[citation][nom]razorblaze42[/nom]1 Octet =8bits. In its simplest form 32 bit refers to integers, memory addresses, or other data unit’s width, which are 4 octets’ wide or 8 octets wide in 64 bit.. If you think in terms of lanes of traffic you can move more 8 passenger’s vehicles on 8 lanes faster and more efficiently than on 4 lanes. A quick check on Wikipedia shows that 64bit computing has been around since the 1960’s, so it’s not exactly new, though it wasn’t practical in the desktop computing market until the innovation by AMD to adapt 64bit to the x86 architecture, and Intel followed suit. I wouldn’t call myself gullible in terms of 128 bit OS, let’s just say technically pessimistic and optimistic at the same time. You see, I believe both AMD and Intel have reach the upper limits of increasing the speed of CPU’s with a “somewhat” firm cap of 4Ghz on air, absent extreme cooling solutions. (Over clockers notwithstanding) Its seems reasonable to me, that if you can’t increase the speed of traffic, the next best thing is increasing the width of the lanes to get larger chunks of data crunched within or below the 4 GHz envelope. As the CPU die continue to shrink and we add more cores from Single, Dual, Quad, to Octo and Hexa and beyond, I believe, we’re going to see lower clocks and wider lanes, thereby getting more done faster, which theoretically is a speed increase. There’s a considerable amount of buzz around the web that “Microsoft is researching architecture for windows 8/9 which includes 128bit compatibility with the windows 8 kernel.” While Microsoft isn’t confirming or denying this we do see both AMD and Intel have already added some 128bit instruction sets to its CPU’s. Now that doesn’t mean these current generation CPU’s will run a 128bit OS, but it does show they’re getting the infrastructure in place for an eventual move to 128bit. Now as for the argument that Microsoft can’t move to 128bit because they haven’t fully explored 64bit yet. Vista hadn’t been fully explored before moving to windows 7 and the same for DX10, but it didn’t stop them from moving to DX11, so this argument doesn’t hold water. With the success of windows 7, why would anyone move to windows 8? I don’t think another UI refresh is going to sway a lot of users, but for me, 128bit OS just maybe an interesting enough caveat to move the tech savvy to shell out hard cash for a shiny new OS.PS. The only reason 64bit has been slow to reach mainstream computing, is based upon the success of windows XP 32bit, which still hold the largest market share of home computers. OEM’s simply didn’t have the incentive to move to 64bit, when the lion share of its customer were, and still are on 32 bit. However Microsoft is forming at mouth to kill of XP once and for all, and 128bit OS just might be what’s necessary for the death blow. Ancient Chinese proverb: “Slow adoption will only stifle innovation for so long”[/citation]
Valid point but I made the somewhat mistake of upgrading to 64bit Vista about a year ago. I would have figured it would be more widely adopted years after it's introduction, I was wrong. There are a lot of programmers that just refuse to program with Vista in mind and or update there software for solid 64 bit computing. I will not for one be an early adopter until a 128 bit OS becomes at least 25% adopted by the market. I think 64 bit hovers around 15%. Don't get me wrong I love my 8GB of RAM but besides mainstream software it's getting annoying see small software which is the mass majority choosing to blow off Windows Vista and 64 bit functionality. It's depressing sometimes as I liked my context menu with my Encryption software and I went through over a dozen which refuse to add code to there software to allow the menu to function in 64 bit.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram