Power Tools 1993 November - Disc 2/Power Tools Plus (Disc 2 of 2)(November 1993)(HP).iso/hotlines/wsyhl/parsc64/idc_rept.txt

Text File | 1993-07-01 | 34KB | 558 lines

IDC Opinion
  IDC believes that 64-bit architecture is an inevitable evolution in
technology that will be important but not dominant in the second half of
the decade. The transition from 16- to 32-bit system architecture was quite
different from the upcoming transition from 32- to 64-bits. In general,
there is not the pent-up demand for the features of 64-bit architecture as
there was in the transition to 32-bits, most notably in address space
requirements.
  On the supply side, markets where 64-bit capabilities can provide a
competitive advantage, (i.e, high performance technical systems and
midrange systems) will lead the migration. Digital and SGI/MIPS are seen as
the leaders in this evolution. IDC believes that competitors in these
markets have a window of two to three years to respond. In the desktop
markets, however, volume and cost issues enter the equation much more
rapidly than before. When 32- and 64-bit processors and systems converge in
price for the mass market, the transition will be accelerated. IDC expects
this to happen a few years after Intel's P7 becomes available _ when its
lower-cost siblings hit the street.
  On the user side, IDC expects the high-performance technical users to tap
into 64-bit architectures first, due to the leading-edge nature of their
applications. The transition of commercial users will take much longer,
however, due to the more conservative nature of this group and a reliance
on higher-level software tools, which will take time to evolve to take
advantage of 64-bit features.
  We believe ISVs will tend to support the architectures from which they
derive revenue, regardless of the 64- or 32-bit question. For instance,
major ISVs will port to Digital's Alpha platform not because it is a 64-bit
architecture but because they believe that Digital is a major player in the
market. The majority of ISVs will port existing 32-bit software to the 64-
bit platforms without taking advantage of the 64-bit features.
What Does 64-Bits Mean?
  In order to differentiate and categorize processors as 32-bit or 64-bit
(or any other size, for that matter) we must first realize that there is a
hardware definition and a software definition. To illustrate the
difference, many PCs utilize an Intel 486 chip, a 32-bit chip by any
hardware definition. However, most of these PCs run DOS or Windows, which
is a 16-bit software environment. Therefore, these PCs would be considered
32-bit according to a hardware definition but 16-bit by a software
definition.
  There are many components of a system that could be classified as 64-bit.
These include:
     Integer register size
*    Floating point register size
*    Virtual address space (determines maximum memory any one process can
        use)
*    Physical address space (determines maximum physical memory that can be
        addressed)
*    Data bus size
*    Ability to manipulate 64-bit data types
*    System software environment
  IDC does not believe that the data bus size alone should be used in
determining whether a system is 64-bit or not. Likewise, we do not believe
that the ability to manipulate 64-bit data types makes a system 64-bit.
Many 32-bit architectures allow for manipulation of 64-bit data types.
Sixty-four-bit floating point registers are common throughout 32-bit
architecture machines and therefore are not part of our 64-bit definition.
Sixty-four-bit data types provide a performance boost as well as increased
precision, but by themselves do not make an architecture 64-bit. Some
supercomputer architectures utilize this type of technology and are often
regarded as 64-bit but do not meet IDC's definition. We do believe that the
integer register size and the virtual and physical address size, in
conjunction with the software that controls the system, determine whether a
system is 64-bit.
  IDC uses a "purist" technology-based approach to categorizing processors
and operating systems. We stipulate that 64-bit hardware must have all of
the following characteristics:
*    64-bit integer registers
*    Significantly greater than 32-bit flat, unsegmented virtual address
        space
*    Significantly greater than 32-bit flat, unsegmented physical address
        space
*    No "hoops" to jump through to obtain these capabilities (i.e., no
        segmentation)
   The reason for the "significantly greater than" terminology is to allow
architectures flexibility to utilize specific bits for special purposes.
Sixty-four-bit integer registers are necessary to deal with 64-bit logical
and physical addresses efficiently. Our definition of 64-bit operating
systems and software is based on our definition of 64-bit hardware. We
stipulate that 64-bit software must:
*    Allow access to the 64-bit hardware features (especially virtual
  addressing)
*    Utilize 64-bit data types (i.e., 64-bit integers, compilers manipulate
        64-bit quantities, etc.)
*    Not impose "hoops" to jump through to obtain these capabilities (i.e.,
        no segmentation)
  A similar definition can be made for 16- and 32-bit systems.
Comparing Transitions
  When comparing the transition from 16- to 32-bit computing, with the
upcoming transition from 32- to 64-bit computing, the following differences
are apparent:
*    There was a need for greater than 16-bit addressing before 32-bit
systems were generally available.
*    The increase in address space varies dramatically in going from 16- to
32- to 64-bit systems.
  Table 1 illustrates the relative size of the physical and virtual address
spaces for 16-, 32-, and 64-bit systems:
  Note that in going from 8- to 16-bits, as shown in Table 1, the address
space is 256 times larger. In going from 16- to 32-bits the address space
is a very comfortable 64,000 times larger. In going from 32- to 64-bits the
address space is a whopping 4,000,000,000 times larger than before!
Therefore, address space demand had to increase 256-fold for 32-bits to
become a requirement. Similarly, demand must increase by 64,000 times
before a 64-bit architecture is needed (when the 33rd bit is required).
  The transition from 16- to 32-bits was quite different from the upcoming
transition from 32- to 64-bits. The single biggest difference is that for
the 16- to 32-bit transition there had been a great need for more than 16-
bits of addressing _ both virtual and physical. Note that the demand for
32-bits occurs essentially when the 17th address bit is needed. Likewise,
demand for 64-bits occurs when the 33rd bit is required. Many different
schemes or kludges were developed to get around these issues when need for
the next bit or two began to surface. Examples include overlays,
segmentation, and use of special hardware to translate virtual addresses to
physical addresses. When 32-bit systems were first introduced (e.g.,
VAX/VMS, DG MV, etc.) there was a market waiting for them.
  The desktop PC market is, in many ways, different from the
minicomputer/mainframe market that preceded it. However, the transitional
issues are remarkably similar. Similar mistakes were made and similar
kludges were done _ the time frame is just extended. IDC expects similar
schemes will be used to delay transitions to 64-bit technology.
  As illustrated in Figure 1, IDC believes that demand for 64-bit
addressing begins to be real in 1995, led by high-performance systems,
several years after the technology is available. Note that this is the
first time that the technology is ahead of the need.
What Does 64-Bits Enable?
  From an architectural standpoint, a 64-bit architecture provides
advantages in two areas: computation speed and addressing. The former
occurs simply because computational instructions can work on data types
(integers, floating point, pointers, etc.) that are twice as large within
one clock cycle. This increase in speed not only helps technical
applications, which are typically more demanding computationally, but also
commercial applications that perform numerous data comparisons,
translations, and block data movements. While 64-bit technology can provide
some performance boosts, it can also generate additional overhead. Any
performance differences are application-specific. Sixty-four-bit
technology does not imply a universal doubling in performance.
  The advantages of 64-bit addressing capabilities are not apparent when
looking at the address space requirements of the average program. For the
vast majority of these, 4GB of addressing will be sufficient for many
years. Instead of driving 64-bit functionality into existing applications,
we believe that the practical application of 64-bit architectures will be
for emerging applications with specific characteristics such as:
*    Large database, file, and I/O processing (e.g., imaging)
*    Complex layered software (e.g., object management)
  In order to properly move up the application food chain, we believe the
use of larger address spaces and other 64-bit features will need to be
implemented in system software first, particularly operating systems and
database management software. The system software functionality that would
need to be addressed to solve each of these problems is related, but
different.
  Large Database and I/O
  Multiuser operating systems provide a logical view of memory and I/O via
virtual addressing, paging, device mapping, logical I/O interfaces, and
file systems. All of these place additional overhead on a system. This
overhead also tends to get exponentially larger as the system capacity
(memory, disk) gets larger, and/or the number of programs vying for these
resources increase (see Figure 2). This is why many suppliers have needed
to rewrite the memory management and I/O management segments of their
operating systems in order to support the larger memories (512MB+), storage
(300GB+) and process counts (1000+) associated with larger capacity
systems.
  Complex Layered Software
  An increasing trend for building applications is to use modular
