Looking for Clarification on Binary Prefix Logic / History vs. SI Prefix

Recently I've looked into the SI and Binary prefixes used for digital storage / computing in general, and I'm still not sure I understand the logic behind the Binary prefix (actual question at the bottom).

Current Understanding (summarized):

SI:

Seems quite simple, every time you end up with 'total # of bytes == current prefix value * 1,000' : use the next largest prefix, which can be expressed as '1000 ^ 1 + the amount of SI prefixes you have already used starting at kilo'. Simple enough.

Binary:

So, apparently memory works better / easier when using units of data that are powers of 2 (the 'systems architecture' explanation of this is over my head to be honest, so I'll just take their word for it). Also, in the early days of computers before Binary prefixes were officially established, a machine with 1024 bytes of memory (which would be the smallest amount of memory using a power of 2 that breaks 1000 bytes), designers decided to use the already established SI standards and describe this amount of memory as a kB even though they weren't actually equal (it was 'close enough' more or less).

This is where my understanding starts to break down, I guess that since the SI standards 'go up' to the next prefix by using the formula (base 1000 ^ 1 + used prefix #), then the equivalent in Binary is (base 1024 ^ 1 + used prefix #) since 1024 is closer to 1000 than 512 or 2048 using powers of 2, and therefore more closely relates to the SI formula.

Actual Question:

So, if that is correct, at this point in time, why use Binary prefixes at all? Is it really that 'bad' to just say '1.024 kB' instead of 1 KiB (or whatever unit you are measuring)? I suppose listing 4 GiB of ram as 4.29497 GB is a bit goofy (Is that the reason? It is just easier to use rounded numbers?). That, and is my general understanding of these prefix standards correct?

Any clarification is appreciated, thank you for reading.

Recent Questions...