Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: What is an N-bit machine?
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 22:08 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <memo.20241128220827.12904a@jgd.cix.co.uk>
References: <viao3r$na9e$4@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: jgd@cix.co.uk
Injection-Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 23:08:27 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8bc14d3e9fc59cd57188ef6b8ac566cc";
	logging-data="777292"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+HqSZmZlAWf85IZtknmhtfs/44eHwpQG8="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0tqlP5tydBvBiJmA2y9QN8EfHwg=
X-Clacks-Overhead-header: GNU Terry Pratchett
Bytes: 1610

In article <viao3r$na9e$4@dont-email.me>, ldo@nz.invalid (Lawrence
D'Oliveiro) wrote:

> Apple went through the same sort of thing. Yet it managed the 
> transition much more cleanly.

Apple simply demanded all software become 32-bit clean. The fact that
they didn't forsee the problem and warn software writers not to use the
high 8 bits rather implies they weren't paying attention. 

> This in spite of having an installed base that was orders of 
> magnitude larger than the IBM System/360 family.

Apples and oranges. IBM had fewer but much larger customer organisations,
and could not afford to upset them much. Most IBM mainframe shops write
some software themselves; that wasn't the case for Apple users in the
1980s. 

John