Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!ukma!husc6!encore!pinocchio!peralta
From: peralta@pinocchio.Encore.COM (Rick Peralta)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 64-bit addresses
Summary: What about getting rid of conventional mass storage?
Message-ID: <11254@encore.Encore.COM>
Date: 27 Feb 90 21:14:59 GMT
References: <9708@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <20270@cfctech.cfc.com> <36080@mips.mips.COM> <168@csinc.UUCP> <193@zds-ux.UUCP> <36439@mips.mips.COM> <52651@bbn.COM> <3786@uceng.UC.EDU>
Sender: news@Encore.COM
Reply-To: peralta@pinocchio.UUCP (Rick Peralta)
Distribution: all
Organization: Encore Computer Corp, Marlboro, MA
Lines: 13

In article <3786@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
>Now that this barrier is history, how long will we wait for ...

This may not be the best place for this, but...

What about getting rid of conventional secondary storage?
Simply keep everything in virtual memory and have the OS
maintain whatever secondary store it sees fit?

This is more of an OS issue, but if the iron isn't there...


 - Rick