MS working on 128-bit Windows 8

[Thelasko]

Gizmodo is spreading a rumor (http://gizmodo.com/5376443/windows-7-64-bit-windows-8-try-128-bit)that Microsoft is developing a 128 bit version of Windows 8 or 9.

<sarcasm>Because of the success and wide adoption of 64-bit Windows they decided to move on to 128 bit.</sarcasm>

[CharmyBee]

Yeah, and SEGA's making the Dreamcast 2, launch title Shenmue III, and Infinium Labs will change gaming forever.

[LookTJ]

Wait, since when did 64bit on the Windows get widely adopted, most applications aren't even built on 64bit Windows. Not to my knowledge.

[dragos240]

It would be AWESOME if sega was making a dreamcast 2. But it's not happening, there were rumors, but alas. No DC2. Why don't you make consoles anymore sega!

[Tipped OuT]

Wait, since when did 64bit on the Windows get widely adopted, most applications aren't even built on 64bit Windows. Not to my knowledge.

Yeah, makes no sense at all.


Why don't you make consoles anymore sega!

Because they suck. :P It's only the truth, if they didn't, they'd still be around.

[juancarlospaco]

Why so few Bits...?

do it well, 1024 Bit or 2 PetaBit OS

[Frak]

I think it's really just because when some Linux evangelist says "Well, we support 128-bit", Microsoft can come back and say "Yeah, but we've supported it longer and have better support".

Kinda like a slap in the face and a big "Shut it" to crazy evangelists.

[Xbehave]

I think it's really just because when some Linux evangelist says "Well, we support 128-bit", Microsoft can come back and say "Yeah, but we've supported it longer and have better support".

Kinda like a slap in the face and a big "Shut it" to crazy evangelists.

Too late (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System/370)!

The fact Microsoft are moving to a 128bit compatible OS means they will be able to use 128bit filesystems (something like ZFS), they are not going to require 128bit processors (which is good because AFAIK they don't exists in any real sense) or anything stupid like that!

[mudguts]

I'm actually in the process of installing Windows 7 64bit as I type this (at 34%).
I was searching for into on 64bit printers when I stumbled across this thread.

I guess I'll see if it makes a huge difference, might go back to 32bit so I could run my 'Quickbooks' application but want to find a financial application in the cloud anyway.

[j.bell730]

Meh, Microsoft has been known to announce vaporware (http://www.kmfms.com/whatsbad.html?no_custom_colors=true#vaporware) (see bullet point number two).

[Xbehave]

I was searching for into on 64bit printers when I stumbled across this thread. How can a printer have bittage? especially as they are connected by us(erial)b, surely any bit OS will communicate with any bit printer in the same way?

[rezonant]

If they are really working on a 128-bit feature, it's a processor/memory architecture (as in "128bit computers"), not a filesystem thing.

Straight from the Ars Technica article (http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/10/microsoft-mulling-128-bit-versions-of-windows-8-windows-9.ars), I quote Robert Morgan (the guy who leaked the info):
Working in high security department for research and development involving strategic planning for medium and longterm projects. 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.
Robert Morgan is working to get IA-128 working backwards with full binary compatibility on the existing IA-64 instructions in the hardware simulation to work for Windows 8 and definitely Windows 9.
IA-64 is also known as Itanium, it is Intel's pure 64-bit processor architecture (not to be confused with the x86-64 in your computer, which gives you 64-bit while allowing compatibility with software built for 32-bit Intel PCs.

The thing is, a 64-bit system can have up to ~18 exbibytes[1] of RAM. I wonder how many admins running systems that have more RAM than that would install Windows on them...

[1] (theoretical max; most 64-bit computers today are more limited either by how many DIMM slots are available, the maximum that the motherboard itself supports and of course the availability of DIMMs that are even close);
why 18 exbibytes: 64-bit processors have 64-bit pointers, so the maximum amount of RAM is the same as the biggest number you can fit: one less than 2^64 which is:
18 446 744 100 000 000 000 bytes
or 18 446 744 100 GiB
or 18.4461 EiB

[Thelasko]

Wait, since when did 64bit on the Windows get widely adopted, most applications aren't even built on 64bit Windows. Not to my knowledge.

somebody missed the <sarcasm> tag.

[Tipped OuT]

somebody missed the <sarcasm> tag.

No, he was referring to the article and it's claims. It's bull crap is what he's trying to tell you.

[starcannon]

Someone has to stoke the hardware fire; how are we gonna get 128 bit cpu's out in the market place if MS doesn't promise to support them? This scheme worked for 64bit cpu's, it'll likely work for this architecture as well.

So will AMD be the first one to market or will Intel come up with it first. The suspense is killing me.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Someone has to stoke the hardware fire; how are we gonna get 128 bit cpu's out in the market place if MS doesn't promise to support them? This scheme worked for 64bit cpu's, it'll likely work for this architecture as well.

So will AMD be the first one to market or will Intel come up with it first. The suspense is killing me.

Likely Intel
AMD could do it first, but they dont have the backing intel does.

[Frak]

Likely Intel
AMD could do it first, but they dont have the backing intel does.
Intel will start a 128-bit processor, never finish, until AMD finishes it, and then Intel will license it, and then give it another name.

Hopefully you find the sarcasm.

[Eisenwinter]

Why so few Bits...?

do it well, 1024 Bit or 2 PetaBit OS
First, make a processor that supports that...

[3rdalbum]

It's because Windows 8 will only run smoothly if you have 18 exbibytes of RAM. Of course, what with memory mapped I/O becoming an issue again, that's why they need 128-bit processors.

[Giant Speck]

Guh. I just recently bought a computer that supports 64-bit. I don't think I'm ready for a 128-bit operating system. I don't think the world is ready for a 128-bit operating system.

What's funny is that I wasn't expecting Microsoft to announce this; I was expecting some random Linux distro to announce it. I bet if that had happened, it would have been more widely embraced by the Linux community. I mean, didn't Linux distros have support for 64-bit long before Windows did?

[t0p]

I mean, didn't Linux distros have support for 64-bit long before Windows did?

I don't know about that. But I remember that, when 64-bit XP came out, there was a serious lack of hardware compatibility. Manufacturers were reluctant to create drivers, probably because XP was scheduled to be released not much later.

Linux generally doesn't need to rely on manufacturers to release drivers.But Microsoft OSes do rely on the manufacturers. Which can adversely affect adoption of a new OS.

[jeyaganesh]

Ok, then stop buying Windows7. Let us wait for 8 :D:D

[coldReactive]

Guh. I just recently bought a computer that supports 64-bit. I don't think I'm ready for a 128-bit operating system. I don't think the world is ready for a 128-bit operating system.

What's funny is that I wasn't expecting Microsoft to announce this; I was expecting some random Linux distro to announce it. I bet if that had happened, it would have been more widely embraced by the Linux community. I mean, didn't Linux distros have support for 64-bit long before Windows did?

Why move away from 64-bit when it can support a massive 16.8 million terabytes of RAM, but current processors limit it because of physical restrictions.

[Screwdriver0815]

Ok, then stop buying Windows7. Let us wait for 8 :D:D
good plan!

or maybe we could wait until the first CPU which is capable for 128 Bit comes out and then see how long it takes to recompile all the Linux and FOSS source code in 128 Bit. :D

maybe the FOSS world is again faster than Microsoft :D

[NoaHall]

Why move away from 64-bit when it can support a massive 16.8 million terabytes of RAM, but current processors limit it because of physical restrictions.

I've already said. It's not just about the RAM.
32 bit processor = 32 bit word
64 bit processor = 64 bit word
128 bit processor = 128 bit word

They can handle twice as much data at the same time.

[Screwdriver0815]

Why move away from 64-bit when it can support a massive 16.8 million terabytes of RAM, but current processors limit it because of physical restrictions.
because Microsoft needs some attention. So this news is done, Microsoft has their attention... done. Now lets wait, how long it takes and whether Windows 8 comes out according to plan and whether Windows 8 has all the promised features. "Longhorn" also should have had loads of features which were dropped...

and it is not just the RAM. It is all about processing speed. I have just 2 Gb RAM but 64 Bit. It runs amazingly faster than a 32 bit system

[hessiess]

I've already said. It's not just about the RAM.
32 bit processor = 32 bit word
64 bit processor = 64 bit word
128 bit processor = 128 bit word

They can handle twice as much data at the same time.

