Re: "word"

From	"BartC" <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups	comp.programming
Subject	Re: "word"
Date	2012-09-05 23:43 +0100
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<k28kk6$ndk$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<iMidnWLBHfMaxtrNnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@earthlink.com> <32f7faab08307b0dbc9259abec1d1540@remailer.paranoici.org>

Show all headers | View raw

"Anonymous" <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> wrote in message 
news:32f7faab08307b0dbc9259abec1d1540@remailer.paranoici.org...
> Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> wrote:

>> A word does not have to be 16 bits. In computer architecture
>> terminology, it is the processor's natural unit of data. Typically, it
>> is the size of a register and the width of certain communication paths.
>> Most computers people see as computers (not embedded microcontrollers)
>> now have 32 or 64 bit words.
>
> Hmm. That's a tough one. Can you name a computer with a 64 bit word? Most
> of the 64 bit machines I know have a 32 bit word

So what makes those 64-bit machines rather than 32?

> except for Intel crapola.

You'll have to include AMD in that.

>> The original IBM PC did have a 16 bit word size, but even at that time
>> there were many computers with a 32 bit word size, and some with bigger
>> sizes.

> The original IBM PC was pretty late in the computing world. IBM had 
> already
> standardized on a 32 bit word in 1964 and Honeywell had a 36 bit word.

When microprocessors came along, then it all started again with 8-bits 
(ignoring the 4-bit ones). At that point, I believe it was common for a 
'word' to refer to 16 bits  - two consecutive bytes - even though the 
machines had 8-bit arithmetic units and data-paths. Many of those weren't 
made by Intel either.

-- 
Bartc

Thread

"word" bob <bob@coolfone.comze.com> - 2012-09-05 06:38 -0700
  Re: "word" "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-09-05 15:55 +0200
  Re: "word" Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-09-05 07:02 -0700
    Re: "word" Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2012-09-05 09:34 -0700
      Re: "word" Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-09-05 10:56 -0700
    Re: "word" Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-09-05 18:57 +0000
      Re: "word" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-05 23:23 +0100
      Re: "word" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-05 23:43 +0100
        Re: "word" Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-06 01:09 +0100
          Re: "word" Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-05 22:03 -0500
          Re: "word" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-06 11:02 +0100
            Re: "word" Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-06 11:31 -0500
      Re: "word" Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-05 21:38 -0500
      Re: "word" Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 05:40 -0700
    Re: "word" rossum <rossum48@coldmail.com> - 2012-09-06 11:30 +0100
  Re: "word" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-05 21:40 +0100
    Re: "word" Jongware <jongware@no-spam.plz> - 2012-09-07 16:26 +0200
      Re: "word" Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2012-09-11 03:34 -0700

csiph-web