Does a tidy disc reflect a tidy mind?

The first professional PC I had was an IBM PC XT - hard disc space 10Mb. That's about 100,000 times smaller than my current 1Tb storage. In those early days, particularly as images started to be stored, the requirement for space outpaced the increase in size of hard discs. As a result, there was a busy market in compression software to keep file size to a minimum. This ranged from the humble ZIP file we still know and love to a company that used fractal processing to hugely reduce the size of images. They took ages to compress, but were very quick to unpack.

Over time, though, disc* space has increased at such a rate that it's rarely a problem. That word 'disc', of course, is becoming just as anachronistic as the 'Save' icon that is based on a 3.5 inch diskette (see above). I've just replaced my previous desktop, which was the last one I'm likely to have that makes use of disc technology. The new one is SSD - just as much an anachronism as there is no 'disc' in that Solid State Disc. It's really flash memory, but it's confusing to refer to two different types of memory in a device.

Because we can be so profligate with space now it's easy to allow junk data to accumulate out of control. This isn't so much a problem of storage as of transfer when you do upgrade. Checking out my disc space, I was using around 700 Gb of my storage, which would take a long time to send across even with a fast connection.

As a result I decided on something of a purge and took a hatchet to my unwanted data, to be able to make a quicker transition. I was mildly amazed to be able to dispose of around 300 Gb of unnecessary stuff:

Eat your heart out, Marie Kondo. Was it necessary? Not really, I suppose - my new storage is just as big as my current one, with plenty of headroom. But it's a good feeling to have disposed of such much unnecessary virtual stuff, especially as in the transfer process the computer got it down to 262 Gb.

* I know the systems refer to disks rather than discs, but hey, I'm English.

Image (memories of storage past) by the author

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:

See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Search This Blog