Warp wrote:
>   There was one point in history when I had the opinion that if a game takes
> more than 4 floppy disks (that would be about 5.5 MB), it's way too large.

Rise of the Robots AGA for the Amiga.

14 disks. And such a sophisticated level of data caching that each time 
you get to the next level, you have to swap disks multiple times.

This is made up for my the game's delicious graphics. All of which is 
little consolation for the fact that the game itself SUCKS. It's like 
they spent so much time making lush graphics that they forgot to write a 
GAME...

>   Nowadays I'm wondering why there aren't multi-DVD games yet in the market.

Faster processors = more compression? ;-)

>   Rather curiously, we are nowadays in the same situation with respect to
> 64-bit computers. Hard drives are about 500 GB, RAMs are about 2-4 GB on
> average, which is about the same ratio as above. And again, a file of
> 2^64 bytes feels basically unthinkable (although slightly less so due to
> the past experience).
> 
>   I'm wondering if 15 years from now we will be using files of that size.

2^10 = 1 KB
2^20 = 1 MB
2^30 = 1 GB
2^40 = 1 TB (we are here already)
2^50 = 1 PB (never yet heard of anybody except huge corporations 
reaching this)
2^60 = 1 EB (unthinkably vast)

 From MB to GB is "only" 1000x (or 1024x or whatever). From the GB or TB 
figures we're at today up to exabytes is a million times. But, sure, I 
guess we'll reach it eventually.

I wonder how much data you can physically store in a given volume using 
purely magnetic technologies?

Post a reply to this message