Re: Intel releases 64bit Xeon

From: JF Mezei (jfmezei.spamnot_at_istop.com)
Date: 03/04/04 

Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 01:07:57 -0500

Bill Todd wrote:
> > Note that the 370 architecture doesn't have a bright future since IBM is
> > porting MVS over to POWER. (or has that been cancelled ?)
>
> Nobody's talking about the 370 architecture, JF.

Isn't that what the p390 systems are ????? I realise that since the 370s, IBM
has managed to go to 31 bit adressing (from 24), but isn't it the same
assembler instructions with a few additions ??

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Architectures with not atomic stores/loads
    ... Bill Todd wrote: ... the architecture vs. some de facto accepted constant size? ... processors (the context in which my comment was made). ... for the architecture on 8-bit processors, but is defined in some other ...
    (comp.arch)
  • Re: Architectures with not atomic stores/loads
    ... |> Bill Todd writes: ... |>> the architecture vs. some de facto accepted constant size? ... a 32-bit architecture really did have the concept of a 64-bit word, ... even though the only atomic operations on that size were floating-point ...
    (comp.arch)
  • Re: Intel releases 64bit Xeon
    ... > Bill Todd wrote: ... >> accesses) seems to me likely to scale much more linearly than the ... > Note that the 370 architecture doesn't have a bright future since IBM is ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Architectures with not atomic stores/loads
    ... Bill Todd writes: ... the architecture vs. some de facto accepted constant size? ... Motorola documents the size of a "word" for the 68000 to be 16 bits, ...
    (comp.arch)