lexluthermiesterTranslation 1ZB = 1 Zettabyte, which is the same as 1 SxB = 1 Sextabyte.

Some sectors are refusing to accept the rather bizarre prefix naming scheme selected by industry pundits.

A proper naming scheme follows known and widely accepted conventions. Example;

MegaByte
GigaByte
TeraByte
QuadraByte
CentaByte
SextaByte
SeptaBtye
OctaByte
NintaByte
DecaByte

Of course, that's just one school of thought..

FrickI have never heard of this, and honestly it's weird. First Mega, Giga and Tera and then latin.

lexluthermiesterAs opposed to the bizarre weirdness they've come up with? I prefer something easy to remember.

kayjay010101It's standard metric binary prefixes... They're standardized as part of the International System of Units, along with every other metric unit. They are easy to remember, moreso then your system which doesn't exist.

I've never heard of whatever it is you're using... In fact, not once does any of the ones you've mentioned appear on the wikipedia page for Binary Prefixes. Googling those also comes up with nonsense results.
What I presume you've done is confused numeral prefixes (used in linguistics, not in computer science) with binary prefixes. But then it's not even correct (it mixes Latin and Greek at various points, and some are just not even a thing, like "Ninta". WTF is that?) If they followed the right (numeral) prefixes they would be as follows (Latin first, Greek in paranthesis):

Quadru/Quadribyte (Tetrabyte)
Quinquebyte (Pentabyte)
Sexabyte (Hexabyte)
Septibyte (Heptabyte)
Octobyte (Same in Greek)
Novembyte (Enneabyte)
Decembyte (Decabyte)

But the fact of the matter is when using bytes/bits as the unit, numeral prefixes aren't used. We use the standard prefixes as outlined in IEC, SI or JEDEC; which are:
SI:

Short	Prefix	Bytes
K	Kilo	1000
M	Mega	1000^2
G	Giga	1000^3
T	Tera	1000^4
P	Peta	1000^5
E	Exa	1000^6
Z	Zetta	1000^7
Y	Yotta	1000^8

IEC:

Short	Prefix	Bytes
Ki	Kibi	1024
Mi	Mebi	1024^2
Gi	Gibi	1024^3
Ti	Tibi	1024^4
Pi	Pebi	1024^5
Ei	Exbi	1024^6
Zi	Zebi	1024^7
Yi	Yobi	1024^8

JEDEC:

Short	Prefix	Bytes
K	Kilo	1024
M	Mega	1024^2
G	Giga	1024^3

Now as for the debate between whether 1000 bytes for Kilo or 1024 for Kilo should be used, that's another topic entirely. Personally I think 1000 should be using SI notation (Giga, Tera, Peta, etc.) and 1024 should use IEC (Gibi, Tebi, Pebi, etc), with prefixes accordingly. So 1024 bytes would be a kibibyte: KiB. 1000 bytes would be a kilobyte: KB. Unfortunately most systems don't use this format: RAM for example might be listed as 4GB = 4 Gigabytes = 4 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 bytes, but in reality it's 4 GiB = 4 Gibibytes = 4 x 1024 x 1024 x 1024. Drive capacity is strangely enough the main exception to the rule and (IMO) uses the correct format: when they write GB, it means Gigabyte, which is 1000 x 1000 x 1000 bytes. The JEDEC standard... throws this out the window and uses IEC units (1024) with SI prefixes (K/Kilo).

This is the reason why your 1TB drive only shows up as ~0.909 TB in Windows. Windows uses 1024 instead of 1000, which wouldn't be a problem if Windows used the IEC prefixes. But Windows does not respect IEC prefixes: it uses TB to mean Tibibyte; when Tibibyte should be TiB. In fact, most software does not respect the IEC convention. Windows follows the JEDEC standard (KB = 1024, MB = 1024 x 1024, GB = 1024 x 1024 x 1024), which directly contradicts SI.

lexluthermiesterWow was that in depth. I didn't actually mean to start a debate on naming schemes. Was just commenting on the bizarre nature of the current one.

kayjay010101And my point is it isn't bizzare: it's standardized and has been for decades.

kayjay010101I might have gone a bit too far in depth, I do agree on that

kayjay010101It's standard metric binary prefixes... They're standardized as part of the International System of Units, along with every other metric unit. They are easy to remember, moreso then your system which doesn't exist.

