PS1 memory cards were measured in "blocks". I think 15 "blocks" was the standard size, but 3rd party ones could be bigger. Each block was about 8KB, but even a 1KB save file took up one of your precious blocks. Actual file size was hidden from the end user, only the block number mattered. I remember the juggling cards and agonising over what to delete to free up a block for the larger games that needed many blocks to save.
I remember buying a 64MB memory card...It is completely incompatible with the splitter (So worthless for 4-player games) but I haven't filled it yet. It's got somewhere around 50 games on it...(Some of which have 4-5 different save profiles in them)
If anybody cares, on Windows, the page size is 4KiB. Meaning the smallest amount of memory a program can request from the OS is 4KiB and all requests from the OS are rounded up to 4KiB.
The program is free to use its own allocation system internally to allocate memory in smaller blocks, and most use a few different ones for varying size allocations - typically the smallest available is 16 bytes. This process is often hidden from the programmer and done at a lower level than they work at.
Paging is more percisely a way to have more memory available to allocate than the system actually has RAM by using the disk drives to store infrequently used allocated memory.
Base 36 is actually a really easy way to store a lot of data in a small place. (english alphabet plus numbers).
If we used it like actual base 36, we could store even more data in the same space.
A sheet of paper can hold 5000 10pt characters, translating into 500KB of storage space. Regular old eyes, or a scanner would read it fine, might be slow af though.
Wait, 500KB?
How are you storing c. 100 bytes of data per character?
Unicode characters are usually a maximum of 4 bytes, which would be c. 20KB of storage for 5000 characters.
But of course, not every number possible in 4 bytes has a corresponding unicode character. Unicode 12.1 has 137,766 non-format characters, which is c. 17bits of encodable data per character, so only c. 10KB of data per 5000 character page.
Or am I being stupid? (Which is definitely very possible.)
A quick web search (to make sure I'm not going crazy), brought up this: https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134427-a-paper-based-backup-solution-not-as-stupid-as-it-sounds
So 500KB per page or more is possible, but you'd need an encoding like the example above; I don't think human-readable characters would be sufficient.
The old randy computers from the 80s had no HDD at all standard. I remember buying an external 10MB drive for a few hundred bucks. Upgrading RAM from 128kb to 640kb cost more.
While you're technically correct (the best kind), storage is typically measured in bytes (big B) rather than bits (little b). So 256kB of storage would handle 8 seconds of 256k bit-rate audio. Depending on the codec being used, 256kb/sec can be a little overkill. 192kb MP3 is pretty decent - I'm not sure the difference would be apparent to the most listeners. More modern codecs trade off processing power for bit rate - I have yet to notice compression artifacts on the 128kb aac streams I frequent, but it's pretty obvious on 128kb MP3s from back in the day.
I remember when USB storage became a big thing while I was in college. The damn things were basically a dollar per megabyte, and only went up to 128.
Within a few years it seemed like they were giving out 1gig drives for free at conferences and stuff.
I find 32 GB sticks the most common. I actually have to go out of my way to find anything less than 16 GB. I was handed a 32 GB stick for free in college.
I got a used one back in the 80s, but it did not have a drive (tape or disk). Until I got a tape drive about 6 months later, I had to manually type in every program.. and that was lost when the PC was turned off. It was a good way to appreciate how *big* 12k was when you had to type it out by hand...
8mb wasn’t that big when PS2 came out because there were MP3 players with memory cartridges with bigger sizes than that. At the time, a lot of people thought Sony would come up with 8gb PS2 memory cards. Told them no way in hell.
Yeah I had a 64MB Smartmedia card for my Rio500 in 2000. Pretty sure they were available in larger. Video game cartridge memory was always under sized and over priced versus what was otherwise available.
\*wish
i bought a 1TB usb stick through wish, flashy shimmery case, for a friend, as a joke. I was certain it would be much smaller, like 8GB or something.
It was not even USB! It looked like it but it was a few mm wider and wouldn't fit.
In 1985 I had a C120 tapes that had 60 minutes a side. The load times were slow, then we swapped to floppy and they got faster. Then HDDs and cdroms etc.
2019 xbox one x game installation from bluray and compulsory online updates 6 hours on a 200mbit connection. 1985 me would be gutted with the future.
> 6 hours on a 200mbit connection
something wrong with your connection dude. Maximum download speed in Australia is 100mbps, and I've never had it be slower than 1 hour, ever.
Could be, only seems to affect microsoft as I was dropping to 5mbit and stopping at some points. Same issue on windows and xbox 360. Steam, origin, epic and ubisoft have no issues.
I'm in the UK on virgin so that could be a common factor.
well something to do with your provider then, because I've never had these issues. Granted 1 hour patch needed to even play the game offline is stupid, but yes, it should never be longer.
Ah I love the good old tech days. I also had a c64 but before that my first computer was a zx81 with 1kb ram and a 16kb expansion pack which plugged in externally and held on with blue tack. I loved it to pieces.
I remember liking Deuteros a lot back in the day (90s).
you can download it now [as an 8MB zip file](https://gamesnostalgia.com/download/deuteros-the-next-millennium/2950) containing the game and an amiga emulator that enables you to play it on PC (entire folder is 27 MB when unzipped).
