Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (81510)	6/3/2002 5:15:41 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

TWY, on the matter of the semi-official Intel FUD squad, I'd repeat my normal advice. It's best to ignore them, if anybody feels like arguing with them, it's best to do it on the Intel thread. I do have a research-oriented question for you, though. As far as mainstream computing goes, I've argued that a 64 bit address space is enough for the foreseeable future. I do know that there are other uses for address space that may make wider addressing useful. When MIPS first came out with the R4000, for example, there was talk of using virtual memory as a sparse address space for some kinds of applications. Are you aware of any work on virtual address spaces of 128 bits or higher? Single level stores and stuff like that?