Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!otter.hpl.hp.com!otter!tgg
From: tgg@otter.hpl.hp.com (Tom Gardner)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 64 bits--why stop there?
Message-ID: <780018@otter.hpl.hp.com>
Date: 22 Aug 90 07:32:12 GMT
References: <1263.26cdaecc@waikato.ac.nz>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK.
Lines: 14

|  While we're all talking about 64 bits, where is it writ' that word
|size shall be a power of two bits? Outside of the prevalence of the
|eight bit byte, is there a good technical reason for it? Certainly the
|old Honeywells I used to use, with their lovely nine bit bytes and 36
|bit words... Conversion to IBM was *REAL* painful.

Who says they have to have an _even_ number of bits? The first machine
I used had 39 bits. Why? Simple, when you know how: each word contained
two 19 bit instructions plus a "modifier" bit.

Drift on: most coax cables are 50 or 75 ohm. Why was TAT-7 (Trans-Atlantic
Telephone cable 7) 61.8 ohms?

I'll give a piece of wedding cake to the person who gives the nearest answer.