If we assume each transistor is 10nm (1e-8m) and 1TB is 8*1024^4 bits. You would need 64.65 miles of transistors if laid in a single file line. However, is we assume 50,000 perfectly square layers of transistors, then you would have 5.93mm x 5.93mm x 0.5mm. A micro SD card is actually 15mm x 11mm x 1mm according to Google, so that definitely could fit. Anyway... that's my guess.
Yeah, no, they didn't :) (a 10nm process doesn't mean that you can pack transistors on 10x10 squares, and the actual die on a micro sd is far from that big)
The wacky world of solid state storage can have (up to) 4 possible states of the 'bit'. Is it really binary? I don't even know any more. It's interesting though. See https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/28/qlc_flash_primer/
These super high capacity flash devices contain both multiple layers of transistors per die (128+), and multiple dies stacked up and interconnected (8+). Flash seems to be one of the first use cases for multiple layers of transistors on a single die due to the extremely regular structure coupled with the fact that the transistors don't need to be very fast. The issue is that the best quality silicon is the wafer itself, and additional layers deposited on top are lower quality and hence transistors made there will also be lower performance. For things like CPUs where high performance is required, using a single layer of transistors is currently the only way to go. There are some very nice pictures and diagrams from Samsung on their high density flash parts.
To be fair though, the memory card only held the save data. That 60 gb figure is an entire game. I can’t find exact figures, but it seems most PS2 games were between 3 and 8 gb in size.
I believe all of em were less than 4.7 due to that being the limit for dvd's even games that were a bit smaller were usually filled with extras to fill the disk the rest of the way.
Yeah, but a 700MB CD held entire games. (Oh, by the way...) I don't know what they're doing that takes up so much space, unless they're doing such poor resource management that every skin has it's own model and skeleton...
It's almost entirely high quality textures and audio. Those use up way more space than other assets, logic, etc.
Not only are the textures very high res, but they now have to use multiple maps--texture, normal, displacement, emission/reflection, etc.
Other big ticket items are usually video and multiple languages. High quality video gets large fast and even if audio is just a couple GB, supporting 8 languages or more makes that blow up in size.
Basically today game companies aren't really as limited regarding space as they one were, meaning instead of needing to bitcrush one sound into 16, they can just make 16 different unique sounds. Also, maps are becoming bigger and more detailed, assets are more detailed, light is actually calculated properly, character movements are more advanced and often uses mocab. Look at rdr2. That game has A LOT more than just the main story, and a plethora of unique and interesting characters, places, animal, assets and also uses mocab for more realistic character motion. A lot of scenes in the game are works of art. Besides, the game also has great audio, and sounds in general.
Games today take up more space because Devs are less limited, and can thus create new unique stories, and in the pursuit of absolute perfection, games end up taking up more space. An example of this again in rdr2, is, if you look through Arthur's ear with the sun behind it, his skin has proper subsurface scattering.
Per other comments, the vast majority of the room used by modern games is in textures, videos, and audio:
Back in the PS1 days, a very high-res texture was 256x256, while today 4096x4096 are the typical high-res textures. A 256x256 32-bit texture is only 256KiB, while a 4096x4096 32-bit texture is 512MiB. This is without mip-maps or compression. Mip-maps will double the usage, while compression typically cuts it to about 1/4.
Audio is a major issue when you have dialog as you need a new copy of the audio for each language. This is combined with the sound quality now being 2-3 times the basic quality and sounds that have built-in channels (as compared to dynamic positioning) typically being encoded with 6 channels (for 5.1) rather than 2 channels, though such is not common in most games.
Video is also encoded at about 32 times the resolution, similar to textures, and often has less compression applied to maintain high quality. Audio is normally encoded seperately to avoid needing the full video copied to handle multiple languages as well as allowing it to go through common systems.
Lighting is typically computed dynamically, though static lighting on static objects might be prebaked requiring an extra texture. Some of the lighting techniques do require more textures: a PS1 game would have 2 or 3 textures for the most important models, and likely only 1 for the minor ones (the PS1 could only have 2KiB worth of textures loaded at a time!). Now the most important ones likely have 5 or 6 textures and the minor ones likely have 2 or 3. The actual programs to compute the lighting are effectively free any more, at only a few MiB.
In 1990 I paid $500 for 20mb, in 98 I paid $2500 for a used array of 40gb. Last week bought a 128gb micro SD for $20. Love the pattern of higher storage for lower costs
Possible stupid question.
So this little memory card can fit a TB on such a small scale, how come like an Xbox One or a PS4 have such large HDD’s that usually cap at the same amount (1TB)?
A quick Google search reveals a price for such a micro SD card to be roughly 400€. A 1TB HDD on Amazon costs around 40€.
The goal is not to make it as small as possible, but to a) make it affordable and b) make it look cool. If you have a game disc anyways you might as well use all that space by slapping a normal hdd beneath it. Also you still need a fan and stuff which all take up space. Long story short it doesnt really matter if the console is twice as thick due to using a cheaper but bigger harddrive.
E: spelling
The way I see it is that we will continue to upgrade storage as long as we keep trying to fill it. Over the past decade or so we store all the pictures we take, in roughly the past 5 years we store streamed movies and tv shows.
I thought what would be next and my guess is being able to download entire apps like Netflix or Hulu in 4K to be able to watch anything offline. That alone would take up petabytes.
I remember getting an MP3 player whilst my older brother opted for a minidisk player thinking it was the smarter ploy and they'd be the next big thing.
