Jerome Leclanche adys.wh@gmail.com wrote:
Users who do not understand the meaning of GiB/MiB/kiB are unlikely to understand GB/MB/kB. I think the "too geeky" bit is a non-issue.
Personally, I believe kiB is the way to go. Windows is not necessarily correct in its usage of kB. Most Linux apps also tend to use kiB; although there's probably no need to take the integration too far.
...
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Francois Gouget fgouget@free.fr wrote:
On Sat, 19 Nov 2011, Francois Gouget wrote: [...]
- static const WCHAR sFmtGB[] = {'%', '.', '1', 'f', ' ', 'G', 'B', '\0'};
- static const WCHAR sFmtMB[] = {'%', '.', '1', 'f', ' ', 'M', 'B', '\0'};
- static const WCHAR sFmtkB[] = {'%', '.', '1', 'f', ' ', 'k', 'B', '\0'};
To be totally correct these should actually be 'GiB', 'MiB' and 'kiB' (the code divides by powers of 1024). However that may be too geeky for regular users so I'm not sure we want to do that. But now is probably a good time to debate this.
Personally I think that adding 'GiB', 'MiB' and 'kiB' only adds more confusion than it solves. 1024 bytes per KByte is a historical thing, or if you prefer 'backwards compatibility' thing. Using new abbrevations don't help neither with calculation precision, nor with clarity of terms IMO. And since Windows doesn't use 'GiB', 'MiB' and 'kiB' Wine shouldn't either.