KB KiB MB MiB GB GiB TB TiB

What are the differences between KB and KiB, MB and MiB, GB and GiB, TB and TiB? KB (and kin) are decimal representations of numbers, as powers of 10 in multiples of 1000. Let's call this notation "Decimal Thousands." For example, 1 KB = 1000 bytes, 1 MB = 1000 * 1000 = 1,000,000 bytes, 1 GB = 1000 * 1000 * 1000 = 1,000,000,000 bytes, etc.

In contrast, KiB (and kin) are "binary" representations of numbers, as powers of 2 in multiples of 1024. "Binary 1024's." For example 1 KiB = 1024 bytes, 1 MiB = 1024 * 1024 bytes = 1,048,576 bytes, etc.  It's fairly easy to calculate.

But why should we have to calculate it? I admit I got caught up in the hype and began using Binary 1024's for a while in my own work, but for what benefit? I haven't found one. Both representations can express exactly the same values, of course, so the question is convenience. Is there an application in the computing world where Binary 1024's are actually more convenient? Let's examine:

DISK DRIVE CAPACITY:

My Windows desktop computer has several rotating disks and NVMe SSD's. The capacity of every single one of those drives, if expressed in BYTES (the true measure), is very close to a decimal round number of 1000's and nowhere near a round number of Binary 1024's. Three examples:

• WD Gold 12 TB SATA internal HDD = 12,000,119,746,560 bytes, within a fraction of the even decimal number of 12,000,000,000,000 bytes (12 TB), which is the nominal size that Western Digital claims. Expressed in Binary 1024's, that drive has a capacity of 10.9 TiB and change. Decidedly not a round number of 1024's or even 1000's.
• WD Black 2 TB "gaming" external USB drive = 2,000,362,139,648 bytes, which is also very close to its 2 TB nominal capacity. 
• WD Black 1 TB M.2 NVMe SSD = 1,000,067,821,588 bytes, just above its nominal 1,000,000,000,000. 
• All of our other disk drives (on the desktop and several laptops) are like that too, very close to a nice even decimal number of thousands and close to their nominal capacities. 

I don't happen to have any Seagate drives (my last one just expired, so sad) but Seagate points out that "The storage industry standard is to display drive capacity in decimal." And Seagate does. Obviously, so does Western Digital. I didn't check Toshiba, Hitachi, or others, but I'm sure Seagate is correct. So what would be the point of converting those numbers to GiB or TiB? None that I can see.

FILE or FOLDER SIZE:

These don't tend to be such nice round numbers. Is it somehow easier to describe the size of a file in Binary 1024's instead of Decimal Thousands? Two real examples:

• Macrium Reflect disk image: 57,891,323,904 bytes. Either 57.9 GB or 53.9 GiB, but I had to get out the calculator to get 53.9 GiB. Binary 1024's certainly don't seem easier. How about a smaller file?
• Macrium Reflect log file: 28,203 bytes. Either 28.2 KB or 27.5 KiB. Again the calculator, again decimal is easier.

To be truthful, Windows actually did calculate those Binary 1024 values for me (though I checked them), but named them GB and KB instead of GiB and KiB. DUH! Only Microsoft would use KB where the value is actually in KiB.

CALCULATIONS:

Suppose you are using a computer or a language that is limited to 32-bit calculations, such as the Command Line Script language (CMD.exe) on Windows. You will not be able to handle decimal numbers over 2,147,483,647 (9+ decimal digits, if that). However, if you needed to write code that would determine whether a drive has sufficient remaining space for a file, for example, DIR would give you both the size of the file in bytes and the drive's free space in bytes as decimal character strings. 

Both of those strings could well be 10 digits or longer. So divide by a million or a billion by trimming off the least-significant 6 or 9 digits from both values. Now they are in MB or GB. Round them if you like, and do the mathematical comparison. Simple. But try doing it in Binary 1024's. I wouldn't know how to start. 

