Atom 330 drives only enough pins for 32-bit physical addresses

[Eric Battersby]

On Mon, 8 Nov 2010, Christopher Browne wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Lennart Sorensen <lsorense-1wCw9BSqJbv44Nm34jS7GywD8/FfD2ys at public.gmane.org> wrote:
...
> > Wrong.  You have to check the fine print for how they define GB.
> > There is no such thing as formatted versus unformatted capacity.
>
> The thing I got bit on, some years ago, was the problem of
> applications defining disk requirements in terms of GB =
> 1024x1024x1024, when the others involved (e.g. - those selling disk
> space) chose to define them in terms of 1000x1000x1000.
>
> Every time we increase to another level (e.g. - K --> MB --> GB -->
> TB), we wind up losing another 2.4% to the measurement difference.
> With TB, there's very nearly a 10% difference between "binary
> measurements" and "decimal measurements."

I blame the group of computer engineers who promoted
this idea in the first place.
Metric/SI prefixes were already well established, but
"someone" thought it would be nifty to reuse the same
prefixes instead of creating new ones.

Of course, everyone knows the problem now, but it wasn't
difficult to see the problem from the beginning.
Anything technical that is so dependent on context is probably
going to cause a mixup down the line (think Mars Climate
Orbiter).  Now, we are post-fixing a historical mistake by
using the newer binary IEC notation.

So, great, I know what GiB mean, but still I don't know what
GB means (in all cases).  I need to make multiple assumptions
about the writer and the context in order to figure that out.


--
Eric Battersby
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists