> since we pretty much have to talk about RAM that way, and a consistent measurement across different media is eminently sensible.
Except that the HDD manufacturers are going to keep doing what they've been, and it'll just create more confusion among consumers. "What's the conversion factor between GB and GiB?"
> Even worse, if you created a 300 gibibyte drive to compete with the 300 gigabyte drive, consumers would probably not realise that the 300 gibibyte drive is bigger
One manufacturer could just start using phrases like "300 REAL gigabytes!" and market it aggressively. "7% more storage than the competition! Finally a drive that stores the amount you paid for!"
As for why the -bi- binary prefices haven't caught on, I think one of the biggest obstacles is that they just sound hilariously stupid...
Their claimed storage is correct. "Real gigabytes" are what disk manufacturers, and Linux, and others report. Microsoft calculates gibibytes (GiB, 2^9) but has always labeled them as gigabytes (GB, 10^3), which is what perpetuates this confusion.
They could also just standardize their storage sizes on the higher number and still advertise the higher number -- i.e., instead of selling a 300GB hard drive, they could sell a 322.12GB drive, which stores 300GiB.
Except that the HDD manufacturers are going to keep doing what they've been, and it'll just create more confusion among consumers. "What's the conversion factor between GB and GiB?"
> Even worse, if you created a 300 gibibyte drive to compete with the 300 gigabyte drive, consumers would probably not realise that the 300 gibibyte drive is bigger
One manufacturer could just start using phrases like "300 REAL gigabytes!" and market it aggressively. "7% more storage than the competition! Finally a drive that stores the amount you paid for!"
As for why the -bi- binary prefices haven't caught on, I think one of the biggest obstacles is that they just sound hilariously stupid...