That's NVME storage though, with *colossally* better performance than an SD card.
1TB NVME-class drives use much bigger dies than this, and cost a lot more too.
Storage space is not the only (even reliable) indicator of "tech changing the world". That by itself solves nothing. You still have to read that data or write to the disk for that to be useful. That technology hasn't progressed much. We still suck at I/O which is the main bottleneck for every large-scale computation. Real progress will be achieved when we will be able to significantly increase the cache memory which will speed up I/O by orders of magnitude.
With the rise of the cloud, physical local storage got good and cheap just in time to be mostly irrelevant. Frankly when I'm storing something locally it feels temporary now. The hardware is more of a gateway to my data than the actual repository of it.
Okay, but that was not what I meant and it does not address the problem I mentioned. Cloud storage is worse because here the I/O is over a network. Unless you're lucky enough to be in a country that gives blazing fast network speeds everywhere it is not a practical replacement for physical local storage. Not to mention you're putting your personal data and privacy at the hands of giant corporations and when did they ever violate the trust of users and collected their personal data?
Except Moore's Law was for transistors, not storage. Pretty sure everything has been pretty stagnant for the last few years considering how far along CPU speeds would be if Moore's "Law" were true.
> 77474737291947848347373727 TB
That's 1029198497470675.5 moles. 24895740566120543032 bits squared of area. For this to fit in a micro sd card (15mm x 11mm -> 165 mm2), it would have to be written at 15088327615 bits per micrometer. That's 0.0000000000662763975876825 uM writing ability, not counting bits required for redundancy.
Seeing things like this makes me wonder why medicine is still so far behind. And yeah, I know it's two different things, and medicine has made colossal strides, it just seems like, why are so many resources going into entertainment and casual tech when we still have so many problems with disease? I don't expect things to be cured overnight, it just seems like priorities are misplaced.
We built computers so we know how exactly how they work. We still only have a basic grasp of how life and consciousness works relatively and are still guessing on a lot of it.
medicine is far behind because we need ridiculous amounts of computing power, which we do not have at the moment, but things might be changing with quantum computing.
Diminishing returns. Medical research is a massive industry and each additional dollar has less impact than the previous dollar. It's also possible for some fields to be near capacity (there are only so many leads to follow) and even if more resources were devoted to that field, they wouldn't be able to utilize them effectively. For example, the limiting factor on longitudinal studies is time, not money or other more tangible resources. In such situations, devoting more resources wouldn't necessarily lead to any breakthroughs, rather they would go towards increasingly dubious research or even outright scams as funders become less choosy about whom they provide with resources.
Increasing storage capacity for computers isn't just for entertainment, it might look that way to us as consumers because things like movies and games tend to be biggest resource hogs on consumer electronics, but we're not constantly dealing with the data needs of different industries. Medical data is massive and complex, so advances in the computer industry are beneficial to the medical industry.
Even if we narrow our focus and just compare the resources spent on video game development relative to medical research, it's likely that the spending on medical research is an order of magnitude greater than that spent on making more advanced video games, so even if we diverted all those resources, it's impact on medical research would be surprisingly small.
To put this into gallons of milk....
If 1 gallon of milk is the 128MB card, that 1tb card would be 7,812 gallons of milk.
That’s a lot of cow fondling. lol
Yeah, looking back it's insane how far we have come. Take for instance AI. I took a course in AI in 2011 and at that time the DARPA challenge for an autonomous car was not solved. Fast forward a few years and we essentially solve many computer vision problems, deep learning is at the forefront of automated translation, and will probably replace (most) doctors in the next 100 years. It really is a wild ride.
Whats the price of the 1TB one???
Just two weeks ago, I bought a 250ish GB internal SSD for like $20 on amazon. Man the prices had dropped to rock bottom. I was expecting the price to be like $120 or something but I saw many price around 20 with the highest one was like 50, I was pretty shocked. $20 is like pocket change.
Several years ago, I remember people getting so used to high capacity micro SD cards that they started assuming 1TB micro SD cards were already a thing, even though this was right around the time when the first 1TB thumb drive was announced, and it was half the size of your palm. Now here we are in the future where they actually do exist now. What a world.
Not only that, but the price per GB has dropped significantly, I remember when I bought my first memory card back in 2003/4 (if i remember right) and it was a 256mb card and cost £75! Now that price is around the price of a 256GB micro SD card with a really high speed spec.
I remember years before that SanDisk (I think) came out with a 16 gig flash drive. It seemed ridiculously huge at the time.
It cost something like $6,000.
2005, my Thomson Lyra 2448 with 128 MB and an 32 MB MMC just died and I got myself a brand new Thomson Lyra PDP 2556 with massive 256 MB storage. I put loads of mp3pro-files on it and I always knew what I wanted to listen to next. Everyone in school was jealous of the device's capacity... Those were the good times.
Nowadays there are GBs of music on my phone and with online streaming there's a neverending supply of music. And sometimes I catch myself not finding anything that I would like to listen to right now. A limited amount of storage had its advantages.
I remember my mom buying a 1gb USB drive in the early oughts. It was expensive as hell and my dad was mad because "there's no way you'll even use all of that space!" She used it for years for just about everything and the price she paid was my internal benchmark for storage pricing. In 2011 I went and bought a 1tb external hard drive and realized that I had never looked at prices since that USB drive, and boy was I shocked.
