Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Microsoft Working on 128-bit Windows

Tags:
Last response: in News comments
Share
Anonymous
October 9, 2009 5:45:14 PM

But will it run Crysis...
Score
-30
October 9, 2009 5:48:53 PM

Oh man, 64 bit was considered the "holy grail" and that was all that we would need. No more limitations. 128 bit is crazy. I don't think it will be necessary or relevant really until Windows 9 or 10. 64-bit on the Windows side still doesn't see mass adoption because of all the older computers that aren't 64-bit capable.

I wonder how long until we see 128-bit processors? AMD64 was a hit and they've been underwhelming since then maybe they'll make a comeback with AMD128 lol.
Score
22
Related resources
October 9, 2009 5:49:41 PM

Will 128-bit be incompatible with 32-bit software the same way 64 is incompatible with 16? If so, it'll be a long time before this happens, considering 90% of software out right now is 32bit...
Score
16
October 9, 2009 5:51:04 PM

Great.. now we will have 128bit when barely anyone supports 64..
Score
29
October 9, 2009 5:51:56 PM

So, 128 bit windows on a 128bit computer with 100 TB hard drive space, and 32 tb ram, with 512 core processor.... How would that affect the ability for me to edit 1080p HD video? in comparison with todays hardware....
Score
4
October 9, 2009 5:55:44 PM

JN77So, 128 bit windows on a 128bit computer with 100 TB hard drive space, and 32 tb ram, with 512 core processor.... How would that affect the ability for me to edit 1080p HD video? in comparison with todays hardware....



It would be nice to edit HD Video at double or quad speed (2x or 4x) edit 1 hour of HD video in 15 minutes..... I remember the days of doing that with video tapes... digital is so behind......
Score
0
October 9, 2009 5:57:12 PM

It would probably still crash :p  JK
Score
8
October 9, 2009 5:59:26 PM

128 bit dream computer: edit in real time with all effects
64 bit crap today highend computer: edit in real time, wait some time (even a couple of seconds) for redering the effects...

So there can be difference

;-)

128 bit offer even bigger memory space and wider registry entry. Usefull... eventually and in some aplications maybe even today
Score
-10
October 9, 2009 6:04:27 PM

In reality: There is never a thing like "Nobody needs more memory than xxx" "It's overkill" "When we have xxxxx We don't need faster computers"...
Maybe this mean that win8 is released "only" 64bit and 128bit versions?
"The old 32bit king is dead, Long live the new 64bit king!
Maybe?
Score
-1
October 9, 2009 6:04:58 PM

I don't think Windows 8 should have any 128 bit support at all. It may sound soon but we are speaking 2 generations ahead and given MS timescale of about 4 years or so for a complete upgrade OS that buys us at least 8 years from now. That is a long way away. Of course people look towards the "memory" factor when they weigh in 32 vs 64 but there are some other incentives that just aren't relevant right now mostly because people still don't want to make the switch even after 6 years and software developers don't want to focus just on 64 bit when the majority is still 32 bit. Its a stalemate and up to the consumers to get off there ass and move forward, can't always blame the developers and companies who want to progress and spend the money doing so. You as a consumer have to want it to happen.

That being said it will either be a flop or a success depending on who breaks the stalemate first. 128 bit is not neccessary for the consumer market IMO but for the corporations and the government it could become useful since they have there own teams designing software for there needs anyways.

Don't just think 128 bit will support 100 million googlillion gigabytes of ram. I am still waiting on 16GB sticks of ram like the rest of everyone now that I made the switch, not like much uses anything near that much anyways but still its nice to be ahead of the technology times for once and not worry about upgrading at least one peripheral every 3 months. I guess 8GB will have to do, until next time see you all when we are all running Windows 9. :) 
Score
-1
October 9, 2009 6:05:39 PM

What is the point of going higher than 64 bit?
Score
4
Anonymous
October 9, 2009 6:11:28 PM

Very funny - someone who is just learning how to walk without support is now working on Olympics Running Race...

The best joke of the year - wat did they really do with the 64bit part in the first place? its still immature and not to mention not wide spread and better yet they want to move to 128 bit...

So stupid - way to go Microsoft - Windows 7 is the only thing tht's here to save you for now after all the list of super stupid failure's - winmo 6.5, zune hd, project pink, bing, yahoo deal, Danger platform to name a few - everything they now do is as bald as its CEO - Only company in the world that still manages to demand respect after all they do is only mistakes..

Bill Gates was way better as a CEO and the company really did something right at those times... Now all we see is a bunch of morons...
Score
-22
October 9, 2009 6:11:54 PM

I don't understand the negativity around this. We are finally getting software ahead of hardware when it comes to this.

