Talk:Tebibyte

Computing Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Measurement (defunct)

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement articles

Numbers

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Numbers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Numbers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumbersWikipedia:WikiProject NumbersTemplate:WikiProject NumbersNumbers articles

Untitled

Discussion about centralization took place at Talk:Binary prefix.

Merge

The scant information here ought to be merged with Terabyte and redirected. --Ardonik 22:48, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

I think the ammount of data provided on this page is perfect for its task. The other page does not describe in sufficiant and immediate detail what a Tebibyte is, thus we should keep it as it is now.

--JFM 16:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

?

Isn't the common parlance for this measurement 'terabyte'? I'd never heard of 'tebibyte' until I encountered it on the AMD64 entry. There, it was confusing. I understand a desire to be correct about things (though I question this 'push' by the IEC and Wikpedia editors to wholesale switch the terminology), but 'tebibyte' and 'gibibyte' simply aren't exactly prominent in the lexicon the way 'terabyte' and 'gigabyte' are. Perhaps I'm advocating scrubbing 'tebibyte' and its ilk from pages like the AMD64 entry and replacing it with the common usage. If/when the IEC is able to effect the change to the new terms in product marketing and common usage, then it could be switched back. -- 31 May 2006

I have to agree; outside of wikipedia, I have never heard of any of this "binary metric" stuff before. Are these terms commonly used outside the US? Because I am a professional computer programmer, and it's new to me. Goph42 15:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer: no. I just came across with it. It is a good indication that there is a 12 years distance between your entry and my 'discovery'. But if the Americans w-want t-to st-tater well ...

I agree as well; this binary metric stuff should not be forced into articles. This article even claims terabyte is deprecated, which, as far as I'm concerned, is nonsense. FWIW, I am also a computing professional. 129.215.63.115 13:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not used, doesn't spread. I'm not in the US and just came across with it. Some 12 years after your entry.

"Terabyte" isn't deprecated. It means 1,000,000,000,000 bytes. — Omegatron 00:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a Sales degree (especially in the Hard Drive businees) a "Terabyte" means 1,000,000,000,000 bytes. If you have any other type of degree or are generally educated, a "Terabyte" means 1,099,511,627,776 bytes. Personally I think the whole KiB, MiB, TiB is pretty ridiculus, and it's harder to speak. Oh and yes I'm a computer professional and no i don't speak L33t or lolcat either :) Goochi32 (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth I second or third or whatever the depreciation of this term and the equally frustrating siblings. The IEC has pushed ZiB, KiB, GiB, etc. and just befuddled my brain when I'm actually trying to understand articles like "exFAT". — Caldwelljt @ 06:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of the terabyte/tebibyte distinction. It seems to me that it facilitates understanding (particularly for learners) - it encourages further clarification. It prevents confusion. The IEC recommends (see "Kilobyte") that "kilo-", etc., refer to powers of 10. Why call 1024 bytes a kilobyte when a kilometer is 1000 meters? lifeform (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been programming computers for 25 years and the only people who I have heard refer to a kilobyte as 1000 bytes are HDD/SSD sales departments. Everyone else in computer world refers to a kilobyte as 1024 bytes or 2¹⁰ bytes. This article needs to clearly explain that for most of the computing world, KB still means 1024 bytes, but due to the confusion created by HDD/SSD vendors, these new terms were created to avoid confusion, but most computing professions continue to use the terms kilobyte, megabyte, gigabyte and terabyte to mean 2¹⁰, 2²⁰, 2³⁰ and 2⁴⁰, respectively. Amosbatto (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?

What's the source for this TiB stuff? --Marc Kupper|talk 00:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's all in the Binary prefix article. Personally I don't know why we have an article for every single unit. 00:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. To summarize, it's an IEC standard from 1998. See

Here's a handy wallet sized humanspeak to newspeak conversion table:

Factor	prefix	Sym	Examples	Value	Derived from
10^3	kilo	K	kilobit, kilobyte	1,000
10^6	mega	M	megabit, megabyte	1,000,000
10^9	giga	G	gigabit, gigabyte	1,000,000,000
10^12	tera	T	terabit, terabyte	1,000,000,000,000
10^15	peta	P	petabit, petabyte	1,000,000,000,000,000
10^18	exa	E	exabit, exabyte	1,000,000,000,000,000,000

2^10	kibi	Ki	kibibit, kibibyte	1,024	kilobinary
2^20	mebi	Mi	mebibit, mebibyte	1,048,576	megabinary
2^30	gibi	Gi	gibibit, gibibyte	1,073,741,824	gigabinary
2^40	tebi	Ti	tebibit, tebibyte	1,099,511,627,776	terabinary
2^50	pebi	Pe	pebibit, pebibyte	1,125,899,906,842,620	petabinary
2^60	exbi	Ei	exbibit, exbibyte	1,152,921,504,606,850,000	exabinary

Once you can pronounce (the middle "bi" is pronounced as "bee") these with a NPOV face then you too can impress your IT colleagues! --Marc Kupper|talk 01:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]