Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site daisy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!rochester!rocksvax!parcvax!hplabs!nsc!daisy!david
From: david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter)
Newsgroups: net.arch,net.micro.16k,net.micro.68k
Subject: Re: 24 bit vs. 32 bit address space
Message-ID: <73@daisy.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 27-Feb-85 04:07:24 EST
Article-I.D.: daisy.73
Posted: Wed Feb 27 04:07:24 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Mar-85 04:41:11 EST
References: <983@watdcsu.UUCP> <2385@nsc.UUCP> <730@amdcad.UUCP> <2393@nsc.UUCP> <295@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA>
Reply-To: david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter)
Organization: Daisy Systems Corp., Mountain View, Ca
Lines: 15
Xref: watmath net.arch:892 net.micro.16k:234 net.micro.68k:620

...!seismo!cmu-cs-spice!skef points out that 24 bit address spaces can be
painful (compared to 32 bit address spaces) for some applications, such as
LISP processing.  However, of the large number of MC68020s  (32 bit address)
and NS32032s  (24 bit address) that will be shipped, how many will go into
systems running LISP?  How many into commercial data processing (COBOL, COBOL,
COBOL) in which the 24/32 distinction is uninteresting?

Chip designers have to make many trade-offs.  It appears that National chose 
speed-to-market and manufacturability..  Motorola chose prettiness.  Time will 
tell whose strategic planning department chose better, three or four years ago.

[The opinions contained in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion
or policy of Daisy Systems Corporation.  They are soley the responsibility of
the author who would be happy to hand the buck to some other poor slob if he
could get away with it.]  {Hear no evil, See no evil, Ship it.}