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

[Thomas Charron]

On 2/17/07, Ben Scott <dragonhawk at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/17/07, Jim Kuzdrall <gnhlug at intrel.com> wrote:
> >     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.  ;-)

  Frig the 68000's and Z80's.  Derivatives of the Intel 8051 are in
your house, pondering the best way t get revenge as we speak.  :-D

>   But that's not really the point I was driving at in that thread, either.  :)

  As far as I can tell, your main point, as I've read it, is 64 bit
gives you access to more memory, and bigger files, more easily.  :-P
Partially valid on both accounts.

-- 
-- Thomas