There was a discussion of whether to retain 32 bit, and that brought up
another question in my mind: When will we have 128 bit computing?
1971: 4bit: Intel 4004
1974: 8bit: Intel 8080
1978: 16bit: Intel 8086
1985: 32bit: Intel 20386
2003: 64bit: AMD Opteron / Pentium 4 EO revision
When are we
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 03:16:28PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> There was a discussion of whether to retain 32 bit, and that brought up
> another question in my mind: When will we have 128 bit computing?
>
>
> 1971: 4bit: Intel 4004
> 1974: 8bit: Intel 8080
> 1978: 16bit: Intel 8086
> 1985: 32bit
On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 15:16:28 -0400, Steve wrote in message
<20180620151628.0e132...@mydesk.domain.cxm>:
> There was a discussion of whether to retain 32 bit, and that brought
> up another question in my mind: When will we have 128 bit computing?
>
>
> 1971: 4bit: Intel 4004
> 1974: 8bit: Inte
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:17:38PM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 15:16:28 -0400, Steve wrote in message
> <20180620151628.0e132...@mydesk.domain.cxm>:
>
> > There was a discussion of whether to retain 32 bit, and that brought
> > up another question in my mind: When will we hav
On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 15:16:28 -0400
Steve Litt wrote:
> There was a discussion of whether to retain 32 bit, and that brought
> up another question in my mind: When will we have 128 bit computing?
Give off. Its taken 40 years for me to be finally able to buy a 64bit
computer. I want to be able to
Quoting terryc (ter...@woa.com.au):
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 15:16:28 -0400
> Steve Litt wrote:
>
> > There was a discussion of whether to retain 32 bit, and that brought
> > up another question in my mind: When will we have 128 bit computing?
>
> Give off. Its taken 40 years for me to be finally
dear Adam,
On Wed, 20 Jun 2018, Adam Borowski wrote:
> x86 on the other hand has variable size of opcodes, 1 to 15 bytes.
> This, by the way, is the biggest flaw of x86 instruction set: the
> rules to split code into opcodes are extremely hairy, requiring all
> the decoding work to be done twice
Dear Adam, dear Jaromil, dear listeners,
Jaromil - 21.06.18, 09:12:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > x86 on the other hand has variable size of opcodes, 1 to 15 bytes.
> > This, by the way, is the biggest flaw of x86 instruction set: the
> > rules to split code into opcodes are extr
Il giorno Wed, 20 Jun 2018 20:11:50 -0700
Rick Moen ha scritto:
> Quoting terryc (ter...@woa.com.au):
>
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 15:16:28 -0400
>> Steve Litt wrote:
>>
>>> There was a discussion of whether to retain 32 bit, and that brought
>>> up another question in my mind: When will we have
Le 21/06/2018 à 09:12, Jaromil a écrit :
dear Adam,
On Wed, 20 Jun 2018, Adam Borowski wrote:
x86 on the other hand has variable size of opcodes, 1 to 15 bytes.
This, by the way, is the biggest flaw of x86 instruction set: the
rules to split code into opcodes are extremely hairy, requiring all
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 11:17:51AM +0200, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 21/06/2018 à 09:12, Jaromil a écrit :
> > dear Adam,
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Jun 2018, Adam Borowski wrote:
> >
> > > x86 on the other hand has variable size of opcodes, 1 to 15 bytes.
> > > This, by the way, is the biggest flaw of x86
Le 21/06/2018 à 09:37, Martin Steigerwald a écrit :
From what I learned and read over the years, just about any other CPU
architecture other than than x86 is both conceptually and technically
more sound than x86.
I started with C-64 (6510) and Amiga (68000 up to 68060, then PowerPC)
computers.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 09:37:26AM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> It is time for true excellence again.
It was on offer for several years, but too few understood: the
transputer family.
ael
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglis
Le 21/06/2018 à 11:31, KatolaZ a écrit :
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 11:17:51AM +0200, Didier Kryn wrote:
Le 21/06/2018 à 09:12, Jaromil a écrit :
dear Adam,
On Wed, 20 Jun 2018, Adam Borowski wrote:
x86 on the other hand has variable size of opcodes, 1 to 15 bytes.
This, by the way, is the bigg
Le 21/06/2018 à 11:34, ael a écrit :
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 09:37:26AM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
It is time for true excellence again.
It was on offer for several years, but too few understood: the
transputer family.
ael
A guy of my lab used them a lot for parallel computing, in
From: Martin Steigerwald
To: dng@lists.dyne.org
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 2:37 AM
Subject: Re: [DNG] When 128?
>From what I learned and read over the years, just about any other CPU
architecture other than than x86 is both conceptually and technically
more sound than
16 matches
Mail list logo
