Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!sco!seanf
From: seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: looking for >32-bit address space
Message-ID: <2516@scolex.sco.COM>
Date: 5 Apr 89 18:37:07 GMT
References: <1032@myrias.UUCP> <1989Apr3.164538.277@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: seanf@scolex.UUCP (Sean Fagan)
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Lines: 27

In article <1989Apr3.164538.277@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1032@myrias.UUCP> cmt@myrias.UUCP (Chris Thomson) writes:
>>Are there any micros or chipsets out there that support an address space
>>larger than 32 bits? ...
>And please, let us not hear solemn pronunciamentos about the supposed
>40-bit address space of the RT -- it has a 32-bit address space, plus
>8086ish bank-switching.

The 8086 doesn't bank-switch.  The Apple //e bank switches.  The 8086 uses
segments, which are similar, but, IMHO, better (ye gods, I'm starting to
advocate intel!!!!).

The 8086 and '286 messed up by having only 64kbyte segments.  People were
getting along fine, years ago, on Multics machines, which used segments.
People are getting along fine on a Cyber 180, which has 44-bit addressing
(32-bit segments, and then a 12-bit segment number).  Forgive me, but people
are even using *Primes* which use segments.  If the new RT/PC can have 256
segments (with appropriate changes to the instruction set), then it shouldn't
be too unbearable.

Now, if it uses *real* bank-switching, then we should all meet at the
factory and blow it up 8-).

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "An acid is like a woman:  a good one will eat
seanf@sco.UUCP   |  through your pants." -- Mel Gibson, Saturday Night Live
(408) 458-1422   | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.