Hans Witvliet wrote:
On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 01:06, Sid Boyce wrote:
Susemail wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 04:02, James Knott wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
And now I get to do more shopping, this time for new hardware. I'm going to install 9.3 onto a new disk. I'm thinking of getting my first SATA drive (I've been a SCSI guy. I like the 10,000 RPM, Ultra160 drives--they're fast!).
Don't forget a 64 bit CPU!
Aside from the larger address space-what good is a 64 bit CPU?? Jerome
Strange, I can't remember anyone asking a similar question when CPU's went from 8 --> 16-bit or 16-bit --> 32-bit, perhaps it was too obvious back then. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Keen licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM Mainframes and Sun Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux for all Computing Tasks
Remember vividly these discussions (Byte).
At introduction of 6809 (motorola's first true 16-bit machine) and the 68000 (32 bits). Nice cpu with orthogonal instruction set. No compiler or even assembler needed ...
Hans
We were way down the road with 32-bit mainframes then, but our console designers were heavily into the 6809 while we were working on taming the large beasts, so the next big thing for us was the SPARC 5's that we used for keeping logics, running remote diagnostics and fault finding on our next range - those things were fast, then when the PC really got going, the SPARC 5 boxes were too slow for useful work under Solaris, but made quite responsive Linux boxes. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Keen licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM Mainframes and Sun Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux for all Computing Tasks