Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2544f7ced1c34fc

Jump to content

Talk:Gigabyte

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Stevebroshar in topic Massive cleanup/decimation needed

GB "legally set" to 2^30? No.

[edit]

I just removed this overwrought claim from the lede. The two court cases cited ended with the defendants settling with the plaintiffs, but did not in any way result in any "legal definition" of the gigabyte. A similar lawsuit against amazon.com over the capacity of an MP3 player went the other way, and drive makers (and SSD makers, and flash memory e.g. USB "stick", SD card, etc., makers) continue to market their products using the SI prefix G in its SI-defined meaning. Jeh (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Anonymous editor has reinstated the claim. I agree with Jeh that it should go. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Gone, and Ignacio.Agulló notified (again) of this discussion. Jeh (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Clarify or correct "Jiggabyte" Merriam-Webster pronunciation

[edit]

I believe this pronunciation is wrong or outdated as I have not been able to verify that pronunciation in official sources. Gwompwomp (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Massive cleanup/decimation needed

[edit]

Is it absolutely necessary for kilobyte, kibibyte, megabyte, mibibyte, gigabyte, gibibyte, etc. to all have their own individual wikipedia pages that all say the exact same thing? Can't we put the information on one page, and have all those terms redirect to that one page?  Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.13.107 (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia has no problem with duplication and redundancy not least because it is not paper. As long as each article is properly sourced and notable, there's no reason to replace them all with one "mega sized" article. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Agree with changing existing KB, MB and GB articles to re-direct to byte.Stevebroshar (talk) 12:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Byte is a more plausible potential destination for resulting redirects than Gigabyte is. —jameslucas ▄▄▄  ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄  14:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)