64-bit precision or floating point mathematics will make the calculations in Binary 1024's much easier, of course, but regardless of the precision, you will still have to convert from decimal bytes to Binary 1024's. When you start with values in decimal, calculations will always be easier in decimal. Either way, the computer actually does its work in binary, but we don't. We read, write, and understand decimal, so the computer transforms binary to decimal for us.

WHICH IS MORE ACCURATE?

Some blogs say that the binary representation is more accurate, but that's incorrect. They are just different ways to express exactly the same numbers. The most accurate (and precise) representation will always be bytes, expressed in decimal right down to the least significant digit. 

Notice that ALL of the numbers are eventually described in decimal. Even the disk image size of 53.9 GiB (above) is a decimal representation of a value calculated in Binary 1024's. We actually convert a decimal byte count to a Binary 1024 value, then express that in decimal so that we can understand it! WHAT IS THE POINT OF BINARY 1024'S? We live in a decimal world.

MICROSOFT WINDOWS:

Another note about Windows: The capacities of the disk drives listed above are as reported by Windows, in bytes. How much do we trust Microsoft to correctly report those drive capacities? Well, the desktop computer can dual-boot Linux Mint, which can then examine the same drives. For each of the three drives, Linux fdisk found the drive size to be exactly the same as the size reported by Windows PLUS 4096 BYTES. 

I assume those 4096 bytes are a non-negotiable part of Windows' NTFS file system, so the Windows developers have chosen not to show that space as if it might be available. In any case, 4096 bytes are insignificant compared with the 1,000,000,000,000 bytes in a small 1 TB drive.

Agree or disagree? Comments may be moderated, but if your comments are decent and relevant they will show up.

Dell Precision 3590 Laptop Review

On my way to purchasing this Dell Precision 3590 laptop I first ordered a Dell Latitude 5540, my third 5540, which was offered at a good price but was back ordered for about a month. After waiting for most of that month, I received a message that the order had been cancelled. No explanation, no apology, no alternative, nothing. Zip.

I complained to Customer Care, suggesting that I should get some benefit or at least an explanation for waiting most of a month. They sent me to Sales, who sent me back to Customer Care, who had summarily closed the complaint. End of story, kiss off Customer. In my view Dell’s treatment was high-handed, uncaring, and dismissive. I won’t be buying anything more from Dell that I can find anywhere else. They keep offering Dell Rewards discounts for more computer hardware. Fat chance!.

But I still wanted the Precision 3590 because, like the 5540, it has hardware features that I could not find elsewhere at near the price. Both computers are upgradable to 64 GB memory and have an internal slot for an auxiliary 2TB SSD drive. I needed those features and, by the way, easily installed the parts myself, saving hundreds of dollars.

The 3590 hardware is mostly OK. More about that in another post. The real problem was the software, including Windows and Dell’s apps.

When the computer arrived here the C Drive SSD contained an ancient version of Windows 11 Pro. It demanded updates upon updates, plus Dell software updates and even an update to the BIOS. Such an incredibly obsolete SSD in my brand new computer!

When all of the updates were completed, the operating system was so bloated that it alone required 148 GB of C-Drive space. Windows Disk Cleanup was unable to remove most of the multi-GB files that should have been removable. UVK couldn’t do anything either. Uninstalling most of the Dell software didn’t help. Installing some of my own apps just made it worse.

Finally I gulped, reformatted the C Drive, and did a "clean install" of a fresh copy of Windows 11 Pro downloaded directly from Microsoft, deleting everything else on the disk. No Dell software or bloatware. While I am not a big fan of Windows (especially 11), the 3590 now works as well as any of my several other Windows 11 computers. It requires 101 GB of C-Drive space including all of my own files and applications. Every night Macrium Reflect reduces this to a zipped and encrypted 49 GB image, saving it to the auxiliary drive. Everything works.

The Precision 3590 is also now dual-booting Windows 11 and Linux Mint Cinnamon. No problems with the software, hardware, or BIOS.

