cottrell@nbs-vms.arpa (COTTRELL, JAMES) (01/13/86)
/* > It seems to me that the arguments around 16-bit vs. 32-bit > architectures have gotten a little out-of-hand. Most assuredly. > There are two DIFFERENT standards by which to judge processors. At least. > First, the width > of the physical data bus. By this standard, the 8088 is an 8-bit > processor, 8086 and 68000 16-bits, and the 68020 32-bits. Many people (including me) disdain this standard. However, it is easy to measure and the results (by this standard) are nondebatable. > The second standard is the internal organization of the processor. >My own definition for this standard is the ability of the processor to >execute ALL of its data move, logical, and arithmetic instructions on >a given word size. ( Note. I emphasize that this is MY standard. ) >By this criterion, the Intel products up to and including the 80286 are ALL >16-bit processors, as are the 68000 and 68010. (They come REAL close to 32, >but fall down on the MUL instructions). The 68020 is a real 32-bitter in both >cases. I think you are being a little hard. Consider that the 8-bit micros have NO multiply or divide at all (except the 6809 which has 8 bit multiply only). By your definition they are zero bit machines. Or maybe if it had NO multiply at all it would qualify as a 32 bit machine. Consider further that multiply & divide are the only primitive operations that return a different number of bits than they consume (anticipating the counter- example of `convert short to long' etc., I dismiss it with a wave of the hand). Consider lastly what percentage of instruxions are axually multiply & divide. I think the 680[01]0 come close enuf to be called 32 bit. And the 6800 is a 16 bit. But then, that's just *my* opinion. > The point of all this is that there are several ways of looking at the >issue, any given one of which is correct, depending on what you're looking >for. I don't mind hearing discussions, even religious ones, but die-hard >dogmatism is never comfortable for those on the outside. What is religion besides diehard dogmatism? jim cottrell@nbs */ ------
jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) (01/14/86)
In article <1555@brl-tgr.ARPA> cottrell@nbs-vms.arpa (COTTRELL, JAMES) writes: >What is religion besides diehard dogmatism? Fanaticism is diehard dogmatism. Religion is open-minded seeking of truths, particularly in relation to sentient entities' relationship to the Universe and their [putative] Creator. Dogma in this context is a possibly- to probably-correct set of beliefs available from other thinkers whom one respects, so that one does not have to start from first principles. Dogma in this context if shown to be wrong should be discarded. Please cf. G. K. Chesterton's _Orthodoxy_. Sorry to bore most of you in the wrong newsgroup, but j.c. made the comment in this one, and it greatly annoys me when this kind of closed- minded comment is made in public. -- Joe Yao hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP}