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.}