Microsoft mulling 128-bit versions of Win8, Win9

[Antman]

GAWD.
Who will EVER use the full potential of a x128 machine?!? x128 may be ready for Win8 and/or Win9 but a normal user using the full potential of a x128 platform isn't for either Win8 or Win9. It will be MUCH MUCH later.

You must be a casual user.

I would love to do some data modeling in the 128-bit realm.

I have 2GB of RAM and a 32-bit system... I didn't even really use all of my 2GB of RAM... Why would I need 1M+TB of RAM on a x128 machine?!?

Often, the answer to a question is the question itself, and here, the answer is obvious. You would not.

 

[Antman]

To all those who would argue that we do not need this kind of power on the desktop today - Speak for yourself.

I would have an immediate use for the ability to solve for a 20 layer deep time-of-day sensitive LCR solution for 1,000+ international terminations in real-time.

Today, I settle for three layers. And it takes a half-hour.

Hi there
and I thought that deriving and solving the equations of motion of a Supermarket trolley was difficult.

Cheers
jimbo

Fortunately, I can solve one problem with a 32-bit browser in a 64-bit platform - google/ supermarket trolley

Oh. Grocery cart.

.

 

[Scotteq]

Ant - That is, indeed, a container of more than adequate size... But I have a concern the 128 bits will fall through the steel mesh.

 

[paesan]

Bring it on MS. There is nothing wrong with trying to push the proverbial envelope. I remember when I bought a pentium 233 with 32 megs of ram with a 6 gig HD and my friends said that was overkill...................LMAO. I agree that software companies are behind the curve with 64 bit programs but I am all for improvements. Don't hate change, instead embrace it. Many people fear the unknown!!!!!!

 

[Antman]

Bring it on MS. There is nothing wrong with trying to push the proverbial envelope. I remember when I bought a pentium 233 with 32 megs of ram with a 6 gig HD and my friends said that was overkill...................LMAO. I agree that software companies are behind the curve with 64 bit programs but I am all for improvements. Don't hate change, instead embrace it. Many people fear the unknown!!!!!!

I don't know about that. Sounds scary.

 

[Lee]

Let me ask you all a question: "How many of you are going to turn down a chance to be the first owner of a 128 bit system, and also be the first on the beta list to test the new OS for a 128 bit system.

I know my name is going to be at the top (if I live that long).

 

[Antman]

Let me question you all a question: "How many of you are going to turn down a chance to be the first owner of a 128 bit system, and also be the first on the beta list to test the new OS for a 128 bit system.

I know my name is going to be at the top (if I live that long).

FTW

 

[H2SO4]

Let me question you all a question: "How many of you are going to turn down a chance to be the first owner of a 128 bit system, and also be the first on the beta list to test the new OS for a 128 bit system.

I know my name is going to be at the top (if I live that long).

FTW

I'd like to offer a counterpoint, but only because I'm like that, not because I'm not excited by the thought of bigger and better computers. (I totally agree with Lee, and with Antman's "FTW".)

As Clive Sinclair reportedly retorted when somebody asked him why he settled for the 8-bit Z80 processor in his ZX Spectrum (at a time when 16-bit architectures were becoming available), "because I couldn't find a 4-bit chip I really liked."

The outwardly facetious comment is in fact insightful.

Previously, the transition to greater "bittiness" was always forced upon us by simple mathematical exhaustion of the describable memory address range. The 16-bit [segment: offset] addressing scheme was designed to defeat the overly limiting 64KB flat address space. Even so, 1MB became insufficient within a few years. When the first 80386 PC came out in the mid-80s, the 32-bit machine was capable of a flat 4GB address space. That was sufficient or adequate for around two decades. By the mid-90s, large databases were pushing the envelope, so as a stopgap Intel brought out 36-bit addressing and PAE for a grand total of 64GB. It wasn't uncommon for massive server systems to nudge against that limit by 2000 or a few years later.

The 64-bit address space is 16 exabytes in size. However, Windows currently artificially limits itself to a mere fraction of that (though that will change in future versions). This time around, we are not even close to exhausting the address space yet, so the talk of double the bittiness is being driven by other factors.

The number of available general purpose registers, the way they are used, the efficiency of the calling convention... Currently, the potential of a new architecture is more exciting because of the chance to improve in those areas than because of the meaninglessly vast 128-bit address space. Even the 64-bit one we've got now is still almost entirely empty.

I expect that none of this would be happening yet if Intel could achieve greater uptake of their IA-64 product.

 

[swarfega]

http://community.winsupersite.com/b...9/10/08/windows-8-to-be-128-bit-only-lol.aspx

Thurrot says this is a bogus rumour.

 

[Antman]

Robert Morgan - LinkedIn

The seed - as archived at Google.

 

[Slimy]

http://community.winsupersite.com/b...9/10/08/windows-8-to-be-128-bit-only-lol.aspx

Thurrot says this is a bogus rumour.

Thurrot said Windows 7 would be released in April 2009. Even if Windows 8 won't come with 128-bit support, this doesn't change the fact that Microsoft is working on it.

 

[logicearth]

http://community.winsupersite.com/b...9/10/08/windows-8-to-be-128-bit-only-lol.aspx

Thurrot says this is a bogus rumour.

The rumor is about Windows 8 ONLY coming in 128bit, not 64bit or 32bit. Gotta read the title CAREFULLY.

 

[chuckr]

Robert Morgan - LinkedIn

The seed - as archived at Google.

Interesting...

... 128 bit architecture compatibility ... with major partners:
Intel, AMD, HP and IBM.

Chipmakers.

 

[Win7User512]

Would average users need such capabilities?

 

[sup3rsprt]

Average users will be fine with 32-bit

Because all average people do is spend countless hours of their life on sites like myspace, facebook, and twitter. You don't need 128 or even 64 bits for that.

 

[KiwiTT]

Windows 8 to support 128-bit

... Research & Development projects including 128bit architecture compatibility with the Windows 8 kernel and Windows 9 project plan. Forming relationships with major partners: Intel, AMD, HP and IBM.

source

 

[Maxman]

   Information

Enough about Windows 7: what about 8 or 9? 128-bit slated! Click here to find a blog by Richi Jennings along with detailed discussion for your info.

 

[sideeffect]

The need for 64 bit processors was important to address the increasing RAM usage in modern home computers. We currently have no such problem the limitation is the size of the current modules or amount of RAM slots.

Many advanced calculations are currently better performed on GPU's than CPU's and this will only increase over the next few years with Nvidia pushing CUDA and ATI pushing Stream.

Will people who do actually require 128 bit processing really want to use a Microsoft operating system that is designed for the home desktop user? I really don't think so as a more specialist optimised operating system would seem preferable.

I do believe Microsoft should start development of their 128bit operating system but Windows 8 seems early and I would prefer they spend more time optimising the operating system to better utilise the GPU. The current ATI generation has over 3TFLOPS of computing power which is waiting to be utilised outside of gaming.

 

[G2gCya]

i cant feel any difference between 32 and 64 bit, what major difference can 128 bit offer?

 

[sup3rsprt]

i cant feel any difference between 32 and 64 bit, what major difference can 128 bit offer?

a bigger ****?

no doubt there will be situations where 128-bit would excel, but personally I'm not overly hyped about it. I'm still using 32-bit Windows most of the time, but I do use 64-bit whenever I can benefit from it (rarely).