Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!beta!jxdl
From: jxdl@beta.UUCP (Jerry DeLapp)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: More than 32 bits needed where?
Message-ID: <15781@beta.UUCP>
Date: 19 Feb 88 17:00:03 GMT
References: <9495@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> <3815@megaron.arizona.edu>
Organization: Los Alamos Natl Lab, Los Alamos, N.M.
Lines: 26
Summary: Yet another observation

In article <3815@megaron.arizona.edu>, mike@arizona.edu (Mike Coffin) writes:

[elided]

> I think that experience shows that we quickly develop "need" for any
> amount of processing power we have available.  I mean "need" in the
> sense of "makes economic sense".  When we had 4K of memory we didn't
> "need" much except an assembler and front pannel lights.  Now we need
> huge editors, compilers, debuggers, window systems, spread sheets, ...
> At the moment, I'm not sure what I "need": a shell that lets me
> manipulate three dimensional shaded pipes to connect processes?  Voice
> input?  More likely, something I haven't even imagined yet.

Address space is like disk space is like memory is like money. You can
always use up everything you have and then some.

A question: Rather than going to larger addresses only, how about larger
data items too? Eight bit data units with 32-bit addresses may be nice for
character processing, but aren't most of the really large applications
mainly concerned with larger items (i.e. floating-point numbers). I admit
to being a number cruncher, so I'm biased. I'd much rather pay the overhead
of extra work to handle "small" things in order to have "big" things handled
easily.

Standard disclaimers apply.
My opinions are my own, and sometimes even I don't agree with me.