Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!texbell!texsun!newstop!sun!chiba!khb
From: khb@chiba.Sun.COM (chiba)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mips
Subject: Re: 6/8 bits
Message-ID: <129177@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 13 Dec 89 08:23:16 GMT
References: <1407.257709c4@vaxa.uwa.oz>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Reply-To: khb@sun.UUCP (chiba)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 36

There are important historical facts missing from this name calling:

1)  6 bit chars come from before there were ANY 8-bit chars. Univac
    days, in fact.

2)  Related to (1), in olden times we didn't have mixed case I/O
    devices.

3)  Until S/360, computer words weren't typically 32-bits long. On the
    Univac 11xx machines, for example, we had (have) 36-bit words.
    This makes 6-bit chars attractive. Unless your wordlength is a
    multiple of 8, 8-bit chars are non-obvious.

    The early CDC machines had 60-bit words. 

4)  ASCII was originally a 7 bit code. IBM saved us from 49-bit words.

6 was neither stupid, nor as forward looking as to assume that 8 would
someday be normal, but 6 would buy some extra speed. Given that 6 was
relied on by large bodies of existing code, one can understand a
certain reluctance on the part of CDC and UNIVAC to change to 8. Users
really dislike their existing codes breaking....

CDC management has blundered badly over the last N years ... but that
would be a totally different discussion.

cheers all.





Keith H. Bierman    |*My thoughts are my own. !! kbierman@sun.com
It's Not My Fault   |	MTS --Only my work belongs to Sun* 
I Voted for Bill &  | Advanced Languages/Floating Point Group            
Opus                | "When the going gets Weird .. the Weird turn PRO"