Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!batcomputer!theory.tn.cornell.edu!kahn
From: kahn@theory.tn.cornell.edu (Shahin Kahn)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 64-bits, How many years?
Message-ID: <1991Feb27.000601.1508@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>
Date: 27 Feb 91 00:06:01 GMT
References: <9102171510.AA24745@lilac.berkeley.edu> <1991Feb18.163010.31688@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <3209@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Sender: news@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Lines: 17
Nntp-Posting-Host: theory.tn.cornell.edu


So, it looks like 64-bit-sized memory is out of the question (how many
systems have you seen with more than 256 MB of memory?)
I guess we'll have to page.  Where do we page to?  How many systems do you know
with more than 200 GB of disk?  How much of it is relatively-fast disk?
What am I missing?

I am all for 64-bit addressing, by the way.  in fact I am for 
*arbitrary* length addressing.

But is this 64-bit addressing thing more than just marketing for the moment?
Or is it that if you're going past 32, you may as well go to 64?
Then why not design it for arbitrary length and just implement 48 bits
for now?

speaking for me,
Shahin.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com