Microsoft Working on 128-bit Windows

Status
Not open for further replies.

tayb

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2009
1,143
0
19,280
0
Oh man, 64 bit was considered the "holy grail" and that was all that we would need. No more limitations. 128 bit is crazy. I don't think it will be necessary or relevant really until Windows 9 or 10. 64-bit on the Windows side still doesn't see mass adoption because of all the older computers that aren't 64-bit capable.

I wonder how long until we see 128-bit processors? AMD64 was a hit and they've been underwhelming since then maybe they'll make a comeback with AMD128 lol.
 

Supertrek32

Distinguished
Nov 13, 2008
442
0
18,780
0
Will 128-bit be incompatible with 32-bit software the same way 64 is incompatible with 16? If so, it'll be a long time before this happens, considering 90% of software out right now is 32bit...
 

jn77

Distinguished
Feb 14, 2007
587
0
18,990
2
So, 128 bit windows on a 128bit computer with 100 TB hard drive space, and 32 tb ram, with 512 core processor.... How would that affect the ability for me to edit 1080p HD video? in comparison with todays hardware....
 

jn77

Distinguished
Feb 14, 2007
587
0
18,990
2
[citation][nom]JN77[/nom]So, 128 bit windows on a 128bit computer with 100 TB hard drive space, and 32 tb ram, with 512 core processor.... How would that affect the ability for me to edit 1080p HD video? in comparison with todays hardware....[/citation]


It would be nice to edit HD Video at double or quad speed (2x or 4x) edit 1 hour of HD video in 15 minutes..... I remember the days of doing that with video tapes... digital is so behind......
 

hannibal

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
2,449
82
19,890
14
128 bit dream computer: edit in real time with all effects
64 bit crap today highend computer: edit in real time, wait some time (even a couple of seconds) for redering the effects...

So there can be difference

;-)

128 bit offer even bigger memory space and wider registry entry. Usefull... eventually and in some aplications maybe even today
 

hannibal

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
2,449
82
19,890
14
In reality: There is never a thing like "Nobody needs more memory than xxx" "It's overkill" "When we have xxxxx We don't need faster computers"...
Maybe this mean that win8 is released "only" 64bit and 128bit versions?
"The old 32bit king is dead, Long live the new 64bit king!
Maybe?
 

bison88

Distinguished
May 24, 2009
618
0
18,980
0
I don't think Windows 8 should have any 128 bit support at all. It may sound soon but we are speaking 2 generations ahead and given MS timescale of about 4 years or so for a complete upgrade OS that buys us at least 8 years from now. That is a long way away. Of course people look towards the "memory" factor when they weigh in 32 vs 64 but there are some other incentives that just aren't relevant right now mostly because people still don't want to make the switch even after 6 years and software developers don't want to focus just on 64 bit when the majority is still 32 bit. Its a stalemate and up to the consumers to get off there ass and move forward, can't always blame the developers and companies who want to progress and spend the money doing so. You as a consumer have to want it to happen.

That being said it will either be a flop or a success depending on who breaks the stalemate first. 128 bit is not neccessary for the consumer market IMO but for the corporations and the government it could become useful since they have there own teams designing software for there needs anyways.

Don't just think 128 bit will support 100 million googlillion gigabytes of ram. I am still waiting on 16GB sticks of ram like the rest of everyone now that I made the switch, not like much uses anything near that much anyways but still its nice to be ahead of the technology times for once and not worry about upgrading at least one peripheral every 3 months. I guess 8GB will have to do, until next time see you all when we are all running Windows 9. :)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Very funny - someone who is just learning how to walk without support is now working on Olympics Running Race...

The best joke of the year - wat did they really do with the 64bit part in the first place? its still immature and not to mention not wide spread and better yet they want to move to 128 bit...

So stupid - way to go Microsoft - Windows 7 is the only thing tht's here to save you for now after all the list of super stupid failure's - winmo 6.5, zune hd, project pink, bing, yahoo deal, Danger platform to name a few - everything they now do is as bald as its CEO - Only company in the world that still manages to demand respect after all they do is only mistakes..

Bill Gates was way better as a CEO and the company really did something right at those times... Now all we see is a bunch of morons...
 

pbrigido

Distinguished
Mar 6, 2008
529
0
18,980
0
I don't understand the negativity around this. We are finally getting software ahead of hardware when it comes to this.

To answer the question, "What is the point of going higher than 64 bit?" Let me respond with a rhetorical question. What is the point of going from 16 bit to 32 bit....or 32bit to 64 bit?
 

tpi2007

Distinguished
Dec 11, 2006
475
0
18,810
6
If Microsoft is really working on a 128-bit version of Windows that brings up an even more interesting question: does that mean Intel and /or AMD is working on a 128-bit processor ? And what is the exact need for this ? Faster processing without the addition of more cores/higher frequency? I have an entry level Pentium E2140 on a secondary PC and Windows 7 Experience Index gives it a 4,3 when under Win 7 32-bit and jumps to 4,6 when under Win 7 64-bit.
 

jblack

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2009
118
0
18,690
2
[citation][nom]izliecies[/nom]What is the point of going higher than 64 bit?[/citation]


Amen! With 64 bit you can support up to 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes of RAM. I don't see us hitting that anytime soon.
 

pbrigido

Distinguished
Mar 6, 2008
529
0
18,980
0
"With 64 bit you can support up to 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes of RAM. I don't see us hitting that anytime soon."

True, but there is nothing wrong having software already prepared to handle new hardware once it is introduced into the market.
 

quantum mask

Distinguished
Aug 24, 2009
178
0
18,680
0
Does anyone know off hand how much RAM 128 bit processors will support? I know that, depending on OS limitations, a 64 bit processor can address 16EB (exebytes) of memory. How much for 128 bit?
 

jasperjones

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2009
96
0
18,640
2
Merely two years ago, if you wanted to run a 64-bit OS, your best bet was Linux x86-64. 64-bit Windows Vista had driver issues. And not just with uncommon hardware. Of course, hardware support in XP Pro 64-bit is pretty bad, even today.

So I'm glad to hear they're working on 128-bit now...
 

jasperjones

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2009
96
0
18,640
2
[citation][nom]quantum mask[/nom]Does anyone know off hand how much RAM 128 bit processors will support? I know that, depending on OS limitations, a 64 bit processor can address 16EB (exebytes) of memory. How much for 128 bit?[/citation]

The square of 16 exbibytes. That's 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 bytes, btw
 

liquidsnake718

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2009
1,379
0
19,310
5
[citation][nom]quantum mask[/nom]Does anyone know off hand how much RAM 128 bit processors will support? I know that, depending on OS limitations, a 64 bit processor can address 16EB (exebytes) of memory. How much for 128 bit?[/citation]

That was the first thing I thought of. If 16gb for Win 7 is maxed out, then 32gb would be the estimated Gb amount of Ram since 128 double the bit. Wow I remember when whole console systems were 128bit and THAT seemed revolutionary in 1999! This is a damn OS which is virtual!

I can imagine 32 GB or even 64gb worh of RAM. By then our Ram might even be 32nm SSD type of RAM or something.... But I suspect we wonot be seeing this until 2015 or WIN9 by 2018... Still a long way to go.
 

hellwig

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
1,743
0
19,860
26
They said IA-128, which means Itanium.

Windows has had a IA-64 version since the Itanium was released, back in 2003 well before the x64 "consumer" version was released in 2005 (Win 2003/Xp Pro x64). Therefore, unless you own an Itanium processor to begin with, this is no news.

Since only a select few research departments own Itaniums, none of us should care. When AMD creates the AMD128 architecture, which will then be re-marketed as x128 to ease Intel's eventual adoption, be sure Microsoft will create a consumer version based on that, until then, don't hold your breath.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS