2011 32 bit systems becomes junkies...

[hockey97]

Hi, I just wanted to make a post about future computer stuff.

I read on a AMD fourm that cpus by 2011 will be using 128 bits and will be capadable with 64bit systems only. It indicates that 32bit systems will be no longer supported by 2011.

I just want people here thinking to buy a computer to try and get a 64bit system if they need to buy the computer right away or wait till 2011.

They were talking about crazy stuff for 2011 computer systems. Like 29 gigs or ram max.

Here is another fourm talking about it: http://forums.legitreviews.com/about18466.html

They even said that microsoft is already working on windows 8 and windows 9 which will have 128 bit versions.

I would like to hear what you guys here on ubuntu think about this?

what will linux do in the upcoming years?

[surfed]

With 2011 only 14 months away and 64bit systems not fully advantage taken of i call bull.

[pythonscript]

With 2011 only 14 months away and 64bit systems not fully advantage taken of i call bull.

+1 on that! How many basic web servers probably run on 32-bit systems? Plus, since the laptop market always lags behind the desktop market in terms of system strength (for obvious reasons of compactness, among others) virtually all companies would be hard pressed to develop laptops that can maintain a 64-bit, but especially a 128-bit system. A lot of laptops now can run 64-bit systems, but the fact that some hardware doesn't even support 64-bit yet, it seems far too early for an entirely new transition to be in the works.

[hockey97]

Well, I am hearing alot of stuff that indicates that by 2011 we will have 128bit systems.

I also heard many other people say the same what you said. Like why would they do that too fast? We haven't used fully the 64bit systems.

Yet I am heard from employees in microsoft and many other areas saying it's right now in the works. The next game consoles will have these 128bit systems under their hood.

Here is another article about microsoft leaks about windows 8 and 9:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/enterprise/352270/microsoft-leaks-details-of-windows-8-and-windows-9

I wounder what linux would do? Are the makers of ubuntu and other linux distrib planning right now to make an OS or a new version that will support such systems by year 2011.?

To me if this is true then I would have to say technology progression is speeding up. I mean it may seem we will skip the 64bit era. and Just go right now the 128bit era.

TO me this news sounds exciting. I mean I wounder how good the video games will get.

Their is alot of talk about this on the internet.

So I would love to hear what linux developers have in development right now for 2011.?

I personally thought microsoft will lose their shirts with windows 7. I mean if they have poor record sales. I met many people that said they will not buy windows 7. They will stick with what they have. I know people who downgraded from windows vista to windows xp and don't plan to buy windows 7 which comes out this Thursday.

I would agree that yes I think that we should stick a while with 64bit systems.

I currently don't own a 64bit system just nothing but 3 32bit systems.

I am right now looking to buy 3 more computers but woundering if it would be smart to either wait till 2011 or buy a 64bit system right now.

I heard they are more targeting businesses for the 128bit systems since it will be kinda pricy when they first arrive.

Keep the replies coming..

[Simian Man]

Except for some specialized areas like cryptography, I can't think of any good reason to own a 128-bit processor.

[surfed]

From your link:
it's highly unlikely that the OS will arrive until 2012 at the earliest.

Also, i dont see the point.

[hockey97]

ya microsoft said either late 2011 or by 2012 windows 8 will come out.

They are not giving a solid date. It's currently in the works.

However AMD says' their 128bit cpus will be on the market by early 2011.

This means AMD may be the first to release a 128bit cpu this is their plan. I am not sure if any new game console will come out by 2011. I just have a hunch the game consoles will be a 128bit system.

Here is some other talk about it: http://forums.n4g.com/tm.aspx?high=&m=727825&mpage=1#728318

[surfed]

But why? The only advantage 64 bits have is more than 4gb memory up to an insane amount actually 17179869184GB. Everything else runs slower. 64-bit pointers take twice as much memory, and operands take twice as much time. The 64-bit architecture is, for all intents and purposes, future-proof. There is no reason we would even potentially need more memory addressing capability for any known application in the forseeable future. Even if the "128-bit" CPU they reffering to is only 128-bits in terms of certain isolated capabilities, rather than memory addressing, it still makes no sense to call them 128-bit CPUs. In fact, modern processors are allready capable of dealing with more than 128-bits in a single instruction (SSE instructions for instance). I think if whatever they are going to call 128-bit will be pure marketing or exclusive for the server market.

[hockey97]

I think it's more geared for the businesses. Like for servers or any company that uses computers heavily for heavy tasks.

I know 64bit has a hug amout of memory adressing. 128bit will exceed this limit. It really won't make a difference but I think if they make 128bit systems and if you buy these 128bit systems you will have a computer that will take a while to be outdated. Depends really on the motherboard makers.

I just brought it up to figure out what will linux OS's would make OS'S that will be compatible with the 128bit systems.

[cariboo]

You have to remember that a lot of kernel devs work for the cpu manufacturers, so I'm sure if they were to manufacture 128-bit cpu's, Linux will support them, probably before Microsoft even creates a running version of Windows.

[coldReactive]

*cough cough* You mean x86, not 32-bits.

Plenty of other arches still use 32-bits for some things (this includes x86_64.)

PS3 isn't even x86 mind you, it's PowerPC.

Also, IA-### processors can't run lower-level OSes (IE: IA-64 can't run x86 oses.) This is why x86_64 processors were created.

[j7%<RmUg]

Yes, and you have to remember that windows 8 is just windows 7 with a different name.

Also i 64-bit isnt useless its faster than 32-bit and who doesnt want more RAM? (even if most people are only using 4-8GBs)

There was a poll a while back asking who used 32-bit and who used 64-bit, i think only around 16% of voters used 64-bit. so based on that i highly doubt we will be 64-bit only by 2012, i think it will happen eventually but only when at least 40%+ users use 64-bit.

Yes, i reckon the linux kernel will be the first to support 128-bit cpus, probably while microsoft are building their 6th vista clone.

[surfed]

Also i 64-bit isnt useless its faster than 32-bit

Proof please.

[running_rabbit07]

Proof please.

I can agree, when I was running 32 bit Ubuntu, it was just as snappy as 64 bit an the same machine.

Do they even use the full 64 bits? When I took A+ the book said something about they were only using 50 bits.

[surfed]

There are very few programs, mainly database stuff that will run faster on 64bit, everything else might actually run a tad slower.

[j7%<RmUg]

Ok, sorry ill rephrase that.

SOME things run faster on 64-bit for SOME people.

Better?

[surfed]

Ok, sorry ill rephrase that.

SOME things run faster on 64-bit for SOME people.

Better?

Thats a very different statement. I would go further and replace the first SOME with FEW.

[lisati]

I'm sure that it will be be possible to design a well-written 16-bit program that will work better than a poorly-written 64- or 128-bit program. The challenge in years to come will be to find a machine to run it on. (Edit: probably some kind of virtual machine.)

[surfed]

As I stated before its not about how the program was written but due to the fact that 64-bit pointers take twice as much memory, and operands take twice as much time. So unless the program takes advantage of the bigger ram available to 64-bit systems there is no advantage.

[running_rabbit07]

Here is a poll (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1295904) that I just started for this subject.

[lisati]

As I stated before its not about how the program was written but due to the fact that 64-bit pointers take twice as much memory, and operands take twice as much time. So unless the program takes advantage of the bigger ram available to 64-bit systems there is no advantage.

Agreed: the 64-bit pointers take twice the amount of memory, and there's a corresponding overhead with (other) operands.

Believe it or not, sometimes I miss programming for MS-DOS and putting in a small effort to make sure the program won't do nasty things on a machine that's configured slightly differently to mine.

[bruno9779]

32 bit systems have a sell by date.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem

In year 2038 all 32bit will be useless, so i guess that starting to replace everything a while before is a good idea, but 27 years early??

[hessiess]

Adding more and more extensions to the already very old and bloated x86 architecture isn't going to help. Getting away from the Outdated `IBM PC compatible' hardware would be a massive step in the right direction, it still uses a 16 bit BIOS for goodness sake.

[Exodist]

You have to remember that a lot of kernel devs work for the cpu manufacturers, so I'm sure if they were to manufacture 128-bit cpu's, Linux will support them, probably before Microsoft even creates a running version of Windows.
+1


Also to piggy back on th is. If we was to jump into the 128bit bandwagon, we can always include existing 64bit library files for a compatibility layer (I.e; for Flash Plugin) until 128bit versions are released.

