It is exactly the opposite. Every computer architecture in production addresses memory in the powers of two.
SI has no business in memory size nomenclature as it is not derived from fundamental physical units. The whole klownbyte change was pushed through by hard drive marketers in 1990s.
> Every computer architecture in production addresses memory in the powers of two.
What does it mean to "address memory in powers of two" ? There are certainly machines with non-power-of-two memory quantities; 96 GiB is common for example.
> The whole klownbyte change was pushed through by hard drive marketers in 1990s.
The metric prefixes based on powers of 10 have been around since the 1790s.
> What does it mean to "address memory in powers of two" ? There are certainly machines with non-power-of-two memory quantities; 96 GiB is common for example.
I challenge you to show me any SKU from any memory manufacturer that has a power of 10 capacity. Or a CPU whose address space is a power of 10. This is an unavoidable artefact of using a binary address bus.
> The metric prefixes based on powers of 10 have been around since the 1790s.
*bibytes are a practical joke played on computer scientists by the salespeople to make it sound like we’re drunk. “Tell us more about your mebibytes, Fred elbows colleague, listen to this”.
If Donald Knuth and Gordon Bell say we use base-2 for RAM, that’s good enough for me.
It's more complicated than that. Data storage sizes are not connected to fundamental physical units, but data transfer rates are. Things get annoying when a 1 MB/s connection cannot transfer a megabyte in a second.
Line discipline rarely has sequences of bytes without any service information (parity, delimiters, preambles etc). So I don't see it as a practical issue.
SI has no business in memory size nomenclature as it is not derived from fundamental physical units. The whole klownbyte change was pushed through by hard drive marketers in 1990s.