Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!dev!dgis!jkrueger From: jkrueger@dgis.dtic.dla.mil (Jon) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: 64-bit addresses Message-ID: <757@dgis.dtic.dla.mil> Date: 13 Feb 90 15:46:15 GMT References: <9708@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <20270@cfctech.cfc.com> <11112@encore.Encore.COM> <753@dgis.dtic.dla.mil> <3606@uceng.UC.EDU> Organization: Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), Alexandria VA Lines: 32 dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes: >Perhaps you mean to say, "very few programs *are able* to take >advantage of 4 gigabytes in either code or data, and this is due to >only arithmetic increases in the software industry's ability to >increase the scope and complexity of its code, while simultaneously >preserving or improving reliability and usability." Nah, must be quantum leaps in our ability to produce space-efficient codes :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) >I have every reason to believe that I could benefit from a >well-written program that required >4 GB address space. However, given >the shortage of people with the type of scalable problems of low >Kolmogorov complexity that can readily expand to fill such an >architecture, I expect to see the "software gap" widening >continuously, [until terrible things happen] Sounds pretty scary. Now, you'd never guess it from what appears in comp.arch, but the chief use of cycles is pushing around 8 bit unsigned quanitities that by convention stand for printable symbols representing a curious code called the "alphabet". So my challenge to you (or anyone) is to tell me what your word processing would do with 32+ addressing bits? Ground rules: no Emacs jokes, can only include the space costs of support tools when clearly part of the word processing, and no credit for mere time advantages. Well? -- Jon -- Jonathan Krueger jkrueger@dtic.dla.mil uunet!dgis!jkrueger The Philip Morris Companies, Inc: without question the strongest and best argument for an anti-flag-waving amendment.