Article View: comp.arch
Article #12749Re: segments and Unix
From: William E. Westfield
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1986 00:25
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1986 00:25
16 lines
1262 bytes
1262 bytes
In article <1744@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (Don't have strength to leave) Meyer) writes: > : > 6) 32 bits isn't a big enough address space. You can (maybe) make > something usefull out of it, but it probably won't be usefull in a few > years. > : Give me a break. Maybe (maybe!) 32 bits of address space wont be big enough for some applications in a few years, but that hardly means that you won't be able to do anything useful with a smaller address space. Quite a lot of people manage to get serious work done on machines with the good old 64K address space. I guess they don't know that they are using useless programs. BillW
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1157@navajo.STANFORD.EDU>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!labrea!navajo!billwReferences:
<13802@amdcad.UUCP> <1217@peregrine.UUCP> <1744@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!labrea!navajo!billw From: billw@navajo.STANFORD.EDU (William E. Westfield) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: segments and Unix Message-ID: <1157@navajo.STANFORD.EDU> Date: Tue, 25-Nov-86 19:25:43 EST Article-I.D.: navajo.1157 Posted: Tue Nov 25 19:25:43 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Nov-86 21:01:23 EST References: <13802@amdcad.UUCP> <1217@peregrine.UUCP> <1744@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> Organization: Stanford University Lines: 16 Summary: give me a break