Besides crypto, there rilly isn't any application which would have any use for a 128 bit number.

[NoaHall]

Not at the moment. You need to understand how technology changes. 10 years ago, you never would have thought you'd need 2 GB of ram. But now, it's common place. The same applies to processors.

[Thelasko]

good plan!

or maybe we could wait until the first CPU which is capable for 128 Bit comes out and then see how long it takes to recompile all the Linux and FOSS source code in 128 Bit. :D

maybe the FOSS world is again faster than Microsoft :D

Yeah, to make Linux 128 Bit capable, wouldn't just the kernel and GCC have to be rewritten. Everything else would just need to be recompiled with GCC.

*edit* anything that interfaces with hardware (ie drivers) would have to be rewritten too.*edit*

[infestor]

wait...IBM already did it!

[MellonCollie]

Some of the people in the comments section of the Ars article are claiming that there is no "Robert Morgan" at Microsoft. This might have been a hoaxaroo.

[Screwdriver0815]

Yeah, to make Linux 128 Bit capable, wouldn't just the kernel and GCC have to be rewritten. Everything else would just need to be recompiled with GCC.
so what does this story show? It shows how superior FOSS is over proprietary software.

creating some conspiracy theory I would say:

maybe Microsoft just launched these news to seed some FUD. FUD to confuse the Linux developers and with this bringing them into panic that "we might lose a step". This causing hundreds of developers working on 128 Bit and with this splitting the development forces and so slowing down the current development.

But instead, this news brought up a good idea: why not 128 Bit? Lets rewrite the GCC and the Kernel... and then recompile all our stuff... and in the meantime the Microsoft guys are struggeling to get their OS running... and then they drop it because it is not saleable... :D :lolflag:

[Thelasko]

why not 128 Bit? Lets rewrite the GCC and the Kernel... and then recompile all our stuff... and in the meantime the Microsoft guys are struggeling to get their OS running... and then they drop it because it is not saleable... :D :lolflag:

We need hardware specs first. Since MS is partnering with Intel on the hardware it gives them the advantage.

[SomeGuyDude]

http://imgur.com/mnkg8.png

[Screwdriver0815]

We need hardware specs first. Since MS is partnering with Intel on the hardware it gives them the advantage.
so its not like exchanging a "32" or a "64" into a "128" in the source code and you are done?

damn! :D

I thought (I don't have any clue about all this, but anyway) that when you have all this information and specs (now in 32 and 64 Bit) you can somehow "expand" it to 128 or maybe even 1024 Bit?

But Intel also cooperates fine with Linux...

[Thelasko]

Unlike Windows, my Ubuntu machine is 100% 64 bit!

[Thelasko]

I thought (I don't have any clue about all this, but anyway) that when you have all this information and specs (now in 32 and 64 Bit) you can somehow "expand" it to 128 or maybe even 1024 Bit?

I'm not a kernel hacker, this is just my understanding of the situation from speaking with people who are.

[starcannon]

Why move away from 64-bit when it can support a massive 16.8 million terabytes of RAM, but current processors limit it because of physical restrictions.
Yeah, I just don't see how I can operate with less than 24million terabytes of RAM; hurry up 128bit technology, get here quick, I have a small bunker full of ram I need to put to use. :D

[Penguin Guy]

With all these different-bit operating systems somebody needs to develop a dynamic-bit one, something that will use the most efficient amount at any one time. I wonder if this is actually possible...

[Frak]

But Intel also cooperates fine with Linux...

Money > Innovation and Cooperation

[Xbehave]

With all these different-bit operating systems somebody needs to develop a dynamic-bit one, something that will use the most efficient amount at any one time. I wonder if this is actually possible...
The largest bit one will be the most efficient because it takes 1 cycle to process 16 or 32 or 64 or X bit, what might be interesting is a multicore system that had a powerful 128bit core for real number crunching, with a lot of small 16bit cores (my limmited understandng of electronics suggests a 16bit core produced with modern techniques would be tiny) around it. I suppose that is the principle behind cuda,lambree,etc :S