The underlying chips certainly are exact powers of two but the drive size you get as a consumer is practically never an exact power of two, that's why it doesn't really make sense to divide by 1024.
The size you provided would be 500107862016 / 1024 / 1024 / 1024 = 465.76174163818359375 GiB
Divided by 1000³ it would be 500.107862016 GB, so both numbers are not "pretty" and would've to be rounded. That's why there is no benefit in using 1024 for storage devices, even SSDs.
So you could say 17.179869184 GB or 16 GiB. Note that those 16 GiB are not rounded and the exact number of bytes for that RAM module. So for memory like caches, RAM, etc. it definitely makes sense to use binary prefixes with 1024 conversion but for storage devices it wouldn't make a difference because you'd have to round anyway.
Thank you for taking the time to read it and your feedback.
Your replies here come off as pretty condescending.
That was definitely never my intention but a lot of people here said something similar. I should probably work on my English (I'm not a native speaker) to phrase things more carefully.
You shouldn't just say "did you read the article" and then "it's in this section of the article"
It never crossed my mind this could be interpreted in a negative way. I tried to gauge if someone read it and still disagreed or if someone didn't read it and disagrees, because those situations are two different things, at least for me. The hint with the sections was also meant as a pointer because I know that most people won't read the entire thing but maybe have 5min on their hand to read the relevant section.
If a hard drive has exactly 8'269'642'989'568 bytes what's the benefit of using binary prefixes instead of decimal prefixes?
There is a reason for memory like caches, buffer sizes and RAM. But we don't count printer paper with binary prefixes because the printer communication uses binary.
There is no(!) reason to label hard drive sizes with binary prefixes.
That's true but the entire disk size is not an exact power of two that's why binary prefixes (1024 conversation) don't have any benefit whatsoever when it comes to hard drives. With memory it's a bit different because other than with storage devices RAM size is always exactly a power of two.
Binary prefixes (the ones with 1024 conversations) are used to simplify numbers that are exact powers of two - for example RAM and similar types of memory. Hard drive sizes are never exact powers of two. Disk storing bits don't have anything to do with the size of the disk.
So why don't they just label drives in Terabit instead of terabyte. The number would be even bigger. Why don't Europeans also use Fahrenheit, with the bigger numbers the temperature for sure would instantly feel warmer 🤣
Jokes aside. Even if HDD manufacturers benefit from "the bigger numbers" using the 1000 conversation is the objectively only correct answer here, because there is nothing intrinsically base 2 about hard drives. You should give the blog post a read 😉
I tried to make the title the exact opposite of clickbait. There are no unanswered questions on purpose. No "Find out if a kilobyte is 1024 bytes or 1000 bytes". I think people are smart enough that I not just reiterate for 20min why a kilobyte is 1000 bytes but instead go into more details.
The main problem is probably that people won't sacrifice 20min of there time on something they are not sure if it's a good read but the only thing I can do is trying to encourage them to read it anyway.
There are not ads, no tracking, no cookies, no login, no newsletter, no paywall. I don't benefit if you read it. I'd like to clear up misconceptions but I can't force people to read it.
Pretty obvious that you didn't read the article. If you find the time I'd like to encourage you to read it. I hope it clears up some misconceptions and make things clearer why even in those 60+ years it was always intellectually dishonest to call 1024 byte a kilobyte.
Did you read the blog post? If you don't find the time you should at least read "(Un)lucky coincidence" to see why it's not (and never was) a bright idea to call 1024 "a kilo".
Did you read the post? The problem I have is redefining the kilo because of a mathematical fluke.
You certainly can write a mass in base 60 and kg, there is nothing wrong about that, but calling 3600 gramm a "kilogram" because you think it's convenient that 3600 (60^2) is "close to" 1000 so you just call it a kilogram, because that's exactly what's happening with binary and 1024.
If you find the time you should read the post and if not at least the section "(Un)lucky coincidence".
The underlying chips certainly are exact powers of two but the drive size you get as a consumer is practically never an exact power of two, that's why it doesn't really make sense to divide by 1024.
The size you provided would be 500107862016 / 1024 / 1024 / 1024 = 465.76174163818359375 GiB
Divided by 1000³ it would be 500.107862016 GB, so both numbers are not "pretty" and would've to be rounded. That's why there is no benefit in using 1024 for storage devices, even SSDs.
The situation is a bit different with RAM. 16 "gig" modules are exactly 17179869184 bytes. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=prime+factors+of+17179869184
So you could say 17.179869184 GB or 16 GiB. Note that those 16 GiB are not rounded and the exact number of bytes for that RAM module. So for memory like caches, RAM, etc. it definitely makes sense to use binary prefixes with 1024 conversion but for storage devices it wouldn't make a difference because you'd have to round anyway.