Update - 3.7.10

My updates have been 60mb and 16mb.... I havent seen anything a few GB's each 🤷‍♂️

Well, I aint using steam, but default frontier launcher.... I aint have fastest connection myself, but if I see that I need 10-15 mins at 15-20 mb/s for download a patch(even for smallest of patches), then surely that aint it was a tiny 60mb file, those would take few seconds at most... but instead its something like few GB's atleast, given time it takes to download at such speeds that was displayed on screen.

My guess is that frontier launcher always downloads some files on top of patch over and over again, despite it being downloaded several times already since 1.0, wich been already 7 years.

Maybe I should switch to steam... as it seems it aint unnecessary downloads files that I already have, wich frontier launcher seems love to download every time when update rolls out.
 
Last edited:
Back in the day, that would've been about 50 "floppy" disks, a million cassette tapes or a month of Sunday's on an acoustic coupler.
Apologies for the laterality but out of curiosity, how much data could an 'old' C90 cassette tape hold or C15 Spectrum/commodore gaming cassette?

Factabulous "Go for it"
Pug
 
I don't know about the Spectrum or Commodore, but the BBC Micro used a 1200 bps format - say around 100 bytes per second allowing for inter-block gaps. This would be 6000 bytes per minute, or about 270k on each side of a C90. Of course you wouldn't be able to read/write that much data in one go as the BBC only had 32k storage.
 
I don't know about the Spectrum or Commodore, but the BBC Micro used a 1200 bps format - say around 100 bytes per second allowing for inter-block gaps. This would be 6000 bytes per minute, or about 270k on each side of a C90. Of course you wouldn't be able to read/write that much data in one go as the BBC only had 32k storage.
I did have a brief look at this online afetr asking the question and it is the strangest thing, that it ranged from 60kb to 185Tb what?
The maths involved for different thickness ribbons, widths, lengths, transfer speeds etc. was mind boggling.

Just goes to show that nothing is simple when it comes to formats and financial gain, I have to throw longevity in there.
Pug
 
I did have a brief look at this online afetr asking the question and it is the strangest thing, that it ranged from 60kb to 185Tb what?
The maths involved for different thickness ribbons, widths, lengths, transfer speeds etc. was mind boggling.

Just goes to show that nothing is simple when it comes to formats and financial gain, I have to throw longevity in there.
Pug
I think that some of the other cassette transfer systems used 300 bps so the 60kB may be reasonable (approximately a quarter of my estimate for 1200bps), but 185TB???????? No way! Remember that we're talking about 1980s home computer systems which used ordinary cassette tape recorders for loading/saving, not modern enterprise backup tape systems. 185TB would require an audio tape which plays for over 500 thousand hours!

Incidentally the original post, although a joke, implied accoustic modem transfer speeds would take much longer than the cassette tape storage - I'd say they'd be roughly the same - some of the modems were able to cope with 300bps, maybe more, and that's the same as some of the tape systems.
 
  • Like (+1)
Reactions: Pug
@Tyres O'Flaherty :) Granted - but I refer back to my earlier statement "Remember that we're talking about 1980s home computer systems which used ordinary cassette tape recorders for loading/saving, not modern enterprise backup tape systems". I haven't seen an example of this Sony technology, but even the Ultrium format "cassette" mentioned in the article wouldn't have fitted into the old cassette deck I used on my Beeb.
 
@Tyres O'Flaherty :) Granted - but I refer back to my earlier statement "Remember that we're talking about 1980s home computer systems which used ordinary cassette tape recorders for loading/saving, not modern enterprise backup tape systems". I haven't seen an example of this Sony technology, but even the Ultrium format "cassette" mentioned in the article wouldn't have fitted into the old cassette deck I used on my Beeb.

I concur - 80's cassettes were an entirely different beast and I wasn't trying to be cocky or condescending ;) I just thought it ws quite an impressive feat getting that much data on what ism effectively, a very old storage format.
 
@Tyres O'Flaherty :) Granted - but I refer back to my earlier statement "Remember that we're talking about 1980s home computer systems which used ordinary cassette tape recorders for loading/saving, not modern enterprise backup tape systems". I haven't seen an example of this Sony technology, but even the Ultrium format "cassette" mentioned in the article wouldn't have fitted into the old cassette deck I used on my Beeb.
Actually the question was "how much data could you fit on an old C90 or C15 cassette.

but that is just being extremely pedantic, and I really do appreciate your answer bud. constvoid
Regards
Pug
 
Last edited:
With all this reminiscing on old storage media I am surprised no one has mentioned the Sinclair MicroDrive.
 
You sure are. ;) I remember working on punch card m/c's :sleep:
You and me both.

And going back to a previous comment - perhaps paper tape should have been included in the earlier question about how long a roll of tape would have been required. :)
Incidentally, I was always amazed that the wartime code-breaking machine Colossus was able to read paper tape at 5000 characters per second!
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom