Microsoft Now Recruiting for Windows 8

[ptroen]

Actually on top of the 64 bit which should be sufficient on the CPU side I would like to see something address the 32 bit GPU memory addressability issue. Current versions of DirectX(that includes 11) can only support 4 gigabytes of GPU memory. We are very close to reaching that maximum.

 

[DjEaZy]

... if i understand right, there is gonna be a 128Bit version... the question is... who gonna build a 128Bit CPU first...

 

[climber]

[citation][nom]cheepstuff[/nom]we are many years (even several decades) away from needing a 128-bit OS. the only applications of such software today is in supercomputers. an OS like that will only give home computers a loss of performance due to an increase of instruction size. realize that a jump from 32 bit to 64 bit is nothing like 64 to 128.by the way, a 32bit OS can take a maximum of 3.3 gigs of ram and a 64 bit takes a maximum of 16.8 million terabytes (16 exabytes). because the motherboard RAM limit is currently 12 gigs, i don't think microsoft is planning to release a PC 128bit OS any time soon.[/citation]

Motherboard RAM limit 12GB? How about all those workstation and server motherboards that support 32, 64, 96, 128 144, 256GB of RAM? Yes the 256GB one is a specialty server board with a riser board for the extra memory. The extra registers to support the added memory space is highly important in scientific computing in the HPC sector, supercomputers, computing clusters, etc. However, think about having a 100+ GB RAMDISK that works at a few tens of GB/s? Wouldn't that make your apps scream.

 

[ravewulf]

I just wish they could make Libraries an optional feature instead of using it as default. Even if Libraries is very useful in some situations, I prefer to stick with regular folders for most situations.

 

[sidran32]

Nothing to see here... they aren't going to put their dev team on hiatus, and it doesn't take just a year to code a new OS. The next product should be already planned out and development underway by the time the current product hits the consumer market.

[citation][nom]ravewulf[/nom]I just wish they could make Libraries an optional feature instead of using it as default. Even if Libraries is very useful in some situations, I prefer to stick with regular folders for most situations.[/citation]
You know, your folders are still there, you can... you know... just use them.

 

[randomizer]

Moving to 64-bit is not just about supporting more RAM. If you think it is, perhaps you should go read some Wikipedia. The move to 128-bit purely for more RAM is pointless, as not even the largest supercomputers can utilise the full address range of a 64-bit processor yet, especially if they are using x86-64 CPUs since those only have 48-bit memory address ranges anyway. Even a processor with a full 64-bit memory address range supports far too much memory to physically fit in a current computer system smaller than a city block.

 

[buwish]

Goes to show that there is never a slow moment as MS. 128-bit will probably make an appearance at the server level first at some point in the future; who knows when though. I'd be curious to eventually see what MS's plans are for in regard to the planned release of W8. My guess is that they'll see how W7 does over the next few years and take it from there.

 

[cough-fee]

Coming Soon: Windows 8 with "Green Screen of Death" because Microsoft is going green.

 

[wira020]

i wonder if it will mean that x86 will become obselete?... i mean when when os starts to only offer 64bit and above... does it mean amd will not require license from intel anymore?... and intel will have to start paying for it?... just wondering... doesnt really understand the whole x86-64 thing..

 

[sleepflower]

Third party software update sounds promising, though I would like them to throw in better driver installation and updation. Maybe even BIOS. It is one thing I like about my mac laptop. Reinstalling on my desktop is laborious.

 

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]wira020[/nom]i wonder if it will mean that x86 will become obselete?... i mean when when os starts to only offer 64bit and above... does it mean amd will not require license from intel anymore?... and intel will have to start paying for it?... just wondering... doesnt really understand the whole x86-64 thing..[/citation]
Of course AMD will need to keep getting access to Intel's licence. They can't build an x86 CPU with x86-64 extensions without Intel's licence, and Intel can only build an x86 CPU without AMD's x86-64 licence unless they work on their own implementation (which will fail because it's up against a mature implementation).

 

[mavroxur]

[citation][nom]cheepstuff[/nom]because the motherboard RAM limit is currently 12 gigs, i don't think microsoft is planning to release a PC 128bit OS any time soon.[/citation]



You don't shop motherboards very often do you? There's several boards out there that will do 16gb on 4 slots and 24gb on 6 slots.... Newegg's search tool can be your friend

 

[ALANMAN]

[citation][nom]ravewulf[/nom]I just wish they could make Libraries an optional feature instead of using it as default. Even if Libraries is very useful in some situations, I prefer to stick with regular folders for most situations.[/citation]

Libraries are just are just groupings of folders. They can be edited to include only one folder

 

[christop]

Wow 7 just came out and they are starting on 8.. I hope it will be a kinda cheap upgrade to 8. I wonder what could be added to make it even better. I am loving 7..

