The relevance of 16-bit systems (was: End-user uses for x86-64)

[Jim Kuzdrall]

On Saturday 17 February 2007 14:30, Ben Scott wrote:
> On 2/17/07, Jim Kuzdrall <gnhlug at intrel.com> wrote:
> >> That's not really true.  16-bit machines are *very* limited. 
> >> There is not a whole lot you can do in 64 kilobytes of RAM ...
> >
> >     Not quite so.  As a programmer of embedded systems, I would
> > point out that sales of microprocessors with address spaces of
> > 16-bits (or less) exceed those of the larger machines by orders of
> > magnitude.
>
>   Okay, good point.  There actually is quite a bit you can do in
> small address spaces.  I've never really done so myself, but I've
> read the books and heard the stories.  Even better, you can often do
> many different small tasks on a bunch of different small chips as
> cheaply than you can do them on one big chip.  Or cheaper, even.  So
> perhaps I'm maligning small chips unfairly.  I apologize to any
> 68000's or Z80's I may have offended.  ;-)
>
>   But that's not really the point I was driving at in that thread,
> either.  :)

    If we stuck to the points you or others were driving at, the thread 
would have ended long, long ago.

    Good topic, though.  I have picked up a lot of new insights from the 
posts.

Jim Kuzdrall