Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!think!paperboy!meissner From: meissner@osf.org (Michael Meissner) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: 64-bit addresses Message-ID: Date: 28 Feb 90 14:48:23 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> <11254@encore.Encore.COM> Sender: news@OSF.ORG Distribution: all Organization: Open Software Foundation Lines: 22 In-reply-to: peralta@pinocchio.Encore.COM's message of 27 Feb 90 21:14:59 GMT In article <11254@encore.Encore.COM> peralta@pinocchio.Encore.COM (Rick Peralta) writes: | 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... Hmm, you seem to have just proposed the System/3x (and AS/400 I think) from IBM, which uses a single level store. Of course the only languages supported on it are business-type languages (RPG and Cobol). -- Michael Meissner email: meissner@osf.org phone: 617-621-8861 Open Software Foundation, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA Catproof is an oxymoron, Childproof is nearly so