On 2/17/07, Jim Kuzdrall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's not really true. 16-bit machines are *very* limited. There
> is not a whole lot you can do in 64 kilobytes of RAM (all you can
> directly address with a 16-bit address word).
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.
Definatly true. There is a whole lot you can do in a limited
bitspace. And there are ways to get around the 16-bit address words
fairly easily.
The reference to the automobile engine cylinder count in another
post is a good one. Four, six, and eight cylinder engines each
continue to be commonly used. The Lotus has a 12 or 16 cylinder
engine, I know of no other.
By analogy, does the 64-bit machine run on 8-cylinders or
12-cylinders?
Hehe, I'd say 16-cylinder. But it doesn't really compare to
processors at all. Generally, engines with more cylinders produce
less power per cylinder, but it balances out. :-P
--
-- Thomas
_______________________________________________
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