This is an honest review. I wonder if Dell will allow it.

Answer: No, they didn't allow it on their website. Clearly, they are censoring the reviews - they certainly censored mine. Therefore, I don't believe any of the reviews that are actually posted there. Believe them at your peril.

                                       Windows 11 Reverted Back to Windows 10

On October 5, 2021, the computer named Stirling (see previous post) was upgraded (or downgraded) from the latest Windows 10 to Windows 11.

I did not find even one feature of Windows 11 that was better for me than Windows 10. Not one. More to the point, I did find at least one feature that was a lot worse - the loss of toolbars on the taskbar. Those toolbars were my way of configuring Windows for my own particular use, and made Windows much more efficient for me. I can't BELIEVE they took that away. I used those taskbar shortcuts ALL the time. Dozens of them, in hierarchical lists.

Other issues:

• System sounds were very quiet - too quiet. For example, if I plugged in a USB thumb drive, I would expect to hear a sound confirming the connection, but it was inaudible. Perhaps there was a way to fix that - I didn't look very hard.
• Disk drives were apparently set to spin down when not in use, because I had to wait for them to spin up on occasion (Stirling has 7 disk drives). I probably could have fixed that too, as each drive has its own settings.
• Context menus were flaky on my double-monitor system. Right-click menus would pop up and then disappear, often several times, before I could get them to stay put. Buggy.
• Much has been made of the taskbar icons in the middle of the taskbar. But this isn't an improvement - it's just different, and not even very different. However, it was easy to move them back to the left edge where I'm accustomed to finding them.

The amazing news is that everything worked. Every application, even some that were 20+ years old, and every command-line script worked as it had before. Same functionality, same bugs. So Microsoft broke the user interface, but not the inner engine. Note that this is expected, so it isn't an improvement or even a compliment, just a relief. Whew!

Because of the broken interface I reverted the computer back to Windows 10 yesterday. I didn't use Microsoft's method of reverting the operating system - I used my own, because I don't trust Microsoft that far. If they can't make the new operating system work properly, could they really unmake it properly? The procedure makes use of Macrium Reflect twice, though any backup that makes an image would probably work::

• Save the Windows 11 version of the C: drive to a spare drive, using Macrium Reflect, which would allow file-by-file restores if necessary.
• Save email (Thunderbird) to a spare drive. Also save calendar data (Rainlendar).
• Likewise save other files that had been changed in the interval between October 5 to October 10.
• Restore the very last Macrium Reflect image of Windows 10 to C:. An image of C: is made every night, as part of the automatic backup process. I used the image dated October 4, 2021, the night before Windows 11 was released by Microsoft and installed here.
• Update Thunderbird, Rainlendar, and the other files. 

Good to go! Windows 10 is back to normal.

One review suggested that toolbars were removed from the taskbar because of a security issue, but that doesn't make sense because you can still attach an executable to the taskbar. Duh.

I'm afraid that Microsoft has done it again - issued a new operating system in a hurry and therefore with guaranteed bad reviews. They certainly don't pay much attention to their early reviewers, and they don't seem to want to explain their reasons for anything. It will be quite a while before they live this down. But hey - they once again validated my overriding distrust of Microsoft. 

They're not actually evil people, but they are motivated by marketing considerations which have little to do with their installed base. They don't get much revenue from their installed base, so sales of new computers (hence operating systems) has to be their main concern.

There was a Windows 8, and then 8.1 Will there be a Windows 11.1?

 Friday, 2021 Oct 8                    Windows 11 Review (Preliminary)

The computer (named Stirling) is new, home built, first booted in February, 2021. AMD Ryzen 9 5950X Processor, ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero Motherboard, Corsair Force MP600 500GB M.2, plus 7 rotating disks for a total of 24TB. It ran Windows 10 Professional, fully updated, now Windows 11 Professional. It met every requirement for the "upgrade" to Windows 11 and then some.

The Good News:

After backing up Windows 10, the Win 11 installation was done "in place" on Stirling using the Windows 11 Installation Assistant. It booted up just once, and was ready to go with Windows 11. Impressive:

• Even the placement of the icons on my double-monitor desktop is unchanged.  
• Every application (e.g. .exe) still works, including some that are 20 years old. 
• I have written thousands of lines of code in command-line script, and all of that still works. 
• Even the Windows 10 bugs are still there. If you use command-line script, you know what I mean. 
• So the good news is that Microsoft didn't break the really important stuff.

The Bad News:

• Toolbars can no longer be attached to the taskbar. This is huge, more about it below. 
• Some Windows utilities, such as the Task Manager, are no longer accessible through the taskbar. 
• Sound is changed - the maximum volume is much lower on my two HDMI monitors, too soft to hear. I'll work on that.
• Certain screens are flaky, e.g. right-click menus may disappear for no reason, and you have to right-click again.
• Menus are different, for no obvious reason. Not better, just different, especially the right-click menus. 
• Things that were accessible with one click now often require two or more clicks. Windows is harder to use.

So What?:

Except for the loss of toolbars, all of those "bad news" items are minor problems. There is a workaround for each of them, though I certainly made very good use of toolbars on the taskbar and will search high and low for the best functional equivalent. I WANT MY TOOLBARS! They saved a lot of mouse clicks and provided a kind of personal environment. Taking them away was a huge mistake. I hope there's a registry patch, or a simple executable that will do what the taskbar did in Win 10.

Bottom line: In my opinion Windows 11 is not at all better, just different, and not in a good way. There is probably a marketing reason why Microsoft created Windows 11. Perhaps it will help sell Windows and Windows-based computers to new buyers. It does help to enforce some security enhancements, so that's a good thing. Otherwise, for long-time loyal users like me, it's just a pain in the you know what.

My advice: 

Don't upgrade yet. I wish I hadn't. Maybe I'll roll it back.

2021 09 17                                           Forte and Windows 11 

Windows 11 sort of sneaked up on me. My fault of course, not paying attention, but Microsoft says October 5, 2021, less than three weeks from today. We'll see. 

Microsoft did have an application called the "PC Health Check App," which could run on a destination computer and determine whether that computer met their Windows 11 requirements, but the scuttlebutt is that it was thoroughly flawed (with source code unavailable of course) and it has been withdrawn. As of today, September 17, the page for it still says "COMING SOON."  It's been coming soon for a while now.

However, there is a page on Microsoft.com which does purport to set forth the requirements for Windows 11.  Happily, there are others besides Microsoft who have read these requirements and put them in an application. In particular, there is a Windows application called WhyNotWin11.exe on GitHub: This app is open source and peer reviewed (unlike any Microsoft apps), written by by Robert Maehl, downloaded 869,000 times so far. Might be a good thing to support. 

WhyNotWin11.exe puts all of Microsoft's Windows 11 stated requirements into a nice display. You see two of those displays here. One is for a twelve-year-old HP Dv7t laptop, which has been updated from Windows Vista all the way to Windows 10. That one shows a lot of Windows 11 deficiencies. The other is for the Forte computer, built just this summer, showing no deficiencies. 

Bill of Materials

Of course even the old laptop might be upgraded to meet the Windows 11 requirements, and perhaps some of the requirements might not really be necessary to get Windows 11 running. For example, that ancient laptop has neither a discrete TPM nor a firmware TPM, but it has BitLocker encryption working just fine and quite securely on its (one and only) disk drive anyway. Experience will tell us what will actually work with Windows 11. 

Forte did initially have a deficiency, according to WhyNotWin11: The Vision Tech Radeon 5450 Graphics Card did not meet the Win 11 DirectX or WDDM requirements. Therefore that card has been replaced by the ASUS NVIDIA GT710 “4H SL 2GD5" Graphics Card, which I know will qualify and which is probably better anyway. See the revised Bill of Materials.

