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