And why was it expected to be 63 bit ? Was there an expectation that one bit will be used to distinguish a 63 bit address from 31 / 24 bit addresses ?
Mohammad On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 23:33:22 -0700, Edward Jaffe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >It's analogous to why IBM implemented 64-bit addressing instead of the >expected 63-bit. Both systems will address more data than all of the >DASD in the world. But, the competitors would have convinced these >idiots that 64-bit was superior to 63-bit. (Just a bit better. ;-) ) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