By the way, Forte is for sale. You can see what it cost, and I do expect to receive some benefit from my work in building it, so make me an offer. Note, however, that I will not ship it, and will only deliver it in the Twin Cities Minnesota metropolitan area. It can come with Windows 10 or Windows 11, your choice. Either way, it's a really hot computer!

 2021 09 16                 Forte, ASUS BIOS Version 3801, and TPM             

                                                      BIOS Version 3801

This was installed in the motherboard on August 13, 2021, and as far as I can tell it behaves exactly the same on the Forte computer as did the Beta version 3703, which is  no longer downloadable. It feels now almost like a finished product. I also installed it on my main computer, Stirling 2021.

It still has the "Improved System Performance" bug described in an earlier post titled Forte Performance 002 and dated August 6, 2021, https://buildmyown.blogspot.com/2021/08/2021-08-06-performance-002-woohoo-asus.html, but that is not a problem for me. I just leave the "Improved System Performance" feature alone and use the Overclocking Presets instead. Specifically: BIOS > Extreme Tweaker > Overclocking Presets > (Load Generic OC Preset). The August 6 post mentioned above has more about that.

Again, here is the computer:

• AMD Ryzen 9 5950X CPU with 16 cores and 32 threads, 7nm technology;
• G Skill Trident Z Neo F4-4000 Memory 32GB;
• ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero. Motherboard, BIOS Version 3801;
• be quiet brand BK022 Dark Rock Pro 4 CPU cooler;
• WD Black 1TB M.2 NVMe PCIe 4 Drive;
• WD Gold 10TB Enterprise Class rotating SATA disk drive;
• VisionTek Radeon 5450 Graphics card, BUT SEE NEXT POST.

                                                                 TPM

Some processors have a built-in firmware TPM (Trusted Platform Module), especially AMD processors I think. I did an experiment to see if my Ryzen 9 5950X processor has it: Remove the discrete TPM module from the motherboard, reboot with Advanced > Advanced\AMD fTPM configuration > Selects TPM Device > Enable Firmware TPM. The firmware is apparently in the processor, not the motherboard. After booting, run Manage BitLocker, then TPM Administration (lower left corner), then appears a window labeled TPM Management on Local Computer. 

There are options here, but if BitLocker is not to be used right away, you can just check to see that it's available. On mine, the Status window says "The TPM is ready for use."

In the window labeled "TPM Manufacturer Information" the following information is displayed, depending on which TPM is selected:

• Firmware TPM: Mfgr Name: AMD,  Mfgr Version: 3.58.0.5,  Specification Version: 2.0
• Discrete TPM: Mfgr Name: IFX,  Mfgr Version: 5.63.3353.0,  Specification Version 2.0

1. Note that you may see different information.
2. Note that the specification version must be 2.0 (or greater if greater exists). 
3. Note also that a TPM will be required for Windows 11, coming soon. It must be available.
4. Note that the Forte computer qualifies with two different TPMs.
5. Note that you are not required to use BitLocker or either TPM. BitLocker is simply available if you want the additional security.

I'm not certain that the discrete TPM module provides any advantage over the processor's TPM during use, but it's removable, so if the drives are BitLocker encrypted and the computer is to be shipped somewhere or left idle for a time, the TPM module could be removed from the mobo and secured elsewhere. This would render the data on the computer quite useless. 

If the processor contains the active TPM, then a naughty party needs only the password to the computer (depending on the BitLocker setup), but if the discrete module contains the TPM, then the naughty party needs both the module and the password. I suggest you try this before you depend on it. 

Set Erase fTPM to Disable

WARNING: The two ASUS motherboards that I have will try to CLEAR the TPM when anything major is done, like updating the BIOS, setting the BIOS to its defaults, or even choosing the Overclocking Presets described above. Therefore, if any drives are BitLocker encrypted, then every time that you boot into the BIOS, the last thing to do before exiting the BIOS is check Advanced > Advanced\AMD fTPM configuration > "Erase fTPM NV for factory reset" and make sure that it says "Disabled." In case I forget this I have always UN-BitLockered (Decrypted) all drives before making any BIOS changes, to avoid the damage that might be caused by leaving that selection in the Enabled state.

