On 2/17/07, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/17/07, Jim Kuzdrall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not quite so. As a programmer of embedded systems, I would point > out that sales of microprocessors with address spaces of 16-bits (or > less) exceed those of the larger machines by orders of magnitude. Okay, good point. There actually is quite a bit you can do in small address spaces. I've never really done so myself, but I've read the books and heard the stories. Even better, you can often do many different small tasks on a bunch of different small chips as cheaply than you can do them on one big chip. Or cheaper, even. So perhaps I'm maligning small chips unfairly. I apologize to any 68000's or Z80's I may have offended. ;-)
Frig the 68000's and Z80's. Derivatives of the Intel 8051 are in your house, pondering the best way t get revenge as we speak. :-D
But that's not really the point I was driving at in that thread, either. :)
As far as I can tell, your main point, as I've read it, is 64 bit gives you access to more memory, and bigger files, more easily. :-P Partially valid on both accounts. -- -- Thomas _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