components that are pieced together and customized to match specific
requirements and functions. A problem with this approach is that message
passing among software components is time consuming and absorbs operating
system resources. This slows the performance of the application and the
entire system. Microkernel-based operating systems will provide the
architectural foundation from a software standpoint for making software
components modular, but will face similar performance issues. If such
architectures are to become accepted, fast memory-based message passing
must be used.
  The key bottlenecks in system software, which slow the execution of these
functions, are translation schemes (i.e., multiple table look ups, logical
mapping, etc.). As these tables contain more information the overhead
increases on system resources, especially CPU cycles. With a full 64-bit
hardware architecture (64-bit data manipulation and addressing) the
additional bits can be used to map devices and system software via logical
addresses as shown in Figure 2. To gain even higher performance, the entire
I/O subsystem could be mapped to look like a single, large set of
multilevel caches (see Figure 3). In such a scheme, table lookups will be
less frequent, freeing the CPU to do the computational work it was meant to
perform.
Inhibitors for the Movement to 64-Bit
  The aforementioned methods of solving particular problems with 64-bit
system software make a bold assumption: the world is ideal. The realities
of today's market dictate that customers will require a high level of
consistency with existing applications and environments. Therefore,
suppliers will need to spend increasingly valuable resources ensuring this
consistency and compatibility in order to keep customer bases happy and
products stable.
  A list of the potential inhibitors for 64-bit computing includes the
following:
*    Compiler technology
*    Standards and the growing number of APIs/ABIs
*    Legacy systems and system software
  The advancement of compiler technology is the first hurdle to overcome,
and probably the easiest. Beyond the ability to effectively utilize 64-bit
features  within the hardware and software architecture, the challenges
facing compiler makers will be in maintaining compatibility with existing
architectures and compilers (i.e., hiding the intricacies from the
programmer) and installing effective intelligence on when and where to use
64-bit capabilities. We do not see these as large problems to overcome, and
thus do not envision compiler technology issues dramatically inhibiting the
movement to 64-bit computing.
  Compliance with industry standards and the ability to convince software
developers to write to specific APIs for 64-bit architectures looms as
another potential problem. Most formal standards are created out of
existing APIs. At the high-level programming interface level, developers
will not see a difference in most system calls and libraries. However,
implementations of these standard interfaces on 64-bit architectures will
have some differences in order to take advantage of the more advanced
features. Thus code would not be completely portable. Some of this
phenomenon occurs today among different interface implementations, but we
believe the problem will be exacerbated with the proliferation of 64-bit
architectures.
  Perhaps the largest problem will be in providing compatibility with
existing systems and software. This is a problem for both suppliers and
users. Suppliers  have a choice of either providing complete upward
compatibility when moving to a 64-bit architecture (e.g., what Sparc
International is promising), or changing the architecture and pushing the
installed-base through a migration (e.g., Digital with Alpha). The
tradeoffs of these options are:
*    Provide upward compatibility. Minimize the risk to the installed base,
       but face a slower implementation of 64-bit features and added R&D
       costs in maintaining existing interfaces.
*    Change the architecture. Expose the installed base to change (which
       could be to another supplier), yet bring 64-bit functionality to
       market faster and have this as a technological differentiator.
  Users, in general, prefer to minimize their risks and continue to receive
steady technological improvements in the platform, while maintaining
compatibility with the architecture they use today. This is one of the
primary reasons why we believe the movement to 64-bit computing will be a
slow, incremental movement rather than a rapid turnover.
Market Dynamics for 64-Bit Acceptance
  We believe the dynamics that will dictate the movement to 64-bit
computing will be determined differently among computer suppliers, ISVs,
and users. Each group has its own set of motivations, facilitators, and
hurdles that will affect the movement to 64-bit architectures.
  Computer Suppliers
  Among the computer suppliers, the factors that will drive 64-bit
computing are:
*    The increased need to maintain some level of differentiation. An early
