Marcus Berger wrote: "For instance, I'd much rather see 10-bit, 100-bit buses than the current 16, 32, 64, etc... Nothing, *technically* would make such construction wrong or flawed IMHO. It's just a pity that someone "decided" to call 8 bits a byte, as opposed to 10 being a bite."
We've been over this ground before, Marcus. A 10-bit bus wouldn't make a computer any less binary. The range of memory that would be addressable over a 10-bit bus would be 2^10. Each of the memory elements thus addressable could have any number of bits. For consistency with your approach, each element might contain 10 bits. Again, the largest binary number that could be stored in that memory element would be 2^10-1. The size of the largest decimal number would be dependent on how one structured bit groups for expressing decimal digits. In fact, for the storage of decimal numbers, a bit group containing a multiple of 4 bits would work better. A 12-bit group would be good for decimal numbers from 0 to 999 (10^3-1). However, used in binary fashion, it could accommodate numbers from 0 to 4095 (2^12-1). As a 4-bit group, used for decimal digits, would only use 10 of the 16 possible combinations, it would only be 62.5% efficient (as would any multiple of a 4-bit group). Used for binary numbers, it's 100% efficient (as is any number of bits). Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
