Oh well, if a number promises something and its from a company selling network access or storage mediums, then its typically always the interpretation yielding the highest number for the lowest effort.
I would guess some even count stopbits and parity bits in their bits per second number (shortened to bps to make it ambiguous enough for many unaware people to confuse bits and bytes), when users typically care about only usable data bytes.
That's a good point. I believe that some kind of measuring standard for data usage should be in effect for consumer protection and to encourage fair competition.
Am I correct that bits are more accurate than bytes and that actual bits used is fair rather than stopbits?
Somehow everybody needs to be using the same terms and measurements, in my view.
watAm I correct that bits are more accurate than bytes?
Well, there ARE non-8-bit-byte machines, unicorns that they might be. I personally don't care whether people use bits or bytes as a measurement, but I don't design low-level network hardware either.
Well, there ARE non-8-bit-byte machines, unicorns that they might be
There are also a lot of network protocols that take more than 8 bits to transmit an 8-bit byte...
That's 838Gbps!? Do you have a 1Gbps connection?
netflix in max quality is bursting to 100MB/s
Not sure how you got to that number, did you mean mbps? because i can see where X8 comes from (megabyte to megabit), but not why the X8000 (100 mégabytes is not 800 gigabits . . .)
And yes i'm on fiber, i don't actually have gigabit (i have 500mbit down) but they seem to let it go past just fine so sometimes it'll burst for more, but yea the lines are 1gbit ready
Edit: i see you already answered that, didn't finish reading the thread before i answered. Should edit it in your OP tho :)