        jump to a 64-bit platform will provide performance edges, a
        perception of technology leadership, and the ability to offer
        greater headroom for future platforms.
*    Greater engineering expertise. Development and release cycles for
        microprocessors and systems have shortened due to a greater level
        of engineering talent and expertise. Thus, the ability for
        suppliers to introduce a new 64-bit architecture is greater today
        than during the transition from 16- to 32-bits.
  Computer suppliers also face a number of obstacles that will hamper the
movement to 64-bit architectures, of which the most noteworthy are:
*    Generating volume. The only way to generate large volume for a
        microprocessor is the desktop market. However, the commercial
        desktop market is only just beginning to fully utilize 32-bit
systems (e.g., OS/2, Windows NT, Unix), and thus will not require 64-bit
architectures for some time. It is difficult to financially justify an
investment in developing a 64-bit microprocessor with limited hope of
penetrating the volume desktop market. As with the movement to 32-bits, IDC
expects that 64-bit hardware will be available and even plentiful on the
desktop long before software begins to take advantage of the capabilities.
*    Installed-base disruption. Many 64-bit systems may not be completely
        compatible with existing 32-bit systems. Installed-base migration
        programs are typically long and costly to suppliers.
  Software Vendors
  ISVs typically are driven by two factors: volume and value-added
functionality.
New functionality or support of specific platforms is added in a reactive
fashion  when enough customers demand it. Porting to a particular platform
may also occur if a revenue opportunity exists.
  We believe ISVs will tend to support the architectures from which they
derive revenue, regardless of the 64- or 32-bit question. For instance,
major ISVs will port to Digital's Alpha platform not because it is a 64-bit
architecture, but because they believe Digital is a major player in the
market and any platform the company produces will generate enough volume
for ISVs to get return for the porting investment.
  As a result of extensive interviewing, IDC believes that the majority of
ISVs are not seeing demand among their users for specific 64-bit
functionality, nor do they see many inherent capabilities of which their
software products can take advantage. The majority of ISVs will port
existing 32-bit software to the 64-bit platforms without taking advantage
of the 64-bit features. In fact, most vendors porting to Digital's Alpha
systems are using OpenVMS, a 32-bit OS. In the future, as more customers
demand functionality that can be more efficiently provided through 64-bit
features, ISVs will modify products to better utilize the 64-bit platforms.
However, some software vendors may choose to use 64-bit as a differentiator
at some time in the future.
  For details on the impact of 64-bit technology in the CAD/CAE/CAM markets
see 64-Bit Architecture: What It Will Mean for CAD/ CAE/CAM (IDC #6445,
March 1992).
  Users
  The demand for 64-bit computing will originate with high-performance
technical users rather than in the commercial market. It is the technical
users who typically lead the way to advanced technologies. Technical users
also tend to turn over systems fairly quickly, porting or recompiling to
reap the benefits  of more advanced platforms as introduced. These users
tend to model "Grand Challenge"-type problems, which typically can have
huge data set sizes and therefore can always use more address space.
  Commercial users tend to be more conservative in nature, valuing service,
support, and stability more so than the technical user that buys more for
advanced features. The commercial user also uses more high level software
(e.g., middleware) to piece together applications. Thus, 64-bit platforms
would not have value to the mass commercial market until the higher-level
software utilized 64-bit features.
Who Will Be Selling 64-bit Technology and When?
  64-bit technology will rollout from most of the major vendors over the
next three years.
  Table 2 illustrates the major players and our expectation of the rollout.
  Silicon Graphics/MIPS -
  MIPS R4000
  SGI/MIPS was the first vendor to ship 64-bit hardware-based systems.
SGI's Iris Crim-son workstations utilize the MIPS R4000, the first 64-bit
chip. It runs Irix, SGI's version of Unix, and runs in 32-bit mode. IDC
expects Windows NT, also a 32-bit OS, to be made available on SGI's R4000-
based machines as well as R4000-based systems from other manufacturers.
Digital's DECstation line utilizes MIPS R3000 processors and is scheduled
to get R4000 upgrades in 1993.
These systems will also run 32-bit operating systems and will not get the
64-bit version of OSF/1 that DEC plans for its Alpha AXP systems. IDC does
not expect a 64-bit operating system to be available for the R4000 until