 

[Regulas]

If MS wants to get away from Swiss Cheese OSs they should take a lesson from Apple. They did copy OS X looks for 7 anyway. Move to a open source Unix platform and drop MS DOS that is still in their kernel. Yes and their is ice cream in Hell too.

 

[Regulas]

[citation][nom]christop[/nom]Wow 7 just came out and they are starting on 8.. I hope it will be a kinda cheap upgrade to 8. I wonder what could be added to make it even better. I am loving 7..[/citation]
Windows 7 is nothing but Vista SP3 so 8 will be Vista SP5 or SP6

 

[apache_lives]

[citation][nom]sciencectn[/nom]Why don't they give it a cool name, instead of just a number?[/citation]

Well even the number is BS concidering windows 7 is actually "Windows NT 6.1" (and vista being its sister product at 6.0) - if anything 8 is actually a 7 if they stick to it (run commmand any type in "ver").

 

[NightLight]

I think it is great that Microsoft is thinking ahead. They have a stable product out, and I think sales within the next year or two are gonna jump up because of Win 7's good performance. It will eventually replace all xp and vista's before the next version comes out. People can't keep sticking to XP, it was a great OS, but I remember a lot of people hating it the first year, but it's time to move on. They have 4 or 5 years to complete a new os, and that is not a lot of time considering the industries pace these days. I think the whining about MS should stop, because they have put some great products on the market over the years, and yes, there have been some mistakes, but nobody is perfect.
I actually enjoyed vista, it never crashed here. Now that I have windows 7 I wouldn't go back to any other Os, this one is almost perfect for me.
Let me be the first on THG to actually thank Microsoft instead of hammering it.

 

[apache_lives]

ummmmm if i remember correctly, all current processors are STILL 32-bit native with 64-bit extensions, and the actual "bit" doesnt matter unless your apps are memory hungry, allowing 4+gb memory access etc.

As for this AMD 64-bit first BS - Intel had the Itanium which is an all native 64-bit processor well before AMD, but went in a different direction to todays desktop 64-bit processors (AMD64), but in terms of a DESKTOP 64-bit CPU, YES.

 

[False_Dmitry_II]

I like the mention in there about updating 3rd party apps. One of the things I really hate about windows is how every stupid program wants to install a wasteful service that just constantly checks for updates and then bug you about it. If they make a package manager, like debian/ubuntu uses that will be very cool. Only the one update and upgrade run for all applications across the entire system is not only more convenient but much less wasteful of resources.

 

[sidran32]

[citation][nom]False_Dmitry_II[/nom]I like the mention in there about updating 3rd party apps. One of the things I really hate about windows is how every stupid program wants to install a wasteful service that just constantly checks for updates and then bug you about it. If they make a package manager, like debian/ubuntu uses that will be very cool. Only the one update and upgrade run for all applications across the entire system is not only more convenient but much less wasteful of resources.[/citation]
The problem is that then Microsoft would have to pay money and support all these apps. And for an open platform like Windows is, that would be a nearly impossible task, due to the massive number of apps that are written. Windows Update handles driver updates for commonly used internal hardware, and that's enough. But unless you're Apple, who has a closed system and so has more direct control as well as a smaller library of software, or Ubuntu, where the community supports both the OS and the software provided on it by the nature of it, it would be inappropriate to expect Microsoft to support all the software that's out there in the Windows ecosystem.

Though if you have a business plan to make it happen, by all means, share it.

 

[wildwell]

Is it still designed by me?

 

[falchard]

I think we will be on 128-bit versions of OS in Windows X. Intel is currently working on a 128bit processor. Since Intel has such a large market share, it should catch on quicker then 64bit.

 

[tester24]

[citation][nom]DjEaZy[/nom]... if i understand right, there is gonna be a 128Bit version... the question is... who gonna build a 128Bit CPU first...[/citation]

Could always see if the Emotion engine chip from the PS2 will work...

 

[tester24]

I can see Windows 8 being the last Microsoft OS supporting 32 bit computing, however the emphasis will be on the 64 bit computing and a small bit on 128 bit (mostly server driven).

[citation][nom]falchard[/nom]I think we will be on 128-bit versions of OS in Windows X. Intel is currently working on a 128bit processor. Since Intel has such a large market share, it should catch on quicker then 64bit.[/citation]

Doubtful, you still need people to program for it, sure Windows is going to but how many programs are going to still be 64 bit? It took quite a few years before 64 bit processors became the normal and that was only because when it first came out having 2 gigs of ram was pretty rare so why have a need for more than that, now that having around 4 gigs of RAM is the normal that 64 bit computing really has taken off.