Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Apple, Inc and Tech Industry' started by The Grood, Jul 11, 2006.
Megabytes, Megahertz etc...
Has there ever been an equivalent imperial measurement?
Only when measuring certain parts of the anatomy judging by some comments around here.
I would argue that Megahertz is imperial.
Metric to me is all base ten so 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour and 24 hours in a day would seem more imperial. Swatch beats, on the other hand, I would consider metric....
I know that the SI unit of time is the second, but the whole non-base 10 doesn't seem metric to me....at that rate neither do bytes... 8-bits to a byte... that seems more imperial as well...
Just thought that since most of the computer industry started off in the US in the 70's/80s, didn't these guys have imperial measurements for performance/capacity etc.
Like 'a yard of speed' or 'an ounce of memory' or something:
'Wow, my new officebox system packs three yards per second and nine pounds of memory. Cool!"
If so, what happened to them?
Cycles, megacycles etc etc, *rides away on unicycle*
Fair point, but the prefix 'mega' is tres METRIC...
What about some random word (foot)?
Ummm...Megahertz is a metric (i.e. base ten) unit for wave frequency. Megabytes I would consider a binary (i.e. base two) measurement with a metric prefix for simplicity...
I want my microprocessor speeds measured in furlongs per fortnight, and I'll wager that I'm not the only one.
Ouch!! That Megahertz
reason for that is because computer are base 2.
Base 10 and base 2 dont really line up much at all. Now base 4,8 and 2 all line up really nicely but it because they area numbers in base 2.
I personally thing it still metric. in selling computer parts like hard drive it is all base 10. So you lose al ittle bit when ti translated back to base 2.
Computer specification are in base 2 because digital logic is all based around base 2 math. This is very fundamental, logical and for good reason. It has nothing to do with metric vs. imperial.
Anyway, I wish imperial would just go away. I can't figure out why the US insists on hanging on to it. I work in a machine shop, and to me a 9/32" socket wrench simply isn't more intuitive than a 7 mm wrench. Afterall, it's much easier to figure out that 6 mm is a little less than 7 mm, but if you ask me the relationship between 5/16" and 9/32" I'm going to have to sit and think for a minute to figure it out. But if you ask any of the other people in the shop, they'll say that metric confuses them and only imperial makes sense. Huh!?!?
Trust me, it gets much worse when you have some people working in mils (milliinches) and others in millimeters. (40 mil is about 1 mm.) But the names are so similar that confusion is sure to arise.
Imperial measurements are all base 10 too.. There's 12 inches in a foot, not B inches, or 1100 inches. The varying units for each measurement just line up oddly. The numbers are still in base 10.
It would be nice if we could all agree on one system, but the switch-over would be a real pain.
P.S. Doing physics in imperial is evil. Slug? There's a reason they invented metric.
Actually the biggest non-base 10 "problem" with imperial measurements is their reliance on fractions which are more base 2 than base 10. Going back to mduser63's examples.
5/16" = 01010/100000
9/32" = 01001/100000
The denominator tells you how many bits you need, while the numerator tells you the bits themselves... There's a reason that most of the time we deal with fractions that are 1/2^n.
simple to anwswer you next question. People are lazy (this is world wide people are lazy) and the US poplulation is not going to switch very fast. The poplulation knows Imperial. Everything we use is that way and as a whole we not as fimilure with metrec. I like metric for doing caclulation but at a glace I dont know the lenth of a meter but I know the lenght of a foot and can eastimate the size of things really easy in imperial cannt do that in metric because I dont use it offen enough messerment wise.
Switch the poplulation will take generations and slowly doing it because it just takes a while to cause it to happen. A lot of things are dual messured in the US and everything is sold with both imperal and metrec on it.
Here in the UK we're pretty much metric (like the rest of the EU). Apart from using miles on all our road signs (and pints for beer and milk).
Most people under the age of 30 here don't understand imperial measurements anymore anyway.
Not only how to measure in metric, but how to spell it too
I would suggest that the US change to metric after all the old people are dead
But seconds is the base unit, so a hertz which is per second is both imperial and metric. An example of a hertz-like unit that I would consider imperial is rpm.
Is km/h a proper metric unit? I'm guessing not.
If I'm not mistaken, the "correct" way is to use meters per second, ie. mp/s. But I pretty much only see that if there's scientists involved.
I believe 'scientists' prefer meter per second (m/s, no need for the / and the per, they have the same meaning.).
But my physics teacher always said that the convention is not to use m/s but m(s^-1), which are semantically the same.
Furlongs is pointless in processor speed, since they are usually sitting still when used the Furlongs would be zero. However cycles per fortnight would be a valid speed for computers....
My computer runs at 1.8144 Peta-cycles per fortnight....
Do you think we will ever switch to a metric clock, as in 100 seconds per minute, 100 minutes per hour and 10 (or 20?) hours a day?
True, anything more than 10" = megahurts.
Why would we considering the Earth's rotation speed?
What, like that Jersey foot of yours?