Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!winchester!mash From: mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: MIPS, Compaq and Microsoft in bed - NYT story Message-ID: <45868@mips.mips.COM> Date: 13 Feb 91 17:29:19 GMT References: <29920@usc> <45758@mips.mips.COM> <3188@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> Sender: news@mips.COM Reply-To: mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc. Lines: 27 In article <3188@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: various reasons defenidng 48-bit addressing, poitners that are not integers and so forth. Let me try a rather different argument, which is not as directly technical, but is orders of magnitude more relevant. Let me first recall a story. Once upon a time, there was a RISC that used word-addressing, and certain folks wanted to continue that into a product of a company I was about to join. Th reasonign was simplicity, speed, and fact that most operations were integer. My comment: yes, but would you like to have software? A: really, there's no problem, people will ahve to be careful, and rework a few things, but it wil lbe OK. me again: one more time: would you like to have 3rd-party software? A: well, yes. me: good. the R2000 has byte addressing, then. Anyway, the issue will be: regarless of hte possibility of making thigns work, the real bottom line is whether it is trivial to move existing software and take advantage of it, and then really take advantage of >32-bit addressing ... or not. -- -john mashey DISCLAIMER: UUCP: mash@mips.com OR {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!mash DDD: 408-524-7015, 524-8253 or (main number) 408-720-1700 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086