies, but it is a step in the right direction. Mark
Hello all: In this thread came out a problem of this kind of mail forums/ lists. Someone asked a question and the others - instead of answering the qustion - start to discuss a completely inadequate question. In this case how much is Gbyte in computer and in mathematical terms. For the initial question: I could burn 4481MB single files onto DVD-Rs. Probably 4490 MB would also fit but anything bigger than this is is too large. I am talking of single files but I think it's about the same for iso files too. 4481 MB is 4697622528 bytes 4490 MB is 4707059712 bytes Your iso files's size is larger than 4707059712 bytes (4490MB). Actually it's 4626 MB (4.517 GB) -> won't fit on a DVD. Use ls -l --block-size=1M to see the file's size in MB. Cheers, IG _______________________________________________________________________ Rendelj képet és nyerjél gépet a T-Online Fotótárával december 15-ig. http://www.t-online.hu
Darryl Gregorash wrote:
Sorry, I'm a physicist. A gigabyte is a billion (milliard in Europe) bytes, and that is 1 GB. When the international scientific community makes an announcement to the contrary, I'll buy into this, but I can assure you, "G" will always mean 10^9.
I thought it meant 9.8 ms^-2 :) No, that's "g"; "G" is 6.67*10^-11 Nm^2/kg^2. You just flunked Physics 101 :)
If programmers want to try to undo the mess they've made....
It doesn't really cause a problem in most cases, since just about everything in the world of computers is measured in powers of 2 Does that mean, if I win a one megabuck lottery, after I've deposited
On 11/20/2005 11:11 AM, Anders Johansson wrote: the cheque into the banks computers, I suddenly have an extra 48 thousand dollars? :)
, the problem only arises because hard drive makers decided to be different. And I don't think they did it out of deference to ISO/SI, they did it for marketing reasons (hey, we get to call a 150GB drive 160GB!) I am certain they didn't, but they still got it right.
participants (7)
-
Anders Johansson -
Darryl Gregorash -
Istvan Gabor -
John -
Mark A. Taff -
steve -
Tasana Computers