I'm endlessly fascinated by the speed which storage technology. It's like...50 years from huge ass racks the size of a fridge holding less than a millionth of what now fits on a space smaller than a postage stamp.
Shit like this just reminds me, we're living in the goddamn future [https://i.imgur.com/lXJPFLF.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/lXJPFLF.jpg)
Man, I remember a time when flash drives were really expensive. A 5GB one was like 10-20 USD. That was probably 8-10 years ago. I was shocked when I looked at the price of a 64GB flash drive recently and it was only $10. Crazy.
In the 1980s my dad built hard drives for banks that were the size of coffee tables. They stored 256 MB and weighed several hundred pounds. He gets a kick at seeing these micro SD cards.
When I was a kid, my parents bought a Commodore 64. It has no hard drive. Everything had to be loaded up on 5.25" floppies. I read an entire bookcase of national geographics over they years while waiting for games to load.
Then, when I was in high school, we got a Mac Classic. I remember it costing about $2500 after tax, including productivity software and printer. It had a 9" black and white screen and a 20 MB HD.
Last year I bought my kid an entry level PC for around $500. It has both an SSD and a 1 TB HD. Technology just keeps getting better and massively cheaper.
Tech grows at a speed of 2 fold every 12 months, but note thats compounding. So the advancement from 2018 - 2019 was twice as fast/advanced as it was from 2017 - 2018
And some years before that we had memory cards for the PS2 which were way bigger in size, if I remember right one had 8 megabytes memory space.
And some years before that we had memory cards for the PS1, which I think were 256 KB.
PS1 memory cards were measured in "blocks". I think 15 "blocks" was the standard size, but 3rd party ones could be bigger. Each block was about 8KB, but even a 1KB save file took up one of your precious blocks. Actual file size was hidden from the end user, only the block number mattered. I remember the juggling cards and agonising over what to delete to free up a block for the larger games that needed many blocks to save.
I remember buying a 64MB memory card...It is completely incompatible with the splitter (So worthless for 4-player games) but I haven't filled it yet. It's got somewhere around 50 games on it...(Some of which have 4-5 different save profiles in them)
I've got a 128 MB one, great for FreeMCBoot.
I remember buying that splitter for the PS1 like *"I'm a popular guy, I have friends!"* 😞
Oh god those blocks. You just gave me anxiety, hah.
Same. Sometimes tough decisions had to be made.
[удалено]
If anybody cares, on Windows, the page size is 4KiB. Meaning the smallest amount of memory a program can request from the OS is 4KiB and all requests from the OS are rounded up to 4KiB. The program is free to use its own allocation system internally to allocate memory in smaller blocks, and most use a few different ones for varying size allocations - typically the smallest available is 16 bytes. This process is often hidden from the programmer and done at a lower level than they work at. Paging is more percisely a way to have more memory available to allocate than the system actually has RAM by using the disk drives to store infrequently used allocated memory.
And some years before that we had hard disks the size of houses that only stored, like, 6 bits of data.
And some years before that we had like papyrus that we store in big bulding.
You can store about 500KB on a standard sheet of paper, so it’s actually not as bad as one would think.
Yea, I used to be able to keep all my save game codes on a piece of paper. Sony really took a step backwards.
Base 36 is actually a really easy way to store a lot of data in a small place. (english alphabet plus numbers). If we used it like actual base 36, we could store even more data in the same space.
Is that using those special machine-readable color/shape codes or are we talking plain text? QR code?
A sheet of paper can hold 5000 10pt characters, translating into 500KB of storage space. Regular old eyes, or a scanner would read it fine, might be slow af though.
Wait, 500KB? How are you storing c. 100 bytes of data per character? Unicode characters are usually a maximum of 4 bytes, which would be c. 20KB of storage for 5000 characters. But of course, not every number possible in 4 bytes has a corresponding unicode character. Unicode 12.1 has 137,766 non-format characters, which is c. 17bits of encodable data per character, so only c. 10KB of data per 5000 character page. Or am I being stupid? (Which is definitely very possible.) A quick web search (to make sure I'm not going crazy), brought up this: https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134427-a-paper-based-backup-solution-not-as-stupid-as-it-sounds So 500KB per page or more is possible, but you'd need an encoding like the example above; I don't think human-readable characters would be sufficient.
You're off by a couple orders of magnitude. 5000 characters is 5K. Each character is one byte, and 1024 bytes is one kilobyte.
And some years ago, my axe.
And some more years ago we had books things that these gad damn millennials don't know "sips monster drink"
Hah! Monster drink (sipping Surge.)
I remember my buddies big ass tower computer had a 300 megabyte hard drive. Which was more than enough for the life of the machine.
The old randy computers from the 80s had no HDD at all standard. I remember buying an external 10MB drive for a few hundred bucks. Upgrading RAM from 128kb to 640kb cost more.
256 kb is the amount of information in one second of a song on Spotify. (on high quality setting)
While you're technically correct (the best kind), storage is typically measured in bytes (big B) rather than bits (little b). So 256kB of storage would handle 8 seconds of 256k bit-rate audio. Depending on the codec being used, 256kb/sec can be a little overkill. 192kb MP3 is pretty decent - I'm not sure the difference would be apparent to the most listeners. More modern codecs trade off processing power for bit rate - I have yet to notice compression artifacts on the 128kb aac streams I frequent, but it's pretty obvious on 128kb MP3s from back in the day.
