Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/12/84; site desint.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!desint!geoff
From: geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: 4->8->16->32->64? bit micros
Message-ID: <274@desint.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Dec-84 00:53:23 EST
Article-I.D.: desint.274
Posted: Thu Dec 20 00:53:23 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Dec-84 07:57:40 EST
References:  <280@oakhill.UUCP> <256@tekigm.UUCP>
Distribution: net.micro
Organization: his home computer, Manhattan Beach, CA
Lines: 26

I have to confess I find this discussion just a bit amazing.  If you go back
in the history of computing, you will find the same thing ("what we have
now is big enough") being said for the past 35 years -- and being wrong every
time.

Things that need more than 32 bits:

	Times kept in resolutions of more than one second (32 bits of seconds,
    like Unix uses, is actually only good for 136 years, not sufficient if
    you are doing many things).
	Monetary figures kept in pennies (32 bits gives you +/- 20 million)
	File sizes and file pointers on big disks (it is practical right now
    to put four Eagles on a 68000 and write a driver that makes them look like
    one disk -- this is about 1.6 Gb formatted).
	Pointers in exceedingly large virtual address spaces (admittedly this
    will appear first on big computers) -- especially if you want bit
    addressability, capabilities, or similar funny stuff.

That's from only 5 minutes of trying to come up with examples -- how many
could you come up with in 24 hours?

64-bit micros will find lots of uses.  Just wait and see.
-- 

	Geoff Kuenning
	...!ihnp4!trwrb!desint!geoff