Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!mcsun!ukc!inmos!inmos.co.uk!davidb
From: davidb@inmos.co.uk (David Boreham)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: 64-bits
Message-ID: <9883@ganymede.inmos.co.uk>
Date: 22 Aug 90 12:38:52 GMT
Sender: news@inmos.co.uk
Reply-To: davidb@inmos.co.uk (David Boreham)
Organization: none
Lines: 22


Well, I don't think that anyone has mentioned this yet, so
here goes:

Everyone seems to be making the assumption that we will want
to have a *DIFFERENT* text space for *EACH* processor, and
therefore make comments about not being able to afford the
disks etc. However, consider the situation where every processor
in a computer wanted to see the same virtual address space; or
perhaps every computer within the same company; or perhaps
all the computers in the world.....universe.

Even keeping on the safe side of reality, with maybe 1000
processors in a computer generally available in the next
few years, you start to find address bits being used up.

64-bits aught to allow everyone on the planet to use the
same virtual address space :)

David Boreham, INMOS Limited | mail(uk): davidb@inmos.co.uk or ukc!inmos!davidb
Bristol,  England            |     (us): uunet!inmos.com!davidb
+44 454 616616 ex 547        | Internet: davidb@inmos.com