I've never heard of whatever it is you're using... In fact, not once does any of the ones you've mentioned appear on the wikipedia page for Binary Prefixes. Googling those also comes up with nonsense results.
What I presume you've done is confused numeral prefixes (used in linguistics, not in computer science) with binary prefixes. But then it's not even correct (it mixes Latin and Greek at various points, and some are just not even a thing, like "Ninta". WTF is that?) If they followed the right (numeral) prefixes they would be as follows (Latin first, Greek in paranthesis):

Quadru/Quadribyte (Tetrabyte)
Quinquebyte (Pentabyte)
Sexabyte (Hexabyte)
Septibyte (Heptabyte)
Octobyte (Same in Greek)
Novembyte (Enneabyte)
Decembyte (Decabyte)

But the fact of the matter is when using bytes/bits as the unit, numeral prefixes aren't used. We use the standard prefixes as outlined in IEC, SI or JEDEC; which are:
SI:

Short	Prefix	Bytes
K	Kilo	1000
M	Mega	1000^2
G	Giga	1000^3
T	Tera	1000^4
P	Peta	1000^5
E	Exa	1000^6
Z	Zetta	1000^7
Y	Yotta	1000^8

IEC:

Short	Prefix	Bytes
Ki	Kibi	1024
Mi	Mebi	1024^2
Gi	Gibi	1024^3
Ti	Tibi	1024^4
Pi	Pebi	1024^5
Ei	Exbi	1024^6
Zi	Zebi	1024^7
Yi	Yobi	1024^8

JEDEC:

Short	Prefix	Bytes
K	Kilo	1024
M	Mega	1024^2
G	Giga	1024^3

Now as for the debate between whether 1000 bytes for Kilo or 1024 for Kilo should be used, that's another topic entirely. Personally I think 1000 should be using SI notation (Giga, Tera, Peta, etc.) and 1024 should use IEC (Gibi, Tebi, Pebi, etc), with prefixes accordingly. So 1024 bytes would be a kibibyte: KiB. 1000 bytes would be a kilobyte: KB. Unfortunately most systems don't use this format: RAM for example might be listed as 4GB = 4 Gigabytes = 4 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 bytes, but in reality it's 4 GiB = 4 Gibibytes = 4 x 1024 x 1024 x 1024. Drive capacity is strangely enough the main exception to the rule and (IMO) uses the correct format: when they write GB, it means Gigabyte, which is 1000 x 1000 x 1000 bytes. The JEDEC standard... throws this out the window and uses IEC units (1024) with SI prefixes (K/Kilo).

This is the reason why your 1TB drive only shows up as ~0.909 TB in Windows. Windows uses 1024 instead of 1000, which wouldn't be a problem if Windows used the IEC prefixes. But Windows does not respect IEC prefixes: it uses TB to mean Tibibyte; when Tibibyte should be TiB. In fact, most software does not respect the IEC convention. Windows follows the JEDEC standard (KB = 1024, MB = 1024 x 1024, GB = 1024 x 1024 x 1024), which directly contradicts SI.

Gmr_ChickKay, I want to thank you for truly teaching me something new today with this post. Even if all the math made my brain hurt, lol. But seriously, thanks for such an informative post -- I had no idea a "yotta" byte even existed! :eek:

Gmr_ChickI had no idea a "yotta" byte even existed!

lexluthermiesterTranslation 1ZB = 1 Zettabyte, which is the same as 1 SxB = 1 Sextabyte.

Some sectors are refusing to accept the rather bizarre prefix naming scheme selected by industry pundits.

A proper naming scheme follows known and widely accepted conventions. Example;

MegaByte
GigaByte
TeraByte
QuadraByte
CentaByte
SextaByte
SeptaBtye
OctaByte
NintaByte
DecaByte

Of course, that's just one school of thought..