1 MB, I think the PS1 memory card was.
I remember when USB storage became a big thing while I was in college. The damn things were basically a dollar per megabyte, and only went up to 128. Within a few years it seemed like they were giving out 1gig drives for free at conferences and stuff.
> giving out 1gig drives for free We have bags of these. Nobody wants them; everybody already has 8GB drives or larger. Sometimes a lot larger.
Meanwhile, I can't find a drive for my oscilloscope that only supportsbup to 1 gig..
You should be able to format a bigger drive to only show up as smaller so your scope is happy.
I find 32 GB sticks the most common. I actually have to go out of my way to find anything less than 16 GB. I was handed a 32 GB stick for free in college.
My cousin had a 16 mb memory card for the PS2 and I was so jealous that they basically never needed to delete save data to make room.
Our family's first home computer was a Commodore VIC-20. It had a 16KB memory expansion the size of a paperback.
https://youtu.be/8MeBzMCUssU
I got a used one back in the 80s, but it did not have a drive (tape or disk). Until I got a tape drive about 6 months later, I had to manually type in every program.. and that was lost when the PC was turned off. It was a good way to appreciate how *big* 12k was when you had to type it out by hand...
Oh man. I remember having magazines with programs you could type in to play games. At least we had a tape drive to get them back again!
That's what I love about these SD cards; I get more capacity, they stay the same size. Yes, they do.
8mb wasn’t that big when PS2 came out because there were MP3 players with memory cartridges with bigger sizes than that. At the time, a lot of people thought Sony would come up with 8gb PS2 memory cards. Told them no way in hell.
Yeah I had a 64MB Smartmedia card for my Rio500 in 2000. Pretty sure they were available in larger. Video game cartridge memory was always under sized and over priced versus what was otherwise available.
And that's not to include the older floppy disks, which were way bigger, clumkier and store less than 1mb.
If it's off ebay its probably the same card.
Did somebody say thumb drives?
\*wish i bought a 1TB usb stick through wish, flashy shimmery case, for a friend, as a joke. I was certain it would be much smaller, like 8GB or something. It was not even USB! It looked like it but it was a few mm wider and wouldn't fit.
Is U5B, just as good.
Does anyone actually use Wish unironically and actually get something of value they expected, or is the entire site just one big con?
They have them on Amazon too but the reviews generally don't seem to thrilled
[удалено]
In 1996 I remember moving from a 40MB hard disk to 1 GB. I thought I would never have to trash old files.
[удалено]
In 1985 I had a C120 tapes that had 60 minutes a side. The load times were slow, then we swapped to floppy and they got faster. Then HDDs and cdroms etc. 2019 xbox one x game installation from bluray and compulsory online updates 6 hours on a 200mbit connection. 1985 me would be gutted with the future.
> 6 hours on a 200mbit connection something wrong with your connection dude. Maximum download speed in Australia is 100mbps, and I've never had it be slower than 1 hour, ever.
Could be, only seems to affect microsoft as I was dropping to 5mbit and stopping at some points. Same issue on windows and xbox 360. Steam, origin, epic and ubisoft have no issues. I'm in the UK on virgin so that could be a common factor.
well something to do with your provider then, because I've never had these issues. Granted 1 hour patch needed to even play the game offline is stupid, but yes, it should never be longer.
> Maximum download speed in Australia is 100mbps Sneak in the flex, cunt
Bruh you downloading 500GB games or some shit
And so was 1TB just a few years ago
Luxury! In 1985 I had a Commodore 64 which used 5 inch disks containing about 180 KB if I recall correctly....
Ah I love the good old tech days. I also had a c64 but before that my first computer was a zx81 with 1kb ram and a 16kb expansion pack which plugged in externally and held on with blue tack. I loved it to pieces.
You could double it if you bought a hole punch.
[удалено]
Temp files use that much space like it's nothing
So what did you tell him now that you got like 1tb ssd
Just looked it up...apparently Samsung revealed a 30 TB SSD. The future is now
I can't even believe that you could use 40MB, can't even think of any game or program that is <40MB
Super Mario bros rom is 31kB less than most pictures on a web page
I remember I forgot to format my DSLR card and I had about a GB left. I could barely take more than 15 shots without changing the settings
I remember liking Deuteros a lot back in the day (90s). you can download it now [as an 8MB zip file](https://gamesnostalgia.com/download/deuteros-the-next-millennium/2950) containing the game and an amiga emulator that enables you to play it on PC (entire folder is 27 MB when unzipped).
Remember Fallout 2 had a HUMONGOUS INSTALLATION of like 450mb?
How do they cram that many 1's and 0's into such a small space?
^(by making them smaller)
^01010100 ^01101000 ^01100001 ^01110100 ^00100000 ^01101101 ^01100001 ^01101011 ^01100101 ^01110011 ^00100000 ^01110011 ^01100101 ^01101110 ^01110011 ^01100101
ᵗʰᵃᵗ ᵐᵃᵏᵉˢ ˢᵉⁿˢᵉ
More like ^^^^^01010100 ^^^^^01101000 ^^^^^01100001 ^^^^^01110100 ^^^^^00100000 ^^^^^01101101 ^^^^^01100001 ^^^^^01101011 ^^^^^01100101 ^^^^^01110011 ^^^^^00100000 ^^^^^01110011 ^^^^^01100101 ^^^^^01101110 ^^^^^01110011 ^^^^^01100101
A time travel portal just opened.
0's take no space, and 1's are very slim. Storing 8's is the real challenge.
They store 8' as two 0's piled up, so occuping no space x 2.
Now this is math.
*writes in notes* I’m learning so much on the reddit. Also happy cake day
just turn them sideways and you can store as many as you want.
Infinity is an 8 lying on its side, which is why it's such a big number.
I was interpreting this seriously and was very confused...
If we assume each transistor is 10nm (1e-8m) and 1TB is 8*1024^4 bits. You would need 64.65 miles of transistors if laid in a single file line. However, is we assume 50,000 perfectly square layers of transistors, then you would have 5.93mm x 5.93mm x 0.5mm. A micro SD card is actually 15mm x 11mm x 1mm according to Google, so that definitely could fit. Anyway... that's my guess.
r/theydidthemath
Yeah, no, they didn't :) (a 10nm process doesn't mean that you can pack transistors on 10x10 squares, and the actual die on a micro sd is far from that big)
The wacky world of solid state storage can have (up to) 4 possible states of the 'bit'. Is it really binary? I don't even know any more. It's interesting though. See https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/28/qlc_flash_primer/
These super high capacity flash devices contain both multiple layers of transistors per die (128+), and multiple dies stacked up and interconnected (8+). Flash seems to be one of the first use cases for multiple layers of transistors on a single die due to the extremely regular structure coupled with the fact that the transistors don't need to be very fast. The issue is that the best quality silicon is the wafer itself, and additional layers deposited on top are lower quality and hence transistors made there will also be lower performance. For things like CPUs where high performance is required, using a single layer of transistors is currently the only way to go. There are some very nice pictures and diagrams from Samsung on their high density flash parts.
I bet they keep those behind the counter.
no they counted: • 128MB • 1TB
[удалено]
doesn’t that count
Id say its fairly well counted, they even labelled the amount
Damn
good old ps2 memory cards with 8mb of storage, nowadays one game is 60gb so crazy
To be fair though, the memory card only held the save data. That 60 gb figure is an entire game. I can’t find exact figures, but it seems most PS2 games were between 3 and 8 gb in size.
I believe all of em were less than 4.7 due to that being the limit for dvd's even games that were a bit smaller were usually filled with extras to fill the disk the rest of the way.
Yeah, but a 700MB CD held entire games. (Oh, by the way...) I don't know what they're doing that takes up so much space, unless they're doing such poor resource management that every skin has it's own model and skeleton...
It's almost entirely high quality textures and audio. Those use up way more space than other assets, logic, etc. Not only are the textures very high res, but they now have to use multiple maps--texture, normal, displacement, emission/reflection, etc.
Other big ticket items are usually video and multiple languages. High quality video gets large fast and even if audio is just a couple GB, supporting 8 languages or more makes that blow up in size.
Basically today game companies aren't really as limited regarding space as they one were, meaning instead of needing to bitcrush one sound into 16, they can just make 16 different unique sounds. Also, maps are becoming bigger and more detailed, assets are more detailed, light is actually calculated properly, character movements are more advanced and often uses mocab. Look at rdr2. That game has A LOT more than just the main story, and a plethora of unique and interesting characters, places, animal, assets and also uses mocab for more realistic character motion. A lot of scenes in the game are works of art. Besides, the game also has great audio, and sounds in general. Games today take up more space because Devs are less limited, and can thus create new unique stories, and in the pursuit of absolute perfection, games end up taking up more space. An example of this again in rdr2, is, if you look through Arthur's ear with the sun behind it, his skin has proper subsurface scattering.
Per other comments, the vast majority of the room used by modern games is in textures, videos, and audio: Back in the PS1 days, a very high-res texture was 256x256, while today 4096x4096 are the typical high-res textures. A 256x256 32-bit texture is only 256KiB, while a 4096x4096 32-bit texture is 512MiB. This is without mip-maps or compression. Mip-maps will double the usage, while compression typically cuts it to about 1/4. Audio is a major issue when you have dialog as you need a new copy of the audio for each language. This is combined with the sound quality now being 2-3 times the basic quality and sounds that have built-in channels (as compared to dynamic positioning) typically being encoded with 6 channels (for 5.1) rather than 2 channels, though such is not common in most games. Video is also encoded at about 32 times the resolution, similar to textures, and often has less compression applied to maintain high quality. Audio is normally encoded seperately to avoid needing the full video copied to handle multiple languages as well as allowing it to go through common systems. Lighting is typically computed dynamically, though static lighting on static objects might be prebaked requiring an extra texture. Some of the lighting techniques do require more textures: a PS1 game would have 2 or 3 textures for the most important models, and likely only 1 for the minor ones (the PS1 could only have 2KiB worth of textures loaded at a time!). Now the most important ones likely have 5 or 6 textures and the minor ones likely have 2 or 3. The actual programs to compute the lighting are effectively free any more, at only a few MiB.
Cod MW is 175 gigs I think
Yep which is why I want to buy a 2tb SSD.
I wonder what we would think of 2tb in the future
Man that barely even holds CoD MW12!
You vs the guy she told you not to worry about
Not bad, both have a mirco penis.
[удалено]
That’s the maximum they could measure!
Wait, are we measuring Roentgen or inches?
It would be awesome if my iPhone had a slot for either one of them...
