I mostly heard it one point thirty two? Grew up in Sweden, living in France. If someone says one point three two I’d assume they’re Americans.
I might be totally wrong, just stating what I have heard
I had the same experience (also European), but didn’t know the Americans changed it specifically for bytes
We don’t. That’s just the normal way most people pronounce numbers with a decimal point. The big exception is prices: $1.32 is often pronounced “one thirty two”.
No that’s interesting, I was wondering if there was a cultural divide.
Thirty two sounds so alien to me, but I heard it in a Nerdstalgic video and wondered if it was an American thing
Definitely, in frech itd be un point trente-deux mégaoctets or 1.32mo
edit: forgot not everyone speaks french, the french version is one point thirty-two
Interesting - is there a point at which you’d switch to saying individual digits? Like if you’re listing eight digits of pi, is it still three point fourteen million, one hundred fifty-nine thousand, two hundred sixty-five?
There doesnt seem to be a hard line, but at some point, yes. If i had to i’d put it i’d pur it once you get past the millions.
But theres also people who say it like people in english. It might be a regional thing.
Tell you what, i’ll ask around today and see what people say.
oh interesting!
Swedish would do the same as french, en komma trettitvå. Potentially some military would splice it up en komma tre två.
One point three two. To me, thirty two is an integer.
The only way you could use ‘thirty two’ correctly for that number would be ‘one and thirty two hundredths’ which would be pretty unusual.
Agree. For things like semantic versioning, in which “1.20.1” and “1.2.1” are two different things, you want to pronounce them “one point twenty point one” and “one point two dot one”, respectively. But that is a bit of an outlier. File size should be pronounced “normally”, because “1.20” and “1.2” are the same value.
I disagree. I would personally find one point two zero point one to be more natural and easier to understand.
In that case it’s actually the twentieth (or more likely twenty first) minor version though, it’s not actually a decimal
I disagree. I would personally find one point two zero point one to be more natural and easier to understand.
I disagree with that, because we’re dealing with a number and not a fraction. Linux kernel 4.20 is not equal to Linux kernel 4.2, we’re actually dealing with the integer 20 here. (yes, alphabetical sorting on a download server has lead me to download an outdated kernel version once)
Don’t you know that my head canon is universal canon? /s
You make a compelling point. I concede to your logic, but refuse to change my ways.
I grew up with science classes telling us always state the digits individually. One point three two.
Math class taught me to be precise I should always say “1 and 32 hundredths Megabytes”
I don’t think that’s any more precise, just more verbose (read: inefficient).
Either way but usually the former
Is that either way or either way?
The second you heathen.
One and thirty-two hundrethsIts pronounced ‘About four thirds megabytes.’
One point three two megs
One point three two emm bee 😁
Not quite one and a half megabytes. Otherwise, one point three two.
About one floppy disk, with a little free space to spare.
Very little, around 60k.
A 1.44 “MB” floppy is 1440k, or about 1.406 real MB, and of that the space used by the FAT file system reduces it to around 1.38 free space.
For some reason I couldn’t find the exact number and don’t have any handy to check it myself.Modified versions of various blank floppies ------------------------------------------- These modifications reduce the number of FAT tables from 2 to 1 and also reduce the number of root entries down to 16 files, which frees up some extra storage space. The 1.72MB format can ONLY be used on Win9X systems on real hardware, as not even WinNT can access tracks 81 or 82 on floppy disks. Disk image programs like WinImage can still access files within 1.72MB floppy images. 1.44MB Standard: 80 Tracks 18 Sectors/Track 2880 Sectors Total 1474560 Bytes Total ------------------------------------------- Sectors Per Cluster: 1 Number of FATs: 2 Max Root Entries: 224 Sectors Per FAT: 9 1457664 Bytes Data 1.44MB Maxed: ------------------------------------------- Sectors Per Cluster: 4 Number of FATs: 1 Max Root Entries: 64 Sectors Per FAT: 3 1470464 Bytes Data Differences: ------------------------------------------- 12800 Bytes More, 160 Less Root Entries 1.68MB Standard: 80 Tracks 21 Sectors/Track 3360 Sectors Total 1720320 Bytes Total ------------------------------------------- Sectors Per Cluster: 1 Number of FATs: 2 Max Root Entries: 224 Sectors Per FAT: 10 1702400 Bytes Data 1.68MB Maxed: ------------------------------------------- Sectors Per Cluster: 4 Number of FATs: 1 Max Root Entries: 64 Sectors Per FAT: 3 1716224 Bytes Data Differences: ------------------------------------------- 13824 Bytes More, 160 Less Root Entries DMF 1024 Standard: 80 Tracks 21 Sectors/Track 3360 Sectors Total 1720320 Bytes Total ------------------------------------------- Sectors Per Cluster: 2 Number of FATs: 2 Max Root Entries: 16 Sectors Per FAT: 5 1714176 Bytes Data DMF 1024 Maxed: ------------------------------------------- Sectors Per Cluster: 4 Number of FATs: 1 Max Root Entries: 64 Sectors Per FAT: 3 1716224 Bytes Data 2048 Bytes More, 48 More Root Entries DMF 2048 Standard: 80 Tracks 21 Sectors/Track 3360 Sectors Total 1720320 Bytes Total ------------------------------------------- Sectors Per Cluster: 4 Number of FATs: 2 Max Root Entries: 16 Sectors Per FAT: 3 1716224 Bytes Data DMF 2048 Maxed: ------------------------------------------- Sectors Per Cluster: 4 Number of FATs: 1 Max Root Entries: 64 Sectors Per FAT: 3 1716224 Bytes Data Differences: ------------------------------------------- 0 Bytes More, 48 More Root Entries 1.72MB Standard: 82 Tracks 21 Sectors/Track 3444 Sectors Total 1763328 Bytes Total ------------------------------------------- Sectors Per Cluster: 1 Number of FATs: 2 Max Root Entries: 224 Sectors Per FAT: 10 1745408 Bytes Data 1.72MB Maxed: ------------------------------------------- Sectors Per Cluster: 4 Number of FATs: 1 Max Root Entries: 64 Sectors Per FAT: 3 1759232 Bytes Data Differences: ------------------------------------------- 13824 Bytes More, 160 Less Root EntriesIf you’re interested in the blank disk images themselves, let me know.
The floppy disk format is based on the FAT12 file system.
https://www.cs.drexel.edu/~johnsojr/2012-13/fall/cs370/resources/UnderstandingFAT12.pdf
And with enough creative tweaks to that file system, you can get DMF 1.68MB format, and if you think a bit outside the box and erase the redundant secondary FAT table and settle on a max of only 16 files on the disk, you can squeeze a few more kilobytes out of that even.
I actually made a number of custom modded blank disk images with more storage space, I might dig out the full specs of all the variants later.
Also, 1474560 / 1024 = 1440
If anyone could keep up with binary numbers back in the day, floppy disks were literally measured in binary megabytes.
Only time I can think of where the 32 of 1.32 could be said as thirty-two would be as a software version number
The first one
“One point three two”, because otherwise the question is ‘thirty two what’. Consider what happens if we put a zero on the end — does it become “one point three hundred and twenty” despite being exactly the same number?
Yeah and what is 1.032?
A rounding error
I’d probably say “one point oh three two” for that one though
just one-three-two, the point is implied
Canada (Ontario) here. Was taught explicitly to say “point three two”