the 1995 time frame; that OS is likely to be an Irix evolution from SGI.
With the demise of the ACE initiative, prospects for proliferation of the
R4000 have lessened. However, there is still significant support by
European and Asian vendors (especially Sony and NEC) even though U.S.
vendor interest (most notably Compaq and Digital) has waned.
  Digital _ Alpha AXP
  Digital is the company that is most aggressively marketing 64-bit as an
innovation and differentiator. As such, we have the most information about
Digital's 64-bit strategies and products. However, the real impetus for
Alpha is RISC, not 64-bit, as Digital needed to revamp its entire line due
to the VAX running out of gas. In the process of designing a new
architecture for the next 25 years, Digital correctly identified that
sometime in that 25-year time frame 64-bits will be a requirement. That
sometime is not quite here today.
  Rollout of operating systems for Alpha is as follows:
*    Digital's OpenVMS will ship with the first Alpha systems in December
        1992 but will be largely restricted to run in 32-bit mode. Access
        to 64-bit data types will be provided but virtual address space
        will remain 32-bit. Digital has not stated when OpenVMS will be
        fully 64-bit, but that it will be in the future. IDC expects this
        functionality in the 1995 time frame.
*    Microsoft's Windows NT will be available in approximately the same
        time frame as it is made available for Intel (sometime in 1993). At
        this point, Microsoft has not made any statements about its 64-bit
        directions, except that NT does utilize 64-bit file pointers (also
        on the Intel version). In fact, Microsoft is boldly promoting the
        fact that NT is 32-bit, which is considered "advanced" in the
        markets where Micro-soft competes.
*    Digital's DEC OSF/1 will be the first 64-bit OS available for Alpha
        and should ship to customers in the first half of 1993. A
        developer's version will ship in conjunction with the first Alpha
        shipments in December 1992.
*    Other Unix offerings: Encore also announced that it will develop a 64-
        bit version of Unix SVR4 ES/MP for its high-end Alpha-based
        commercial systems.
  Availability for these systems and the 64-bit version of SVR4 has not yet
been disclosed. Olivetti will also be providing a version of SVR4 for its
Alpha-based systems.
  IDC expects that Digital will announce lower-cost Alpha systems in 1993.
Lower-cost systems, the availability of Windows NT, and the ability of the
company to leverage its relationship with Microsoft, are key to the future
success of Alpha beyond the VAX installed base. This potential is largely
based on a 32-bit operating system (NT) for the foreseeable future. Success
in the Unix space is dependent on Digital's rationalization of its Unix
strategy. For a closer look at Digital's Alpha operating system strategies
see Is Alpha DEC's Ticket to Regain Lost Unix Market Share? (IDC #6699 June
1992).
  Sun Microsystems and Others _ Sparc
  Sparc International has approved Sparc version 9, which extends the Sparc
architecture to 64 bits. The new version was influenced by startup HaL
Computer, expected to be the first Sparc manufacturer to introduce a system
utilizing 64-bit Sparc technology. IDC expects this introduction in 1993.
HaL will likely ship a 32-bit version of SVR4 and will make 64-bit
enhancements over time.
  Sun Microsystems, by far the largest and most influential Sparc system
manufacturer, will likely follow HaL but lag by at least a year. IDC
believes that Sun has other much higher priority projects, such as making
substantial progress in commercial servers and introducing object
technologies. On the software side, IDC does not expect a 64-bit version of
Solaris until 1995 at the earliest. Although Sun is the volume leader in
workstations, HP is currently the performance leader and therefore likely
to be the workstations utilized in the most demanding environments _ those
likely to need 64-bits
first.
  IBM/Apple/Motorola _ Power, PowerPC
  PowerPC, an evolution of IBM's Power architecture utilized in the
RS/6000, is a joint project between IBM and Motorola. Today's RS/6000s are
32-bit but have 52-bit addressing via a segmentation scheme. We expect that
the PowerPC chips will be 32-bit and that IBM will continue to enhance its
Power derivative with 64-bit capability targeted at the high-performance
technical market. The first PowerPC chips should see the light in 1H93 with
an MP version available in 2H93. The 64-bit derivative from IBM will likely
debut in 1994, followed in the 1995 time frame by a version of AIX that
will exploit the 64-bit capabilities.
  Hewlett-Packard, PA-RISC
  HP's PA-RISC is the architecture utilized in the company's 9000 Series
700 workstations as well as its 9000 Series 800 commercial Unix systems and
its 3000 line, which runs MPE/iX. In addition, PA-RISC will be the first
RISC architecture to run native NetWare. Given HP's performance leadership
