davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr) (07/15/87)
In article <2792@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: >In article <142700010@tiger.UUCP> rjd@tiger.UUCP writes: >> O.K., I'll byte. (oops, pun initially unintended.) A byte IS eight bits!!! >> Maybe you are thinking of a word?? And a nibble is four bits, and a gulp is >> sixteen bits (or was this a mouthful?), etc.... > Let me clarify this: 8 bits is a byte 4 bits is a nybble 2 bits is a tayste (actually 2 bits is a quarter) 36 bit machines usually support at least 6 and 9 bit bytes in hardware, although I'm sure someone will write and tell me that their machine is not only obsolete but brain-damaged as well and doesn't have any hardware bytes. 36 bit machines were a great idea which fell by the wayside... the extra bit in the byte allows many extended character sets (ASCII + 384 others), the short is +/-262144, large enough for many applications, and the long is +/-64*10^9, which will hold almost any real world value. When most of our applications were moved from a Honeywell to vaxen and an IBM, we did a lot of conversion to long, double, and real*8, because the number of significant digits dropped to <1. ================================================================ | Please any followup discussion of archetecture to | | comp.arch not wizards! | ================================================================ -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {chinet | philabs | sesimo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
hansen@mips.UUCP (Craig Hansen) (07/16/87)
In article <6705@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>, davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr) writes: > >In article <142700010@tiger.UUCP> rjd@tiger.UUCP writes: > >> O.K., I'll byte. (oops, pun initially unintended.) A byte IS eight bits!!! > >> Maybe you are thinking of a word?? And a nibble is four bits, and a gulp is > >> sixteen bits (or was this a mouthful?), etc.... > Let me clarify this: > 8 bits is a byte > 4 bits is a nybble > 2 bits is a tayste (actually 2 bits is a quarter) I had always heard 2 bits referred to as a "peck." A word is whatever you say it is, whether 12, 16, 18, 32, 36, or 64 bits. Has anyone seen a good name used for three 8-bit bytes? I've been using "tri-byte", but could see it being shortened to "trite" or "tryte." -- Craig Hansen Manager, Architecture Development MIPS Computer Systems, Inc. ...decwrl!mips!hansen
devine@vianet.UUCP (Bob Devine) (07/16/87)
In article <2792@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: > Maybe you are thinking of a word?? And a nibble is four bits, and a gulp is > sixteen bits (or was this a mouthful?), etc.... In article <6705@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>, davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr) writes: > 8 bits is a byte > 4 bits is a nybble > 2 bits is a tayste (actually 2 bits is a quarter) This a reposting of the results of a question I asked last year. I had asked what to a grouping of bits. It all started because I originally thought that "crayte" would be a marvelous name for a 64-bit group. Bob Devine +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 bit == bit[?], byt[1], singlet[4] 2 bits == quarter[0], dibit[4], doublet[4] 4 bits == nybble[?], nibble[4], quadlet[4] 8 bits == byte[?], octlet[4] 16 bits == gulp[2], dysh[3], hexlet[4], playte[5], gulp[6], snack[7,8], chomp[9] 32 bits == box[2], coarse[3], triclet[4], plattyr[5], mouthful[6], meal[7,8], snarf[9] 64 bits == crayte[0], meel[3], sexlet[4], feast[7,8], gobble[9] * bits == buffet[3] Contributors: [?] unknown [0] vianet!devine (Bob Devine) [1] uiucdcs!mcewan (Scott McEwan) [2] ima!haddock!karl (Karl W. Z. Heuer) [3] iuvax!bobmon (Robert Montante) [4] ccvaxa!aglew (Andy "Krazy" Glew) [5] sphinx!eric (Eric M. Nelson) [6] reed!jeanne (Jeanne A. E. DeVoto) [7] uu.warwick.ac.uk!kay (Kay Dekker) [8] necis!schuldy (Mark Schuldenfrei) [9] decuac!bagwill (Bob Bagwill)
daveb@geac.UUCP (Dave Brown) (07/17/87)
In article <6705@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> davidsen@kbsvax.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr) writes: >36 bit machines usually support at least 6 and 9 bit bytes in hardware, >... >36 bit machines were a great idea which fell by the wayside... the extra >bit in the byte allows many extended character sets (ASCII + 384 >others), the short is +/-262144, large enough for many applications, and >the long is +/-64*10^9, which will hold almost any real world value. One of the IBM techies recently admitted in a public place that they're using up about 1 address bit per 18 months. Ie, applications are getting larger rather quickly and they're having to scurry to keep up. Multics suffered from only (!) having 36 bits worth of word, limiting segments (file) sizes significantly. In fact, they promptly kludged up a file which was really a directory of subfiles. Lisp and Prolog machines typically need extra bits for tagging data with its (primitive?) type. Expect *ANOTHER* upheaval when you have to convert your applications to a long word-length (or at least long address-length) machine. One existing machine already uses 48 bits for a "C" character pointer (I won't mortify the manufacturer by mentioning his name). -- David (Collier-) Brown. | Computer Science Geac Computers International Inc., | loses its memory 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | (if not its mind) CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.
dgk@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (David Korn[eww]) (07/17/87)
I believe that in the mid-seventies the CDC-STAR used the term
sword (super-word) to refer to a 512-bit quantum.
