Windows 8

[enewmen]

From what I read, Windows 6 will be 64bit and 128bit.
I also read that Visual Studio 2008 STILL doesn't have 64bit pointers.

This makes me think XP64, Vista 64, and Windows 7 are all still a 32bit OS with 64bit extensions. Like Windows 98 was 16bit with 32bit extensions.

This also makes me think Windows 8 will be the first TRUE 64bit Microsoft OS.
Like Windows NT was the first true 32bit OS.

This may mean the OS can address terabytes of data, having tons of RAM and all hard-drive storage always addressable.
I think Intel will have the Haswell about that time which will have 8+ cores and MANY smaller Larrabee-type co-processers on-die.
The hard-part is making software that can take advantage of this capability.

Does any of this sound true?

thanks!

 

[badge]

This may mean the OS can address terabytes of data, having tons of RAM and all hard-drive storage always addressable.

When?

 

[publicjj]

enewmen !

I think you are a knowledgeable man.

May you please comment on my thought?
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/2211-63-windows-64bit-windows-32bit-whining

Thank you,
PJ

 

[randomizer]

From what I read, Windows 6 will be 64bit and 128bit.

The 128-bit thing was mostly likely mis-reported. The only point for moving to 128-bit at all is for performance reasons of some applications that can use/require it. There is no reason at all for Microsoft to spend resources developing for a niche market that is probably already dominated by Linux (HPC). The extra address space for RAM is a moot point; you'd need a computer system the size of a city block or maybe more to fit that much RAM into it.

I also read that Visual Studio 2008 STILL doesn't have 64bit pointers.

You mean the program itself or the programs it can compile?

 

[enewmen]

randomizer: I understand your point about the 128 bit stuff.

http://www.ditii.com/2009/06/12/visual-studio-2010-will-be-32-bit-exclusive-no-64-bit/
I think both the program itself and the programs it can compile (maybe I'm wrong)

For the "tons" of RAM, I was thinking of the PC addressing the hard-drive AND the RAM at the same time. This means you won't need to load files from storage to RAM just to access them.
At the same time, I remember having 64megs of RAM 10 years ago and I have 8 gigs now (almost a 1000x fold). If this rate continues, I expect something really big to happen sometime soon.

Anyway, I think this is an opportunity for the biggest release since Windows NT.

 

[amnotanoobie]

From what I read, Windows 6 will be 64bit and 128bit.
I also read that Visual Studio 2008 STILL doesn't have 64bit pointers.

This makes me think XP64, Vista 64, and Windows 7 are all still a 32bit OS with 64bit extensions. Like Windows 98 was 16bit with 32bit extensions.

This also makes me think Windows 8 will be the first TRUE 64bit Microsoft OS.
Like Windows NT was the first true 32bit OS.

This may mean the OS can address terabytes of data, having tons of RAM and all hard-drive storage always addressable.
I think Intel will have the Haswell about that time which will have 8+ cores and MANY smaller Larrabee-type co-processers on-die.
The hard-part is making software that can take advantage of this capability.

Does any of this sound true?

thanks!

With Windows 8, 32-bit apps would probably be like the 16-bit apps of yesterday. You could still usually run them on the current OS, either with a little tweaking or an external app.

In Win 7's current state it could address already a few hundred gigs of ram, the only question is how much would a 64GB setup cost. What is really limiting us is the price, what is considered mainstream price at a certain point in time. A quick look at history:

Win98 - 256~512MB
WinXP - 512~1GB, 2GB is not really common place (then)
WinXP and Vista - 1GB~2GB, 4GB setups were expensive until the sudden price drops
Win 7 - 2GB~4GB, 8GB is not really uncommon, though it is an expense not all people consider.

 

[randomizer]

@enewman: The blog linked on that page (also here) explains why that is. As for the amazing amount of RAM you have now compared to the past, if it increases at the same rate, then in 10 years time you'll have 8TB of RAM. That's not even scratching the address range limit of 64-bit I'm not against advancement (quite the contrary), but MS is a business and they'll only do what is going to make them money.

@amnotanoobie: Windows 7, or Windows 2008 R2 to be more exact, can address up to 2TB of RAM as long as you have the Enterprise or Datacenter editions. It's an "artificial" limitation on the other editions that prevents them going anywhere near that.

 

[hannibal]

If win 8 is 64 bit only, it means that many people may have to upgrade to 64 bit win7 because after that the new programs finally may be 64 bit versions. In reality most programs will propably be 32bit even after win8 is released because so many are still using XP or 32 bit vista or win7 at that moment, but it will be the turning point. Interesting to see when there are not new 32 bit versions available... I mean games and other aplications. 2015 and after?

 

[gtvr]

At the same time, I remember having 64megs of RAM 10 years ago and I have 8 gigs now (almost a 1000x fold). If this rate continues, I expect something really big to happen sometime soon.

64MB x 1000 = 64000MB, or roughly 64GB
You have a little over 100x the RAM of 10 years ago (125x)

 

[sminlal]

Just to set some facts straight:

128-bit Windows
This rumour started based on a misunderstanding of work that was being done to support new SSE instructions being introduced by AMD. The SSE (floating point) unit has had 128-bit registers for many years now, but that has nothing to do with 128-bit addressing which is the main basis for designating a system as "32-" or "64-" bit. There will be no systems that can handle 128-bit addressing for at least a few decades, since 64-bit addressing is capable of supporting up to 16 EXAbytes of memory (1 EXAbyte = 1000 PETABytes, 1 PETAByte = 1000 TERAbytes, 1 TERAbyte = 1000 GIGA bytes). Even if memory sizes double every year (which they don't), it will take almost 30 years before a typical system starts to reach the limit of 64-bit memory addressing. In more realistic terms it will probably be closer to 40 years, assuming Moore's law doesn't break down before then.

Visual Studio 2008
Visual Studio itself is not a 64-bit application, but that doesn't matter because it doesn't need enough memory to require 64-bit addressing. But it does allow you to write and build programs that use 64-bit pointers and run as 64-bit applications. I can say this for a fact because I've used it to write programs that load more than 4GB of data into RAM and used 64-bit pointers to access and manipulate it.

 

[Devastator_uk]

I don't think we will see a Windows 8 128bits, maybe one day when we're at Windows 50 or something.

 

[randomizer]

If win 8 is 64 bit only, it means that many people may have to upgrade to 64 bit win7 because after that the new programs finally may be 64 bit versions. In reality most programs will propably be 32bit even after win8 is released because so many are still using XP or 32 bit vista or win7 at that moment, but it will be the turning point. Interesting to see when there are not new 32 bit versions available... I mean games and other aplications. 2015 and after?

Windows 8 will certainly keep the WOW64 environment for running 32-bit applications. Microsoft will not be so quick to dump support of every program made in the last 15 years.

 

[imrul]

there really aren't common aps that use 128bit addressing

 

[sminlal]

there really aren't common aps that use 128bit addressing

There aren't any apps that use 128 bit addressing, because there aren't any CPU architectures (let alone operating systems) that support it. In fact even the biggest, baddest CPUs made today can only attach enough memory to require around 40-bits or so to address. For example, my Xeon W3520 CPU, despite being a "64-bit CPU", has a memory mapping unit that can handle only up to 64GB of memory (equivalent to a 36-bit address). It's the virtual addresses that are 64 bits, not the physical ones.

128-bit data is widely used and has been for quite some time.

 

[cjl]

Just to set some facts straight:

128-bit Windows
This rumour started based on a misunderstanding of work that was being done to support new SSE instructions being introduced by AMD. The SSE (floating point) unit has had 128-bit registers for many years now, but that has nothing to do with 128-bit addressing which is the main basis for designating a system as "32-" or "64-" bit. There will be no systems that can handle 128-bit addressing for at least a few decades, since 64-bit addressing is capable of supporting up to 16 EXAbytes of memory (1 EXAbyte = 1000 PETABytes, 1 PETAByte = 1000GIGAbytes). Even if memory sizes double every year (which they don't), it will take almost 30 years before a typical system starts to reach the limit of 64-bit memory addressing. In more realistic terms it will probably be closer to 40 years, assuming Moore's law doesn't break down before then.

A note here:
You missed a factor of 1024:

1 TB=1024GB
1 PB=1024TB
1 EB=1024PB

1 exabyte=1.073 BILLION gigabytes. In other words, an exabyte is to a gigabyte what a gigabyte is to a byte. We're in no danger of hitting that limitation anytime soon.

 

[sminlal]

You missed a factor of 1024

Good catch, I'll edit the original post (but I'll still use 1000 rather than 1024 so that a number that may seem cryptic doesn't get in the way of the point being made).
Thanks, cjl!