position at the high end of the technical workstation market, IDC expects
HP to see demand for 64-bits before most other manufacturers. PA-RISC is a
32-bit architecture. In our opinion, HP has approximately three years
before 64-bit demand becomes significant. Therefore, the company has enough
time to adapt PA-RISC to 64-bits and to bring product to market. If HP does
not articulate its direction vis-a-vis 64-bit within the next 12-18 months,
the company stands to lose its perception of technology leadership. IDC
expects that HP will enhance HP-UX, its Unix OS, to take advantage of 64-
bit functionality within a year of making available systems based on 64-bit
architecture.
  Intel, P7
  IDC expects that Intel will rollout its P6 processor (a 32-bit chip) in
the 1994 time frame, followed closely by P7, a 64-bit chip, in the 1995
time frame.
Both are members of the X86 family. Systems utilizing each will follow
processor introduction by a year at most. Most P7 systems will run 32-bit
software environments through the end of the decade. We expect that 64-bit
Unix operating systems will make their way onto the X86 in the 1997 time
frame.
Outlook/Assumptions
  Our outlook (see Figure 4) is derived from careful consideration of the
following factors:
  General market assumptions
*    This outlook is based on the market dynamics we've discussed from both
        the supply and demand side.
*    We believe the history of the 16 to 32-bit migration that began in the
        late 1970s serves as a useful guideline for the 32- to 64-bit
        transition, with adjustments made to accommodate differences as
        outlined.
*    This outlook is based on the hardware definition of 64-bits and does
        not take into account the software environment.
*    This outlook covers systems shipped in all IDC size classifications:
        PC, workstation, small-scale, medium-scale, and large-scale. Thus,
        the unit outlook will be heavily weighted towards the impact in the
        PC market since PCs account for the vast majority of system units.
        Supply side factors (i.e., vendor shipment):
*    Expected introduction of 64-bit technologies into the market by major
        vendors (refer back to Table 2 for details).
*    As this is a complete industry outlook, it is heavily influenced by
        the volume leader, Intel. IDC expects that Intel will rollout its
        P7 processor (the first 64-bit x86 compatible), in the 1995 time
        frame. If Intel's schedule is not as we have assumed, this outlook
        would need to be revised accordingly.
*    In the PC market, the transition will accelerate at the point in which
        32- and 64-bit microprocessors converge in price. IDC expects this
        to happen a few years after the P7 is available _ when its lower-
        cost siblings hit the street. This will be very late in the decade.
*    In the midrange market, microprocessor cost is a much smaller
        component of the system pricing, thus the difference in prices
        between 32 and 64-bit microprocessors will have little impact.
        Instead, the movement to 64-bit in the midrange will be dictated by
        competitive needs and R&D resource allocation among suppliers.
  Demand Side Factors (i.e., user adoption)
*    The 64-bit migration trend will be led by high-performance
        workstations and mid-range systems in the technical environment,
        where applications requiring high performance will make 64-bit
        solutions more attractive.
*    PC users will transition to 64-bit systems much more slowly. This is a
        function of the lack of applications requiring 64-bit solutions, as
        well as the fact that 32-bit systems are only now beginning to hit
        their stride.
*    When 64-bit software environments become widely available (in
        approximately the 1996 time frame), IDC expects that a significant
        hurdle will be overcome. Growth in 64-bit applications will
        accelerate, which will then accelerate the growth of the overall
        64-bit market.
  To summarize, we believe the transition from 32- to 64-bit architectures
will happen at different speeds within different market segments (see Table
3). The net effect on the overall market outlook for 64-bit systems, shown
in Figure 4, is a slow transition; this is due mainly to the overwhelming
influence the Intel PC market has on shipments in the overall market.
  IDC believes that 64-bit architecture represents an inevitable,
evolutionary progression in processor technology; this will be an
important, but not dominant technology in the latter half of the 1990s. We
don't usually forecast out beyond a five year time frame, but our best
estimate is that by 1997 approximately 10% of all computer systems shipped
worldwide will have a 64-bit processor (not necessarily running a 64-bit
Operating System). Sixty-four-bit architectures should comprise almost 20%
of all unit shipments by the turn of the century.

