1023
This is up for debate, with computer prefixes now officially aligned with the standard SI prefixes.
You’ll often see a GB meaning 1000MB, and a GiB (gibibyte) meaning 1024MB.
The ISQ (International System of Quantities) and IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) refer to it that way, and so do many others.
But then again, some keep the more traditional 1024MB is a GB system, and maintain that the SI prefixes shouldn’t count in computing because the base 2 1024 is close enough and it’s the way we traditionally did it. I think Microsoft still does, for example.
In the past, that system was close enough. After all, an additional 24 bytes or kilobytes is a tiny amount. But now that we’re getting into super huge data sizes, the gap is significant. 8 terabytes by the official scale is 8 trillion bytes, but by the “traditional” scale it’s 8.8 trillion bytes, a pretty sizable difference!
In a way, 999 and 1023 are both correct. But 999 is technically the standard, and has been for a while.
Programmers like 1024, because that’s how binary works when you keep doubling bits, and it’s cleaner and more intuitive when you’re working with low level code. Normies like 1000.
But they stole our beloved kB, MB, GB etc and we have to live with the stupid kiB, MiB etc.
Storage is measured in base 2. I don’t give shit what salesperson sold courses to which moron.
