Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2.fluke 9/24/84; site fluke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!fluke!kurt
From: kurt@fluke.UUCP (Kurt Guntheroth)
Newsgroups: net.micro.16k,net.micro.68k
Subject: Re: Corrigenda
Message-ID: <399@vax2.fluke.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Feb-85 11:55:34 EST
Article-I.D.: vax2.399
Posted: Mon Feb 25 11:55:34 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Feb-85 20:07:22 EST
Reply-To: kurt@fluke.UUCP (Kurt Guntheroth)
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Lines: 16
Xref: watmath net.micro.16k:223 net.micro.68k:608

I wonder just how limiting a 24 bit address space is anyway.  Our vaxes got
along quite well with 2 Mb running 4.1  Although they have more now we are
running 4.2, it is only 3 or 4 Mb.  16 Mb seems like quite a lot of memory.

Now I don't want to get labelled as a person who cannot see the future (why
go to CRT's when punch cards work so well, etc.) but I don't see any strong
need for more than about 4-8 Mb in the near future.  I also believe that the
current generation of processors will probably run out of steam compared to
whatever is under development before they exhaust their address space.

If there is somebody who plans now to use more than 24 bits of contiguous
RAM addresses, I'd be interested to hear his story.
-- 
Kurt Guntheroth
John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.
{uw-beaver,decvax!microsof,ucbvax!lbl-csam,allegra,ssc-vax}!fluke!kurt