somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> I think your (unconventional) definition is arbitrary and unworkable.

  So is the "traditional" definition because it says absolutely nothing
about the processor nor the computer architecture. It's inconsistent too
(eg. it calls z80 an "8-bit processor" because of having an 8-bit data
bus, but a pentium4 is called a "32-bit processor" even though, AFAIK,
it has a 64-bit data bus; there are also 32-bit processors with even
wider data buses, and they are still called "32-bit").

  At least "the natural word size of the processor" (which is really what
I'm talking about) is a much better definition. It's more descriptive and
useful (because it tells what kind of integer arithmetic you can perform
with the processor most efficiently).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message