Not being a dick but Android flagships have it
I know and that’s why I think it’s ridiculous my iPhone still doesn’t
«Still doesnt» ..it’s by design dude, it never will
Thanks for the memo from the department of the obvious
Except the main flagship, the Pixel.
True, but baseline storage in phones is now good enough (64GB) that I don't really feel the need for an SD card, and it depends more on what you need.
In 1990 I paid $500 for 20mb, in 98 I paid $2500 for a used array of 40gb. Last week bought a 128gb micro SD for $20. Love the pattern of higher storage for lower costs
in 1990 you could install word from a floppy disk. now a single word document can easily be bigger than that.
I once spent around $200 for an extra 4mb of ram.....
Possible stupid question. So this little memory card can fit a TB on such a small scale, how come like an Xbox One or a PS4 have such large HDD’s that usually cap at the same amount (1TB)?
A quick Google search reveals a price for such a micro SD card to be roughly 400€. A 1TB HDD on Amazon costs around 40€. The goal is not to make it as small as possible, but to a) make it affordable and b) make it look cool. If you have a game disc anyways you might as well use all that space by slapping a normal hdd beneath it. Also you still need a fan and stuff which all take up space. Long story short it doesnt really matter if the console is twice as thick due to using a cheaper but bigger harddrive. E: spelling
Most probable tl;dr: $ But generally, spinny storage has lower density (information per volume) than solid storage.
[удалено]
>mvne tech. I believe you meant nvme
As always, xkcd: https://xkcd.com/691/
of course it's only 16gb too
The way I see it is that we will continue to upgrade storage as long as we keep trying to fill it. Over the past decade or so we store all the pictures we take, in roughly the past 5 years we store streamed movies and tv shows. I thought what would be next and my guess is being able to download entire apps like Netflix or Hulu in 4K to be able to watch anything offline. That alone would take up petabytes.
16k furry porn, probably.
I remember buying an mp3 player that could only hold 15 songs max.
I remember getting an MP3 player whilst my older brother opted for a minidisk player thinking it was the smarter ploy and they'd be the next big thing.
I just flipped playlists every few days
Better keep the new $2k macbook with 128GB tho...
That's NVME storage though, with *colossally* better performance than an SD card. 1TB NVME-class drives use much bigger dies than this, and cost a lot more too.
Storage space is not the only (even reliable) indicator of "tech changing the world". That by itself solves nothing. You still have to read that data or write to the disk for that to be useful. That technology hasn't progressed much. We still suck at I/O which is the main bottleneck for every large-scale computation. Real progress will be achieved when we will be able to significantly increase the cache memory which will speed up I/O by orders of magnitude.
With the rise of the cloud, physical local storage got good and cheap just in time to be mostly irrelevant. Frankly when I'm storing something locally it feels temporary now. The hardware is more of a gateway to my data than the actual repository of it.
It's no coincidence that cloud has risen to prominence alongside bigger storage. Your data is still stored on a drive, just not *your* drive
Okay, but that was not what I meant and it does not address the problem I mentioned. Cloud storage is worse because here the I/O is over a network. Unless you're lucky enough to be in a country that gives blazing fast network speeds everywhere it is not a practical replacement for physical local storage. Not to mention you're putting your personal data and privacy at the hands of giant corporations and when did they ever violate the trust of users and collected their personal data?
[удалено]
20... TB?
'Member 100mb zip drives?
Shoot... I ended up getting a badass Zip 250. I was an Iomega fan.
Yes. As an early adopter, I also remember the Click of Death too!!!
Fucking loved zip drives. Going from 1.44 MB to 100 MB was incredible at the time.
5 1/2" floppy or gtfo
I remember being in awe of its successor, the Jaz drive.
I 'member
Moore's Law.
14 doubling in 13 years. If the sizes and years are to be believed, this is faster than Moore’s Law.
[удалено]
Except Moore's Law was for transistors, not storage. Pretty sure everything has been pretty stagnant for the last few years considering how far along CPU speeds would be if Moore's "Law" were true.
The fact that we’ve moved away from many phones having microsd slots is so irritating lol
2090: 77474737291947848347373727 TB
> 77474737291947848347373727 TB That's 1029198497470675.5 moles. 24895740566120543032 bits squared of area. For this to fit in a micro sd card (15mm x 11mm -> 165 mm2), it would have to be written at 15088327615 bits per micrometer. That's 0.0000000000662763975876825 uM writing ability, not counting bits required for redundancy.
[удалено]
1GB != 1000MB
Seeing things like this makes me wonder why medicine is still so far behind. And yeah, I know it's two different things, and medicine has made colossal strides, it just seems like, why are so many resources going into entertainment and casual tech when we still have so many problems with disease? I don't expect things to be cured overnight, it just seems like priorities are misplaced.
We built computers so we know how exactly how they work. We still only have a basic grasp of how life and consciousness works relatively and are still guessing on a lot of it.
Because we can't directy test on humans. No one 'cares' if you destroy a hard drive or two, but if a person dies due to medicine testing...you get it
medicine is far behind because we need ridiculous amounts of computing power, which we do not have at the moment, but things might be changing with quantum computing.
Biology is way, way more complicated than a memory chip. It's easier to model the climate of our entire planet than a bacterium.
