Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nbires!hao!ames!lamaster
From: lamaster@ames.arpa (Hugh LaMaster)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: More than 32 bits needed where?
Message-ID: <4340@ames.arpa>
Date: 2 Feb 88 20:26:44 GMT
References: <235@unicom.UUCP> <28200089@ccvaxa> <3104@watcgl.waterloo.edu>
Reply-To: lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Hugh LaMaster)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.
Lines: 14
Keywords: integer range, 32 bits, 64 bits

In article <3104@watcgl.waterloo.edu> tbray@watsol.waterloo.edu (Tim Bray) writes:

>Here at the New Oxford English Dictionary Project, we are in the business

>text is `only' about 500 Mb in size.  However, 32 bits only allows you to
>address a 4Gb database at the character level.  In terms of text databases,
>4 Gb is big but not that big.  There are fantastic performance advantages

I also note that large multi-CPU mainframes (e.g. IBM, NAS, Amdahl,...) as
well as supercomputers are approaching the 32 bit addressing limit for
PHYSICAL memory.  So, I predict a healthy future for 64 bit machines in
the "data processing" world, as well as in the scientific computing world.
It might even be coming sooner than some people think in the micro-computing
world.