undefined | Better HN

0 pointsben_w10mo ago0 comments

Even by the start of the 20th century, 50 MB is definitely far too low.

Any given English translation of Bible is by itself something like 3-5 megabytes of ASCII; the complete works of Shakespeare are about 5 megabytes; and I think (back of the envelope estimate) you'd get about the same again for what Arthur Conan Doyle wrote before 1900.

I can just about believe there might have been only ten thousand Bible-or-Shakespeare sized books (plus all the court documents, newspapers, etc. that add up to that) worldwide by 1900, but not ten.

Edit: I forgot about encyclopaedias, by 1900 the Encyclopædia Britannica was almost certainly more than 50 MB all by itself.

0 comments

TeMPOraL10mo ago

You and 'jerf make a fair point. Assuming you both are right, let's take jerf's estimate (which I now feel is right):

> 50MB feels like "all the 'ancient' text we have" maybe, as measured by the size of the original content and not counting copies

and yours - counting up court documents, newspapers, encyclopaedias, and I guess I'd add various letters to it (quite a lot survived to this day), and science[0], let's give it 1000x my estimate, so 50GB.

For the present, comments upthread give estimates that are in hundreds of terabytes to petabyte range. I'd say that, including deduplication, 50TB would be a conservative value. That's still 1000x of what you estimate for year 1900!

The exponent is going strong.

Thanks both of you for giving me a better picture of it.

[0] - I entirely forgot about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society!

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse