On Wed, 6 Feb 2002 nick@snowman.net wrote:
> The fact that idiot marketoids in some moronic HD maker decided "GB" ment
> "billion bytes" is not a good excuse for useing the term to refer to
> anything that has never been polluted this way. It's not an excuse to use
> it to refer to things that have been polluted this way either, but that
> won't stop ppl. How bout you say GB is gigabits and claim ~549 of your
> mythical "GB"?
Then I would say `Gb' (lower case b).
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Bradley D. LaRonde wrote:
> > > As already mentioned, a MIPS TLB entry typically can point with 36 bits
> > > (that's 67TB of address space?) at physical memory. If you have more than
> >
> > At bit less: 64 GiB or approx. 69 GB :-)
But the main issue here was: tera vs. giga.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
