Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 SMI; site sun.uucp Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!sun!djc From: djc@sun.uucp (David J. Cardinal) Newsgroups: net.micro.68k Subject: Re: 32 vs. 24 Bit Addresses Message-ID: <2023@sun.uucp> Date: Sun, 3-Mar-85 18:15:13 EST Article-I.D.: sun.2023 Posted: Sun Mar 3 18:15:13 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Mar-85 01:49:06 EST References: <342@oakhill.UUCP> <75@daisy.UUCP> Reply-To: djc@sun.UUCP (David J. Cardinal) Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Lines: 30 Summary: There are people who believe that they need more than 24-bits of virtual addressing for processors the power of a 68020, and presumably for ones the power of a 32032. They believe this firmly enough to pay for it. We can either convince them that they are wrong (although they seem to think they know what they are doing, so this may be difficult), ignore them (there are not very many, so this will be easy for awhile), or sell them what they want. It is nice that some people are careful programmers and believe that 16Mb is enough for everything, but many workstation users are scientists, and the less they think about programming, the more science they get to do. Our job as the people who make computers is presumably to give them whatever tools they need, and not necessarily to explain to them why they should spend more time thinking about programming and therefore be able to use other tools. In this case, I have to agree with John Gilmore that the demand is minimal, but it is not non-existent or fantasized. There are definitely programs which make good use of 16Mb virtual on a 68010, and as much real as we can cram on there (as long as memory is faster than disk, memory will be desirable as a means of increasing performance), so it is reasonable to expect these numbers to increase with any higher-powered processor. You can't "prove" or "disprove" a user community. You can sell to them or ignore them. --dave c.