Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!usc!wuarchive!husc6!encore!pinocchio.encore.com
From: jkenton@pinocchio.encore.com (Jeff Kenton)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 64 bits
Message-ID: <12502@encore.Encore.COM>
Date: 16 Aug 90 13:58:15 GMT
References: <9660@ganymede.inmos.co.uk>
Sender: news@Encore.COM
Lines: 31

From article <9660@ganymede.inmos.co.uk>, by stevem@f40.inmos.co.uk (Steve Maudsley):
> 
>	. . . 
> 
> This nebulous set of observations implies that a 16Gbyte machine will have the
> same memory cost as a current generation 64Mbyte machine, which we now commonly
> use as NFS or X servers and consider an acceptable cost. NOTE: this is real
> memory, not virtual memory which is typically 10 times bigger because with 
> current technologies it is 10 times cheaper. Therefore, machines with 160Gbyte
> of address space will be affordable.
> 

Probably right.  In addition to the question of what to do with 16Gbyte
(or 160 Gbyte) is the problem of how fast will machines have to be to
use that memory.  Right now, zeroing memory on a 16Mbyte machine takes
a noticeable number of seconds.  Will machines be 1000 times faster by
the time we have 1000 times more memory?










- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      jeff kenton  ---	temporarily at jkenton@pinocchio.encore.com	 
		   ---  always at (617) 894-4508  ---
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -