Computing.Net > Forums > Windows 2000 > 570,000 kbps - 57k per second?

Computer Problems? Computing.Net has over 1,000,000 posts about all things technology related! Over 90% answered within 24 hours! Click here to start participating now! Also, be sure to check out the New User Guide.

570,000 kbps - 57k per second?

Reply to Message Icon

Name: james
Date: March 27, 2003 at 04:47:32 Pacific
OS: 2000
CPU/Ram: Various
Comment:

following my question from message 45997:

my home 500 bt adsl line is downloading at 570,000 kbps, does that mean i'm downloading approx 57k per second?



Sponsored Link
Ads by Google

Response Number 1
Name: Rick
Date: March 27, 2003 at 06:53:32 Pacific
Reply:

No, it means 570kbps, (kilo bits per seconds).

Not to be confused with 57KBps which is kilo BYTES per second.

1,000 bits = 1 kilo byte, (appx.) lower case b = bits, upper case B = bytes, usually.

Most data transfer is reffered to as bit speed, but people mix them up all the time.


0

Response Number 2
Name: Pietro
Date: March 27, 2003 at 07:45:07 Pacific
Reply:

There are 8 bits in a byte!!!

so 1000 bits = 1 kilo bit, not 1 kilo byte as you said Rick! Infact 1000 bits = 125 bytes!

1 kilo byte = 1024 bytes...just remember there are 8 bits to a byte and you should be OK!

As for your ADSL line, you will have to look at your ratio of uploads to downloads, but I would guess that your download speed is 500Kbps (judging by the name of your contract!). You may then divide that number by 8 which should mean you are actually downloading at 62.5 KB/s (Kilo bytes / second)...with a following wind and a lot of luck.

If on the other hand you really are downloading at 570'000 Kbps, that would equate to 71'250 Kilo Bytes per second....to put that in real terms, that is approx. 101 full DivX movies per second or approx. 1187 full albums per second....which would be nice! :o)

Anyway...as you can probably tell, I am finding any excuse to put off my work...so I'm off now...take it easy!


0

Response Number 3
Name: Pietro
Date: March 27, 2003 at 08:03:36 Pacific
Reply:

Oh...if you are wondering why 1 Kilo byte equals 1024 bytes, we have the damn computer people to blame, as they decided to ignore the SI units (decimal or base 10) and use base 2 (or binary)....I cant see why...perhaps a marketing ploy in the retail of memory...ahem :o)

Ciao...


0

Response Number 4
Name: Nate
Date: March 27, 2003 at 08:18:39 Pacific
Reply:

It's not in decimal because a bit is binary, 8 bits =1 byte
2(to the)8 = 1024 bits
Computers are digital- 1 or 0 -> binary


0

Response Number 5
Name: Pietro
Date: March 27, 2003 at 08:30:45 Pacific
Reply:

Yeh...I know its binary, but according to SI units, it shouldn't really be called kilo, or mega, as these are defined as decimal units. As i said, referring to binary numbers in terms of kilo and mega isnt really correct, its a bit like calling a second a second even if it is made up of 52 milli seconds. Basically, computer people are defining their own boundaries that go against the whole idea of standard units!

Mental!!


0

Related Posts

See More



Response Number 6
Name: Rick
Date: March 27, 2003 at 08:31:42 Pacific
Reply:

I can see that there are people with WAY too much time on their hands than me. Make a simple math error and WHAM, ya get slammed.

But as you can see from all the above, bits, bytes, download speed, it don't matter. It's just a scale for you to judge how fast one ISP or piece of hardware is over the other, it could have been a scale based on anything really.


0

Sponsored Link
Ads by Google
Reply to Message Icon






Post Locked

This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.


Go to Windows 2000 Forum Home


Sponsored links

Ads by Google


Results for: 570,000 kbps - 57k per second?

570,000 kbps - how many megabytes? www.computing.net/answers/windows-2000/570000-kbps-how-many-megabytes/45997.html

Win2k 2000 Server Broadcast Madness www.computing.net/answers/windows-2000/win2k-2000-server-broadcast-madness/51631.html

win 2x www.computing.net/answers/windows-2000/win-2x/13598.html