On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 00:48:01 Bill Potts wrote: >It seems to me we've been over this ground before. > >Perhaps you could explain how 20 bits would not be binary. >... ??? Where did you get that from, Bill? Did I say anything to that effect??? Please reread my post. I made no argument concerning the above whatsoever. When I talked about binary, I talked about "binary *NUMBER* OF BITS" (in the sense that such numbers would be perfect multipliers of 2), nothing to do with its being a binary SYSTEM or not! (I'm keeping my entire post here for your reference!) ... >As long as a bit has only two possible values (0 and 1), the system is >binary,...
Precisely! I can't understand where you saw disagreement in my post. Quite the opposite, you've given me more amunition and reason to accept my argumentation! I just wished that these guys would stop insisting on coming up with a next generation of computers always based on powers of 2 for bits. I'd prefer that they'd start producing a 100-bit bus computer/memory in the future and abandon this hideous practice. I'd also like them to come up with a next generation ASC-III code that would be based on 10 bits! There would be more than enough there to address all funny, different characters in western civilization and some! Marcus >Actually the above is a cheap excuse. Unfortunately the problem here is >that these guys decided to build computers using a binary number of bits, >i.e. 4 bits, 8 bits, 16 bits, 32 bits, etc (AARRGHH!!). Had they been more >user-friendly to the decimal system and they would have created 10-bit, >20-bit, 30-bit, etc computers, alas! IMHO there is no reasonable >justification to use binary powers for bit buses. What can I say?... :-S > >Marcus... Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
