Good to know.

Thanks


>>>I think the actual converting factor is 1028, not 1000. I could be wrong though.
>>
>>Allowing that you mean 1024, I believe that's covered.
>>
>>The "K" implies 1024. Though possibly it should be 2048Kbps. Somehow doesn't seem right to me though.
>
>The standard for data transfer is bps, kbps, etc., where kilo means exactly 1000, etc., unlike the standard for hard disks.
>
>>Not sure if the broadband marketing works like hard disk marketing.
>>Hard disks advertise 160gig, which for mine turns out to be 159,989,886,776 bytes (formatted). I expected it to be 160 x 1024 x 1024 x 1024.
>
>Although the standard for hard disks is "kilo of 1024", etc., hard disk manufacturers dishonestly use kilos of 1000.
>
>Leading computer magazines can tell you that a certain hard disk has (for instance) 180 GB, and that the "formatted capacity" is so-and-so-much, when actually formatting has nothing to do with it; the difference being due, in its entirety, to the different interpretations of "GB" (more than 7% difference, in this case).