At the time I remember that a 1024 bit word was going to be called a pen
for obvious reasons. I have not heard these terms used since. Maybe
Multi-flow was words form them as well.
David Korn
{ihnp4|allegra}ulysses!dgklamaster@pioneer.arpa (Hugh LaMaster) (07/17/87)
In article <2737@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> dgk@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (David Korn[eww]) writes: >I believe that in the mid-seventies the CDC-STAR used the term >sword (super-word) to refer to a 512-bit quantum. > >At the time I remember that a 1024 bit word was going to be called a pen CDC still uses the sword (super word) on the CDC Cyber 205 machines. The ETA-10, with a very similar architecture, also uses 8 word swords. The ability to fetch and store 512 bits at a time from memory is one of the reasons that these machines can achieve VERY high speeds on CONTIGUOUS vectors. If the vectors are not contiguous, then the advantage disappears. Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9, UUCP {seismo,topaz,lll-crg,ucbvax}! NASA Ames Research Center ames!pioneer!lamaster Moffett Field, CA 94035 ARPA lamaster@ames-pioneer.arpa Phone: (415)694-6117 ARPA lamaster@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov "IBM will have it soon" (Disclaimer: "All opinions solely the author's responsibility")
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (07/18/87)
In article <524@ollie.UUCP> hansen@mips.UUCP (Craig Hansen) writes: > Has anyone seen a good name used for three 8-bit bytes? I've been using > "tri-byte", but could see it being shortened to "trite" or "tryte." I don't know about 3 octets, but I suppose that if 4 bits is a nyble, then 12 bits must be a tryble. Uh, maybe this should be cross-posted to rec.tv.star-trek? :-) Maybe if you were working on a machine with a 24 bit word (have there been any?) you'd be in double tryble? :-) By the way, if you really want to get confusing, consider that the French word for byte is (drumroll...) "octet". As far as I know, there is no other word to describe the concept of an arbitrarily sized contigious group of bits. Perhaps some native French speaker could confirm or deny this? -- Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP (07/18/87)
>Let me clarify this: > 8 bits is a byte > 4 bits is a nybble > 2 bits is a tayste (actually 2 bits is a quarter) > >36 bit machines usually support at least 6 and 9 bit bytes in hardware, Pushing my private bandwagon: 1 bit singlet 2 bits doublet tayste quarter 3 bits triplet octal-digit 4 bits quadlet nybble 6 bits sexlet 8 bits octlet octet byte 9 bits nonlet 16 bits hexlet (actually deca-hexlet, but called hexlet for the same reasons base 16 is hex) 32 bits triclet (actually...)
pauls@nsc.nsc.com (Paul Sweazey) (07/19/87)
In article <524@ollie.UUCP> hansen@mips.UUCP (Craig Hansen) writes: >Has anyone seen a good name used for three 8-bit bytes? I've been using >"tri-byte", but could see it being shortened to "trite" or "tryte." > >-- >Craig Hansen >Manager, Architecture Development >MIPS Computer Systems, Inc. >...decwrl!mips!hansen The IEEE 896 Futurebus uses "quadlet" to refer to 32-bit quantities. I have no idea of the precise history. The terms "triplet", "doublet", and "singlet" (usually just "byte") naturally follow and are used also. Since on a standard backplane bus it is inappropriate to mandate the big- or little-endian structure of the data, there are simply four "lanes" on the 32-bit data "highway". It is therefore possible (and planned) that modules may transfer non-adjacent bytes. If the four byte-wide lanes are labeled W, X, Y, and Z, what do we call a WY, WZ, WXZ, WYZ, etc? Silly discussions attract more silly questions, Paul Sweazey Microprocessor Architecture Group National Semiconductor Corporation
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (07/20/87)
Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.41.4 of Mon Mar 23 1987 on bu-cs (berkeley-unix) >Has anyone seen a good name used for three 8-bit bytes? I've been using >"tri-byte", but could see it being shortened to "trite" or "tryte." > >Craig Hansen Perhaps in honor of IBM's using this quantity for the address space of their 360/370 architecture (yeah, I know about XA, I know about seperate I&D also) we should call it a: blu-et with the 'e' pronounced as close to the 'i' in bit as possible. -Barry Shein, Boston University
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (07/20/87)
Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.41.4 of Mon Mar 23 1987 on bu-cs (berkeley-unix) Some more suggestions: In honor of the page size of a Vax: 512 bits == nanopage 1024 should be called a Kbit, there's just no choice, sorry, not funny. -Barry Shein, Boston University
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (07/20/87)
Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.41.4 of Mon Mar 23 1987 on bu-cs (berkeley-unix) > By the way, if you really want to get confusing, consider that the >French word for byte is (drumroll...) "octet". As far as I know, there is >no other word to describe the concept of an arbitrarily sized contigious >group of bits. Perhaps some native French speaker could confirm or deny >this? >-- >Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy It's not limited to the French, the ARPAnet RFCs (protocol documents, Requests For Comment) universally use the term "octet" to describe an 8-bit unit. I am sure their motivation was clarity as a large segment of the earlier community used 36-bit systems with their non-8-bit "bytes". In fact your translation of "octet" (Fr.) to "byte" is of course erroneous, it means what it sounds like I assume, an eight-bit unit. I would say this important usage lends strength to the adoption of the term, I would hope that other protocol specifiers are as careful. -Barry Shein, Boston University
dchen%rainier@Sun.COM (David Chenevert) (07/20/87)
In article <933@geac.UUCP>, daveb@geac.UUCP (Dave Brown) writes: > One of the IBM techies recently admitted in a public place that they're > using up about 1 address bit per 18 months. Ie, applications are getting > larger rather quickly and they're having to scurry to keep up. > Multics suffered from only (!) having 36 bits worth of word, limiting > segments (file) sizes significantly. In fact, they promptly kludged up > a file which was really a directory of subfiles. > Lisp and Prolog machines typically need extra bits for tagging data with > its (primitive?) type. > > Expect *ANOTHER* upheaval when you have to convert your applications > to a long word-length (or at least long address-length) machine. One > existing machine already uses 48 bits for a "C" character pointer (I > won't mortify the manufacturer by mentioning his name). I'm curious about Multics file size being limited by 2^36 = 64 billion bytes? Were those guys using triple-sided disks or what? On the general subject, I agree 100%. My figures have address bits coming at more like every 14 or 15 months, but the basic point is the same. You can get 128 Meg (27 bits) with your Sun-4, so we have about 5 * 1.5 years or so till we first barely touch the ceiling. A few more years for, say, the Macintosh crowd, but still, by the end of the century, we're going to be scrounging for bits. Responsible/smart computer trendsetters (CPU manufacturers, operating system/ language people) will start defining 64-bit ints, and using them where cost is not important (e.g., the field which holds the length of a file). Expect to see an even wider variety of hacked/kludged/painful pseudo-solutions than on the 16 to 32 bit transition. Intel will have a segmented 586 or 686, Dec will just have a VAX compatability mode bit on their VAVX (Virtual Architecture Very Xtended). IBM will switch to floating point addresses. In little or no seriousness, I'd like to hear some other projected painful solutions to this problem. Mail to me if you don't want them posted, or to the appropriate manufacturer if you think they'll listen.
mac@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU (Alex Colvin) (07/20/87)
In article <23801@sun.uucp>, dchen%rainier@Sun.COM (David Chenevert) writes: > I'm curious about Multics file size being limited by 2^36 = > 64 billion bytes? Were those guys using triple-sided disks or what? Multics segment offsets (hence file addresses) were limited to 18 bits.
bruno@ecrcvax.UUCP (Bruno Poterie) (07/20/87)
[line-eater] The french "octet" is of the same family as "octal", and means no more than: [a group of] eight [bits]. We do use "byte" to indicate a (small) quantity of information, mostly a character, which ordinarily fit into an "octet". The confusion of the two notions is quite common, as everywhere (therefore this discussion), so one can see statements like: 1 octet = 1 byte which are wrong (but the inclusion of the second into the first is true). On some 36 bits machines I worked on, a byte was actually 12 bits, giving a 3 bytes/word machine. The fact is that those architectures were developed in a time were EBDIC was still dominant. I even started learning assembler and binary on a 19 bits machine! The word was described in octal, 6 full digits plus an additional 0 or 4. I let you imagine the joy of writing dump and conversion routines for us poor beginers.... :-( ================================================================================ Bruno Poterie # ... une vie, c'est bien peu, compare' a un chat ... ECRC GmbH # tel: (49)89/92699-161 Arabellastrasse 17 # Tx: 5 216 910 D-8000 MUNICH 81 # mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!bruno West Germany # bruno%ecrcvax.UUCP@Germany.CSNET ================================================================================
lyndon@ncc.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) (07/21/87)
In article <524@ollie.UUCP>, hansen@mips.UUCP (Craig Hansen) writes: > > Has anyone seen a good name used for three 8-bit bytes? I've been using > "tri-byte", but could see it being shortened to "trite" or "tryte." 24 bits is a tribble (not to be confused with a tribbit, which is 3 bits). --lyndon -- Ollie for president: the tradition continues.
