What... are peripheral manufacturers going to all dump 32-bit drivers, bypass 64-bit drivers, and jump straight to 128-bit drivers in one fell swoop? And what 128-bit processors are in general use on computers now?
It's been several years since 64-bit processors became available, and we still don't have all-64-bit drivers and applications available. And it was the same story when processors went from 16-bit to 32-bit.
Practical 128-bit computing won't be possible for most people until after the transition from 32-bit to 64-bit is complete.
So, if this story is accurate about Windows 8/9 being 128-bit, then it will either be many years before it is released (likely, considering their usually slipping release schedule) or it will be a very limited-availability release with limited driver support.
This sounds more like one of the many vapor-ware announcements that used to appear in the 90's than a real announcement.
@hblair66000001002: Yes, because everyone knows you can't move your Windows taskbar to the top of the screen, and the screenshot is obviously a KDE 3.5 desktop made over to look like Windows. Oh, and Obama stole the election.
Does anyone else find it a bit stalkerish the way they tracked down resumes of Microsoft employees and looked through them for hints as to what features might be in Windows 8?
@ceilingFANBOY: How is reading publicly accessible info stalkerish? The Microsoft employees published their own resumes. It isn't like they were fished out of a dumpster or stolen.
Amen. pete1061. "We're big on 64-bit OSes" yet far too often the most current 64-bit OS (read: Vista 64) turns into nothing more than a HUGE PITA because you can't find drivers for the hardware you either own or want to own, or can't run software you have or need because of incompatibilities. So what's so GREAT about 64-bit OSes if it doesn't allow your computer to DO WHAT YOU NEED IT DO??
The real question here is *why*? I understand the limitations of 32bit (32bit values roll over at the 4GB mark), but we have no current limitations with 64bit that would obviate the need to move to 128bit.
In fact the switch from 32bit to 64bit is such an exponential change in the sheer volume of numbers that can be represented, we shouldn't need 128 bit any time in the next 20 years. If you don't believe me, do the math.
Isn't this really just sensationalized marketing crap? 64bit was good so 128 *has* to be better?
Great. Now we'll have the same retards asking if so and so is 128bit compatible. When we ask why they need 128bit, they'll say "because 128bit is better!" without knowing what the hell they're talking about. Then we'll find out they are running winxp with a gig of ram.....
It's called planning ahead. You don't make an entire OS 64-bit compatible overnight. Heck, because Windows XP wasn't designed with 64-bit compatibility in mind, the first version downright stank, Vista x64 was missing a shitload of drivers, and Windows 7 x64 will be the first version of 64-bit Windows that is ready on day one (then again, it's really more hardware vendor support than anything else).
However, any architecture transition will be bumpy if it's not planned out years in advance. And I think it's a good idea for Microsoft to think a few steps ahead.
@dagamer34: I think lot of companies tend to get a product out onto the market, and start concentrating on new products as they taper off support. Purchasers also want to feel that the company has confidence in the product they are releasing - 'What, I thought Windows 7 was perfect, why not wait for Windows 8'. This leads companies to remain tight-lipped about future products. If MS started talking about the next Xbox, sales of the 360 might drop - I think it is the same reason MS wanted to reinforce the idea that Project Natal would be an add-on, not a full console replacement as Balmer hinted at.
MS has a pretty good track record at supporting older products, especially OSes. Yeah, some Luddites complained when WFW3.11 was killed off (good riddance), but all through this Vista PR nightmare XP was still supported.
Jeez. Doesnt 64 bit support like a few hundred Gigs of ram? I can understand it if they want to start developing 128bit, but releasing a 128 bit os? Whats the point? We wont even have that much ram by then to make a 128 bit os worth using. And we arent even close to surpassing 64 bit.
@ryno365: 64-bit theoretically supports around 16 billion gigabytes. Current processors don't support a full 64-bit address space though - they're limited to 48-bits, meaning you can only put around 250,000 gigs in your PC.
It's not about the address space - it's more about having bigger registers, data bus, etc.
@anotirky: Usually I don't respond to noob comments like this but Plagiarism is a big charge.
This article is being covered on many blogs (including the one you posted) but if you actually RTFA you would see that Matt gave a link to the source :[arstechnica.com] Who also carried the story.
@anotirky: Yeah, I'm with Bertone on this one. This story is sourced (as are many of Gizmodo's Windows-related articles) to Ars. Try keeping a level head, and please to not accuse our friends of plagiarism.
I'm still confused as hell. I have a MacBook Pro with 4GB of ram. I'm currently running Snow Leopard build 10a421. Whenever I upgrade to the full version is the 64-bit actually going to be beneficial to me? Am I going to notice any speed differences from Leopard? Or is basically just going to be pointless. I mean they added a few cool new features but I was really looking forward to a bad ass 64-bit from apple that was going to make my laptop much faster.
10/09/09
It's been several years since 64-bit processors became available, and we still don't have all-64-bit drivers and applications available. And it was the same story when processors went from 16-bit to 32-bit.
Practical 128-bit computing won't be possible for most people until after the transition from 32-bit to 64-bit is complete.
So, if this story is accurate about Windows 8/9 being 128-bit, then it will either be many years before it is released (likely, considering their usually slipping release schedule) or it will be a very limited-availability release with limited driver support.
This sounds more like one of the many vapor-ware announcements that used to appear in the 90's than a real announcement.
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/09/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
In fact the switch from 32bit to 64bit is such an exponential change in the sheer volume of numbers that can be represented, we shouldn't need 128 bit any time in the next 20 years. If you don't believe me, do the math.
Isn't this really just sensationalized marketing crap? 64bit was good so 128 *has* to be better?
10/08/09
Bill Gates once said "we will never make a 32-bit operating system"
10/09/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
However, any architecture transition will be bumpy if it's not planned out years in advance. And I think it's a good idea for Microsoft to think a few steps ahead.
10/07/09
MS has a pretty good track record at supporting older products, especially OSes. Yeah, some Luddites complained when WFW3.11 was killed off (good riddance), but all through this Vista PR nightmare XP was still supported.
10/07/09
-Win FS team...
10/07/09
10/07/09
It's not about the address space - it's more about having bigger registers, data bus, etc.
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
copied from msftkitchen
http://msftkitchen.com/2009/10/exclusive-windows-8-and-windows-9-kernals-to-support-128-bit-architecture.html
10/07/09
This article is being covered on many blogs (including the one you posted) but if you actually RTFA you would see that Matt gave a link to the source :[arstechnica.com] Who also carried the story.
10/07/09
10/07/09
08/23/09