Please please ALWAYS keep a record of BitLocker keys in a secure place, no matter what. If you like to think of yourself as a professional, and you lose your BitLocker keys, there is a good argument that you are not yet a professional. More about this in the blog post dated 2021 06 16. https://buildmyown.blogspot.com/2021/06/2021-06-16-security-ok-so-far-new.html

2021 08 06                         Forte Performance 002

Woohoo! ASUS has solved my problem. Until a week ago I couldn't make my new, hot computer work hard enough to get its CPU temperature above 65 degrees C. 

Enter ASUS BIOS Version 3703 for the ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero motherboard. Now we're getting somewhere. It's almost as if ASUS was reading my blog (which I'm pretty sure they're not!).

Again, here is the computer:

• AMD Ryzen 9 5950X CPU with 16 cores and 32 threads, 7nm technology.

  

  Generic OC Parameters

  
  
• G Skill Trident Z Neo F4-4000 32GB Memory.
• ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero. Motherboard, BIOS Version 3703.
• be quiet brand BK022 Dark Rock Pro 4 CPU cooler.
• WD Black 1TB M.2 NVMe PCIe 4 Drive.
• WD Gold 10TB Enterprise Class rotating SATA disk drive.
• VisionTek Radeon 5450 Graphics card.

Water-cooled OC Parameters

The ASUS BIOS now has two sets of preset overclocking (OC) parameters. I don't think that those were there before this BIOS version. I swear they weren't there! Since I've overwritten the previous BIOS version, I can't tell. However, they're not in the ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero, BIOS Version 3601, which is very similar to the Dark Hero BIOS. 

They're accessed as follows: Extreme Tweaker > Overclocking Presets > (Load Generic OC Preset) or (Load Water-cooled OC Preset). Two choices. I tried them both, along with no presets at all. The detailed results are documented in a table below.

Bottom line:

Using these presets, the CPU can easily reach temperatures exceeding 85 C, and up to 90 C. With the CPU working that hard, the performance in the CineBench 10-minute test increases from about 24,974 at the default presets to about 28,395 with the generic OC presets, or 28,410 with the water-cooled presets.  In both cases, the overclocking improves the CineBench score by about 13.7%. That might be enough to make a difference in some applications, including gaming. 

Note that there is only a trivial difference between the results from the two different presets. Therefore the "generic" version is to be preferred because it is much simpler.

Results Table

Disclaimers:

1. This computer may not be telling the whole truth, however. While I believe that the humongous 3-fan Dark Rock Pro 4 CPU air cooler is equivalent to a decent water cooler, it may not be. I don't really know. Or I may not have made the best thermal connection from the CPU to the cooler, who knows. Further, version 3703 for the Dark Hero motherboard is intended to work with several different AMD CPUs, so these results are specific to the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X CPU, not any other AMD CPU.
2. This BIOS version is a Beta version. Included in its description on the ASUS website is the following: "Please note that this is a beta BIOS version of the motherboard which is still undergoing final testing before its official release."

No matter. I don't really have a destination for the Forte computer yet, so for now it's set back to the default presets, which limit the maximum CPU temperature to about 65 C. 

BIOS Version 3703 Bug:

There is another issue with the BIOS Version 3703 on this motherboard with this CPU: In the EzMode screen, upper right corner, is EZ System Tuning. Theoretically this allows the selection of "Improved system performance," "Energy Savings," or "Normal." It doesn't work properly, though, because once you have selected "improved system performance," resulting in a CPU clock of 4000 MHz, you can't unselect it again. Furthermore, you can't select "Energy Savings" at all. Even if you get EZ System Tuning to show "Normal" again, the CPU clock remains at 4000 MHz, even after a reboot. It seems to be a software bug, and it existed in the previous BIOS version as well.