johnw@astroatc.UUCP (John F. Wardale) (07/21/87)
hansen@mips.UUCP (Craig Hansen) writes: > A word is whatever you say it is, whether 12, 16, 18, 32, 36, or 64 bits. > Has anyone seen a good name used for three 8-bit bytes? I've been using > "tri-byte", but could see it being shortened to "trite" or "tryte." Just call it a word! roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) asks: > machine with a 24 bit word (have there been any?) YES! ----------- Harris Corp. made (makes?) 24bit computers. They were great bang/$ for mini's (and semi-super-minis) of a few years ago. 24 bits ints (+/-8,388,608) were fine, and the floats were 48 bits which was usually 7 sig-figs, and faster/cheaper than 64 bit floats. Word (24 bit) addressed. Accessing byte was horrid!! Converting FORTRASH (sp?) was hard when the original coded (semi-validly) assumed sizeof(real) == sizeof(integer) (please excuse the mixed notation) #include <std-disclamer.h> John W - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Name: John F. Wardale UUCP: ... {seismo | harvard | ihnp4} !uwvax!astroatc!johnw arpa: astroatc!johnw@rsch.wisc.edu snail: 5800 Cottage Gr. Rd. ;;; Madison WI 53716 audio: 608-221-9001 eXt 110 To err is human, to really foul up world news requires the net!
aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP (07/21/87)
...> Three eight bit bytes == blu-et [Barry Shein] That's a blueberry in (Quebecois) French.
kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) (07/21/87)
In article <524@ollie.UUCP> hansen@mips.UUCP (Craig Hansen) writes: >Has anyone seen a good name used for three 8-bit bytes? I've been using >"tri-byte", but could see it being shortened to "trite" or "tryte." It would give me a warm, fuzzy feeling forever after, if a three byte block of bits were to be know henceforth as a "tribble". ;-) Kent, the man from xanth.
seifert@doghouse.gwd.tek.com (Snoopy) (07/22/87)
In article <9815@bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes: >1024 should be called a Kbit, there's just no choice, sorry, not funny. The plural of kbit is of course kibitz, as in "How much netnews came in last night?" "Lots of kibitz." :-) Snoopy tektronix!doghouse.gwd!snoopy snoopy@doghouse.gwd.tek.com "And it's a middle-endian machine with trinary logic." "They would do that!"
howard@cpocd2.UUCP (Howard A. Landman) (07/22/87)
In article <524@ollie.UUCP> hansen@mips.UUCP (Craig Hansen) writes: >Has anyone seen a good name used for three 8-bit bytes? I've been using >"tri-byte", but could see it being shortened to "trite" or "tryte." Obviously, the correct term is "trilobyte". :-) Especially if we're discussing the lower 3 bytes of a 4 byte word. -- Howard A. Landman ...!{oliveb,...}!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard howard%cpocd2%sc.intel.com@RELAY.CS.NET "..., precisely the opposite of what we now know to be true!"
jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard) (07/30/87)
In article <1625@xanth.UUCP>, kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > In article <524@ollie.UUCP> hansen@mips.UUCP (Craig Hansen) writes: > >Has anyone seen a good name used for three 8-bit bytes? I've been using > >"tri-byte", but could see it being shortened to "trite" or "tryte." > > It would give me a warm, fuzzy feeling forever after, if a three byte block > of bits were to be know henceforth as a "tribble". ;-) Right idea, Kent...but you picked the wrong number of bits. Since 4 bits is a "nibble" (half of a byte), why not make 12 bits a "tribble" (three nibbles)? Besides, it gives PDP-8ers and other strange types something to call a machine word. -- >splut!<...Jay Maynard, K5ZC | uucp: ...!seismo!soma!uhnix1!sugar!splut!jay "Don't ask ME about Unix... | GEnie: JAYMAYNARD (...e-i-e-i-o!) I speak SNA!" | CI$: 71036,1603 FidoNet: SysOp @106/64 The opinions herein are shared by neither of my cats, much less anyone else.