[el mariachi]

Adding more and more extensions to the already very old and bloated x86 architecture isn't going to help. Getting away from the Outdated `IBM PC compatible' hardware would be a massive step in the right direction, it still uses a 16 bit BIOS for goodness sake.

yeah x86 has been around for a very long time... but I guess it's a big step to come up with a new arch and mass market it without some kind of retro-compat (hey look at the windows-to-linux example..)

it would be an important step though. As for 128-bit... why do we need 1gaziolionM of ram? I have 3Gb and I never use more than 800mb (and that's when I watch HD movies or play nexuiz)

[Exodist]

yeah x86 has been around for a very long time... but I guess it's a big step to come up with a new arch and mass market it without some kind of retro-compat (hey look at the windows-to-linux example..)

it would be an important step though. As for 128-bit... why do we need 1gaziolionM of ram? I have 3Gb and I never use more than 800mb (and that's when I watch HD movies or play nexuiz)

you actualy use a lot more for the OS not just your base programs. Just type "free" on the CL. But yea I agree 3 or 4GB is enough at the moment tho.

[3rdalbum]

The first anyone has heard of 128-bit x86 CPUs was a week ago when Microsoft started saying something about making Windows 8 for "IA-128".

I'm sure we would have heard about AMD and Intel's plans in this area earlier, if there were actually any plans afoot.

If 128-bit x86 CPUs (or non-x86-compatible, considering that IA-64 is not x86-compatible) come out, Windows will not be the first operating system to support them. I'm sure NetBSD or Linux will support it earlier. And all our software is only a recompile away from being 128-bit compatible too!

[pythonscript]

Plus, many game systems (like the Playstation 3) advertise that they use 128 bit systems, where in reality, they use 64-bit processors to work with 128-bit integers, which is a different system entirely. I wouldn't be surprised if this practice continues. For the 2038 problem, yes, that definitely makes a difference in the length of support for 32-bit systems, but even if it becomes a problem by 2018, that seems like a reasonable date to lose support for 32-bit systems. 9 years ago, 16-bit systems were still relatively common (at least my family had one at home that was becoming deprecated rapidly).

[coldReactive]

Plus, many game systems (like the Playstation 3) advertise that they use 128 bit systems, where in reality, they use 64-bit processors to work with 128-bit integers, which is a different system entirely.

Isn't... the PS3 PowerPC arch though?

[el mariachi]

yes

[YeOK]

It actually could be true. AMD talked about a 128-bit CPU a few years ago. The next major AMD release is due in 2011.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20090305165448_AMD_Delays_Bulldozer_Processors_to_ 2011.html

[el mariachi]

they could do it just because they can. that's always an option...

[surfed]

You know, this might be AMD's comeback. Bring out something that at least in numbers is better and catch up to Intel. They cant push the MHZ numbers as well anymore, so lets add more cores, more cache and tata...more bits....apeal to your braging needs.

[el mariachi]

humm dunno AMD was a huge hype with the Athlon series, at least the 3700 was a major hit here (portugal) every geek of the block had one xD (I still do, although I have a 4000+ hehe talk about bragging rights). They slipped and I didn't noticed (bought another AMD cpu though a triple-core) so maybe just pushing 128bits isn't going to cut it. I know people are mostly dumb and will buy whatever's shiniers and have bigger numbers and more useless features, but we are talking about BIG useless-ness here IMHO ;) if nothing is optimized for 64 (read: a lot of versatile common-day solutions, needed by preety much everyone) why make 128?

[YeOK]

humm dunno AMD was a huge hype with the Athlon series, at least the 3700 was a major hit here (portugal) every geek of the block had one xD (I still do, although I have a 4000+ hehe talk about bragging rights). They slipped and I didn't noticed (bought another AMD cpu though a triple-core) so maybe just pushing 128bits isn't going to cut it. I know people are mostly dumb and will buy whatever's shiniers and have bigger numbers and more useless features, but we are talking about BIG useless-ness here IMHO ;) if nothing is optimized for 64 (read: a lot of versatile common-day solutions, needed by preety much everyone) why make 128?


Just read another post, very good one too.

