Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!daveb
From: daveb@geac.UUCP (David Collier-Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: More than 32 bits needed where?
Summary: Everywhere...
Keywords: integer range, 32 bits, 36 bits, 64 bits
Message-ID: <2209@geac.UUCP>
Date: 4 Feb 88 13:32:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: geac.2209
Posted: Thu Feb  4 08:32:00 1988
References: <235@unicom.UUCP> <28200089@ccvaxa> <3104@watcgl.waterloo.edu>
Reply-To: daveb@geac.UUCP (David Collier-Brown)
Organization: The G. Yac Co. Ltd.
Lines: 30


>In article <28200089@ccvaxa> aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP writes:
>>>	I really don't think the real world really needs anything more
>>>expansive than a 32 bit processor to get most jobs done.
>>I'm sure that most people wouldn't need this, but some might - and I'd 
>>like to get a feel for the size of such a niche, if it exists. 

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
>of software for large, structured, full-text databases....
>                                With the OED, we are fortunate in that the 
>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.  

  Niche?

  One of the VM types at IBM admitted that they were going through
about one additional address bit about every 18 months (about 18
months ago, as it happens).

  That ain't no niche, its a market.


--dave (Multicians often found 36 bits too few and used 72) c-b
-- 
 David Collier-Brown.                 {mnetor yunexus utgpu}!geac!daveb
 Geac Computers International Inc.,   |  Computer Science loses its
 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, |  memory (if not its mind) 
 CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 |  every 6 months.