On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 06:19:50 -0500 Paul Edwards <[email protected]> wrote:
:>On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 13:55:30 +0300, Binyamin Dissen <[email protected]> wrote: :>>What problem would this solve? :>It would set the long-term model for the :>mainframe, instead of being stuck with :>24/31-bit software for eternity. 24/31 is required for downward compatibility. If you need to change application and you need this much storage, go already to 64bit. You will need it sooner or later. :>>This would be of zero use for existing applications, :>I don't agree. Existing applications can be :>modified to be 32-bit clean and have maximum :>possible address space as per 32-bit. Sounds like a pretty narrow range of applications, where the existing above the line is not enough, but an extra 2G will be enough forever. :>> and new applications should simply use 64 bit. :>I don't agree that all new applications should :>be 64 bit. That is overkill. 32-bit/4 GiB should :>be enough for almost all commercial applications. Why do you feel 64bit is "overkill"? -- Binyamin Dissen <[email protected]> http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me, you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain. I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems, especially those from irresponsible companies. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