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/4/15/amds-next-gen-bulldozer-is-a-128-bit-crunching-monster.aspx?pageid=0

[red_Marvin]

Could who have stated that 128bit instructions would take longer time than <128bit instructions please elaborate on the reason for this?
I can see a few things;
1) as pythonscript said it's really the data size that is 128 bit and not the whole thing
2) bus widths being <128 bit making data transfer take more cycles.
...but those are not problems with 128bit instructions as such, it's just crappy impelmentation and support hardware.
Also no matter what the gaming industry tries to shove up, more bits does not automatically make better games. | sed "s/bits/other tech stuff/"

[markbuntu]

32 bit needs to go away. It is a zombie that is holding everything back.

[recluce]

The first anyone has heard of 128-bit x86 CPUs was a week ago when Microsoft started saying something about making Windows 8 for "IA-128".


Look who's talking! Aren't those boys at Microsoft the ones that don't even have full and complete 64bit support yet?

As in "all my drivers work on my 64bit Vista in 64bit mode?"

[recluce]

with 2011 only 14 months away and 64bit systems not fully advantage taken of i call bull.

+2

[SunnyRabbiera]

For the consumer 32bit will still be viable for a little longer but overall I doubt 128bit will be a viable option.
Mainly the state of 64bit in the mainstream, most still have little to support for it.
Microsoft has no mastery of 64bit thats for sure, as for linux bet it will be able to work well on 128bit soon enough.
Sooner then the other OS's

[Cope57]

I have been using my 64bit cpu with Debian amd64 kernel since 2003, now when are we going to 128bit?

I bet this is going to be like when we upgraded to 32bit, and it seemed nobody wanted to stop using 16bit. Now that 32bit is on its way out, there will be complaining, just like before...

The market will simply stop selling 32bit until 64bit is the standard. But first, all 32bit systems will go on sale so they can get off the shelves to make room for the 64bit.

But look at the bright side. With many 32bit running together, you can have one nice system.

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/3073/clusterfullsize3lg.th.jpg (http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/3073/clusterfullsize3lg.jpg)

[SunnyRabbiera]

I have been using my 64bit cpu with Debian amd64 kernel since 2003, now when are we going to 128bit?

I bet this is going to be like when we upgraded to 32bit, and it seemed nobody wanted to stop using 16bit. Now that 32bit is on its way out, there will be complaining, just like before...

The market will simply stop selling 32bit until 64bit is the standard. But first, all 32bit systems will go on sale so they can get off the shelves to make room for the 64bit.

But look at the bright side. With many 32bit running together, you can have one nice system.

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/3073/clusterfullsize3lg.th.jpg (http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/3073/clusterfullsize3lg.jpg)


But still 64bit still lacks the support it needs, 128bit seems like a pipe dream right now.
But there is one reason why I dont think 32bit will die in 2011:
The economy
If it stays at this rate the economy will prove bad for new standards.

[Faolan84]

But there is one reason why I dont think 32bit will die in 2011:
The economy
If it stays at this rate the economy will prove bad for new standards.

Actually I think that will be one of the things that will kill 32-bit. Even thought the economy is bad is is cheaper for Intel and AMD to only produce one architecture for consumer computers. If given the choice, they will choose to progress to 64 as it is well supported on the market.

Secondly, I don't think that Microsoft will continue 32-bit support in Windows in the next release. In Vista they finally dropped the last vestiges of DOS and Win16 entirely, so it will not surprise me if their next move is a totally .NET based platform in Windows 8 that will be 64-bit. Plus making such a move would reduce development costs by not having to maintain all that old code.

[Exodist]

I have been using my 64bit cpu with Debian amd64 kernel since 2003, now when are we going to 128bit?

I bet this is going to be like when we upgraded to 32bit, and it seemed nobody wanted to stop using 16bit. Now that 32bit is on its way out, there will be complaining, just like before...

The market will simply stop selling 32bit until 64bit is the standard. But first, all 32bit systems will go on sale so they can get off the shelves to make room for the 64bit.

But look at the bright side. With many 32bit running together, you can have one nice system.

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/3073/clusterfullsize3lg.th.jpg (http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/3073/clusterfullsize3lg.jpg)

Thats a nice little Beowulf setup.