64bit data 128Bit address...Re: Building a Z-80 (64bit!!!) - test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

24 Oct 1998

Please disreagrd this message! I'm really sleepy....I missed the
fact that a 128-bit processor would access over 4 billion times the
amount a 32 bit one would. I forgot all about the 64-bit ones. In this
case, I would agree, and go as far as to say that humanity will _never
access 300 tredecillion bytes, since to do so would require us to
dissassemble several planets. This had been discussed when I wasn't 
paying attention...
...
 contiguously (and would probably require a lot of
hardware to access
it). There are plenty of tasks that can use up much more than 4GB ram,
most notably databases and various graphics. 1GB is currently the
amount of RAM a high-end server can be expected to have, and in CGI
and engineering applications, even this isn't enough. To sum up,
volume always fills capacity, as the highway engineers that are
tearing up boston haven't learned yet. But, what's the amount of RAM
a 128-bit processor can access?
 I beg to differ, and I'm willing to put my
money where my mouth is.   I'm
 willing to bet $1000 that there will be no
practical applications  requiring
 processors with 128-bit addressing by October 24,
2003.  Any takers?

> Yep.  Short-sightedness (and history) is seemingly repeating on this  list.
>
>We'll see.
>
>This is not the same shortsightedness as the old series of claims:
>
>	You'll never need more than 1K of RAM.
>	You'll never need more than 4K of RAM.
>	You'll never need more than 16K of RAM.
>	You'll never need more than 32K of RAM.
>	You'll never need more than 64K of RAM.
>	You'll never need more than 128K of RAM.
>	You'll never need more than 256K of RAM.
>	You'll never need more than 512K of RAM.
>	You'll never need more than 640K of RAM.
>	You'll never need more than 1M of RAM.
>	You'll never need more than 4M of RAM.
>	You'll never need more than 16M of RAM.
>	You'll never need more than 64M of RAM.
>	You'll never need more than 256M of RAM.
>
>And yes, I've heard every single one of these statements made at one
>time or another.  I haven't yet heard anyone claim that I'll never 
need
...
  more than 512M
of RAM.  My current Linux workstation has 384M of RAM,
of which I routinely use more than 300M for large compiles (and I do  mean
 LARGE compiles, some require over 500M virtual)
and for image  processing.

Eric

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com