> Hi,
>
> > > but iff there is room in the architecture to grow the user address space up
> > > to 2^63 bytes (8 Exabytes), the physical address space up to 2^56 bytes (64
> > > Petabytes). Numbers that are pretty insane huge ...
> >
> > Don't say that, those are famous last words (rember that a certain Gates
> > is supposed to have said that 640k is enough for anyone ...).
>
> No. Assuming the continuation of the current exponential growth of available
> memory 64 bit address space should suffice almost 'till the day when most
> of us have retired. No, I'm not 60 years old :-)
>
> Unless someone invents another huge waste of address space, but mmap already
> exists.
>
> Ralf
>
I'll not add anything more than fortune spat this at me a few days ago ....
(computers)
%
Imagine that Cray computer decides to make a personal computer. It has
a 150 MHz processor, 200 megabytes of RAM, 1500 megabytes of disk
storage, a screen resolution of 4096 x 4096 pixels, relies entirely on
voice recognition for input, fits in your shirt pocket and costs $300.
What's the first question that the computer community asks?
"Is it PC compatible?"
%
the 150 MHz processor, and the 1500 Mb disk are here, the 200 Mb ram,
the 4096x4096 screen, and $300 are only a few years away (well 10 or so
...). We'll proberbly never see the shirt pocket tho ....
Bryn
--
PGP key pass phrase forgotten, \ Overload -- core meltdown sequence
again :( | initiated.
/ This space is intentionally left
| blank, apart from this text ;-)
\____________________________________