Filing Information:

Date:  November 1992
IDC #: 7175
Volume:   1.Unix
Tab:   3.Operating Systems/
          Architectural Issues

               Sixty-Four Bit Computing: A Bit Ahead of Its Time?
                    Analysts: David M. Smith and John Morrell

                                The Bottom Line
IDC believes that 64-bit architecture is an inevitable technology
evolution.
High-performance technical users will be the first to take advantage of the
features but the overall market will be slow to absorb the new technology.
In general, there is not the pent-up demand for the features a 64-bit
architecture provides as there was in the transition to 32-bits, most
notably in address space requirements. We believe ISVs will tend to support
the architectures from which they derive revenue, regardless of the 64- or
32-bit question. The majority of ISVs will port existing 32-bit software to
the 64-bit platforms without taking advantage of the 64-bit features.

 Copyright 1992 International Data Corporation. Reprinted and distributed
 electronically by Hewlett-Packard Company with permission of International
 Data Corporation. For additional copies please contact Linda Rich,
 508-935-4389.

Source: International Data Corporation, 1992
                                   Figure 1
        Approximate Demand for Addressing and Availability of Hardware
Source:International Data Corporation, 1992
                                   Figure 2
                                Mapping Schemes
Source: International Data Corporation, 1992
                                   Figure 3
                 Architectural Advantages of 64-bit Computing
Source: International Data Corporation, 1992



*OSF/1 only initially (see text for details)
**Likely to be HaL, not Sun
Source: International Data Corporation, 1992
  Source: International Data Corporation, 1992


Source: International Data Corporation, 1992

                          Table 1: Address Space Size

Bits      Address Space Size  # of times larger than previous size
8-bit     256 bytes                             _
16-bit    64,000 bytes                          256
32-bit    4,000,000,000 bytes                   64,000
64-bit    16,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes      4,000,000,000

                                    Table 2
          Anticipated rollout of 64-Bit Products from Major Suppliers

Architecture  Sponsor   Introduction  First System  64-Bit OS  First 64-Bit
                        (64-Bit)      Shipment                 Applications
R4000         SGI/MIPS   1992         1992          1995      1995
Alpha         Digital    1992         1993          1993*     1994
Sparc         Sun, others 1993        1993**        1995      1996
Power         IBM        1994         1994          1995      1996
PA-RISC       HP         1994         1995          1996      1996
P7            Intel      1995         1996          1997      1997

                                    Table 3
                   Transition Times to 64-bit Architectures
                       Within Different Market Segments

              Commercial            Technical           Overall
PC            Very, very slow       Very slow           Very slow
Workstation   Slow, cost issues     Fast                Fastest
Midrange      Medium, 64-bit SW lag Fast                Medium
Large scale   Medium                Very fast           Fast