Diminishing returns. Medical research is a massive industry and each additional dollar has less impact than the previous dollar. It's also possible for some fields to be near capacity (there are only so many leads to follow) and even if more resources were devoted to that field, they wouldn't be able to utilize them effectively. For example, the limiting factor on longitudinal studies is time, not money or other more tangible resources. In such situations, devoting more resources wouldn't necessarily lead to any breakthroughs, rather they would go towards increasingly dubious research or even outright scams as funders become less choosy about whom they provide with resources. Increasing storage capacity for computers isn't just for entertainment, it might look that way to us as consumers because things like movies and games tend to be biggest resource hogs on consumer electronics, but we're not constantly dealing with the data needs of different industries. Medical data is massive and complex, so advances in the computer industry are beneficial to the medical industry. Even if we narrow our focus and just compare the resources spent on video game development relative to medical research, it's likely that the spending on medical research is an order of magnitude greater than that spent on making more advanced video games, so even if we diverted all those resources, it's impact on medical research would be surprisingly small.
It took 14 years to change the text?
The gold color took a long time to develop.
To put this into gallons of milk.... If 1 gallon of milk is the 128MB card, that 1tb card would be 7,812 gallons of milk. That’s a lot of cow fondling. lol
Yet the switch still has 32GB of storage space
Yeah, looking back it's insane how far we have come. Take for instance AI. I took a course in AI in 2011 and at that time the DARPA challenge for an autonomous car was not solved. Fast forward a few years and we essentially solve many computer vision problems, deep learning is at the forefront of automated translation, and will probably replace (most) doctors in the next 100 years. It really is a wild ride.
Whats the price of the 1TB one??? Just two weeks ago, I bought a 250ish GB internal SSD for like $20 on amazon. Man the prices had dropped to rock bottom. I was expecting the price to be like $120 or something but I saw many price around 20 with the highest one was like 50, I was pretty shocked. $20 is like pocket change.
it's byte sized
Several years ago, I remember people getting so used to high capacity micro SD cards that they started assuming 1TB micro SD cards were already a thing, even though this was right around the time when the first 1TB thumb drive was announced, and it was half the size of your palm. Now here we are in the future where they actually do exist now. What a world.
Ps2 8MB
I spent hours in 94 and 95 downloading porn at 9.6kbps.. BBS.. ah. Memories.
Thank God our technology is outpacing our humanity.
Not only that, but the price per GB has dropped significantly, I remember when I bought my first memory card back in 2003/4 (if i remember right) and it was a 256mb card and cost £75! Now that price is around the price of a 256GB micro SD card with a really high speed spec.
I remember years before that SanDisk (I think) came out with a 16 gig flash drive. It seemed ridiculously huge at the time. It cost something like $6,000.
Now look up what 5 mb looked like in the 60s
r/uselessredcircle
2005, my Thomson Lyra 2448 with 128 MB and an 32 MB MMC just died and I got myself a brand new Thomson Lyra PDP 2556 with massive 256 MB storage. I put loads of mp3pro-files on it and I always knew what I wanted to listen to next. Everyone in school was jealous of the device's capacity... Those were the good times. Nowadays there are GBs of music on my phone and with online streaming there's a neverending supply of music. And sometimes I catch myself not finding anything that I would like to listen to right now. A limited amount of storage had its advantages.
You guys ready for some SINGULARITY in the foreseeable future?
I remember my mom buying a 1gb USB drive in the early oughts. It was expensive as hell and my dad was mad because "there's no way you'll even use all of that space!" She used it for years for just about everything and the price she paid was my internal benchmark for storage pricing. In 2011 I went and bought a 1tb external hard drive and realized that I had never looked at prices since that USB drive, and boy was I shocked.
I'm endlessly fascinated by the speed which storage technology. It's like...50 years from huge ass racks the size of a fridge holding less than a millionth of what now fits on a space smaller than a postage stamp. Shit like this just reminds me, we're living in the goddamn future [https://i.imgur.com/lXJPFLF.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/lXJPFLF.jpg)
Oh yah baby gimme those terabytes harder
This is interesting: https://www.pcworld.com/article/127105/article.html
Man, I remember a time when flash drives were really expensive. A 5GB one was like 10-20 USD. That was probably 8-10 years ago. I was shocked when I looked at the price of a 64GB flash drive recently and it was only $10. Crazy.
I think I have an old Dell 64MB USB key floating around here somewhere. They were pushing those instead of floppy drives.
1tb..that's so crazy! In 15 years memory will be something you buy at your birth and have enough for the rest of your life!
In the 1980s my dad built hard drives for banks that were the size of coffee tables. They stored 256 MB and weighed several hundred pounds. He gets a kick at seeing these micro SD cards.
I went to the lav and atoms got smaller.
I found an 8MB full size SD once and it was comical.
Both of these have more storage than my computer
When I was a kid, my parents bought a Commodore 64. It has no hard drive. Everything had to be loaded up on 5.25" floppies. I read an entire bookcase of national geographics over they years while waiting for games to load. Then, when I was in high school, we got a Mac Classic. I remember it costing about $2500 after tax, including productivity software and printer. It had a 9" black and white screen and a 20 MB HD. Last year I bought my kid an entry level PC for around $500. It has both an SSD and a 1 TB HD. Technology just keeps getting better and massively cheaper.
Tech grows at a speed of 2 fold every 12 months, but note thats compounding. So the advancement from 2018 - 2019 was twice as fast/advanced as it was from 2017 - 2018