To answer the question, "What is the point of going higher than 64 bit?" Let me respond with a rhetorical question. What is the point of going from 16 bit to 32 bit....or 32bit to 64 bit?
Score
0
October 9, 2009 6:12:14 PM

izlieciesWhat is the point of going higher than 64 bit?


So they have stuff to do.
Score
5
October 9, 2009 6:14:36 PM

If Microsoft is really working on a 128-bit version of Windows that brings up an even more interesting question: does that mean Intel and /or AMD is working on a 128-bit processor ? And what is the exact need for this ? Faster processing without the addition of more cores/higher frequency? I have an entry level Pentium E2140 on a secondary PC and Windows 7 Experience Index gives it a 4,3 when under Win 7 32-bit and jumps to 4,6 when under Win 7 64-bit.
Score
0
October 9, 2009 6:14:58 PM

With all those bits to spare I would expect backwards compatibility with 32 and 64 bits...
Score
-6
October 9, 2009 6:15:04 PM

izlieciesWhat is the point of going higher than 64 bit?



Amen! With 64 bit you can support up to 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes of RAM. I don't see us hitting that anytime soon.
Score
9
October 9, 2009 6:17:38 PM

but will it run Crysis...
Score
-22
October 9, 2009 6:23:30 PM

"With 64 bit you can support up to 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes of RAM. I don't see us hitting that anytime soon."

True, but there is nothing wrong having software already prepared to handle new hardware once it is introduced into the market.
Score
0
October 9, 2009 6:28:01 PM

Does anyone know off hand how much RAM 128 bit processors will support? I know that, depending on OS limitations, a 64 bit processor can address 16EB (exebytes) of memory. How much for 128 bit?
Score
-1
October 9, 2009 6:30:34 PM

Merely two years ago, if you wanted to run a 64-bit OS, your best bet was Linux x86-64. 64-bit Windows Vista had driver issues. And not just with uncommon hardware. Of course, hardware support in XP Pro 64-bit is pretty bad, even today.

So I'm glad to hear they're working on 128-bit now...
Score
-7
October 9, 2009 6:33:48 PM

quantum maskDoes anyone know off hand how much RAM 128 bit processors will support? I know that, depending on OS limitations, a 64 bit processor can address 16EB (exebytes) of memory. How much for 128 bit?


The square of 16 exbibytes. That's 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 bytes, btw
Score
5
October 9, 2009 6:36:53 PM

quantum maskDoes anyone know off hand how much RAM 128 bit processors will support? I know that, depending on OS limitations, a 64 bit processor can address 16EB (exebytes) of memory. How much for 128 bit?


That was the first thing I thought of. If 16gb for Win 7 is maxed out, then 32gb would be the estimated Gb amount of Ram since 128 double the bit. Wow I remember when whole console systems were 128bit and THAT seemed revolutionary in 1999! This is a damn OS which is virtual!

I can imagine 32 GB or even 64gb worh of RAM. By then our Ram might even be 32nm SSD type of RAM or something.... But I suspect we wonot be seeing this until 2015 or WIN9 by 2018... Still a long way to go.
Score
-14
October 9, 2009 6:36:54 PM

They said IA-128, which means Itanium.

Windows has had a IA-64 version since the Itanium was released, back in 2003 well before the x64 "consumer" version was released in 2005 (Win 2003/Xp Pro x64). Therefore, unless you own an Itanium processor to begin with, this is no news.

Since only a select few research departments own Itaniums, none of us should care. When AMD creates the AMD128 architecture, which will then be re-marketed as x128 to ease Intel's eventual adoption, be sure Microsoft will create a consumer version based on that, until then, don't hold your breath.
Score
11
October 9, 2009 6:39:05 PM

They are researching 128bit as it applies to future products. Ten years ago if you told me I'd have a PC with 8 GIGS of RAM I'd punched you in the face. Ten to fifteen years is the time frame they are planning for which is an incredible step for any business. Today I say in 15 years we as PC users wont need it, but servers are already running 64+ gigs of RAM. How much RAM will they be running in 5 years? 10 years?

Also, a lot of are thinking: higher bit = higher speed. The bits are referring to the size of the memory bus. The only time you'll see an improvement in speed is when you address a file/program that is larger than the old bus can address in the RAM. So you're speed boost comes from being able to use more RAM and access the page file less often.

So the actual thinking should be: Higher bit implies more RAM = higher speed (when working with large files)

I think Tom's did 32bit Vs. 64bit review a long time ago and the 32bit came out on top with most applications because there was less bus to calculate. I'd like to see an updated article for this since we can test 4gigs (32bit high speed) Vs. 8gigs (64bit high speed) and have programs that actually take advantage of the extra bus size.
Score
3
October 9, 2009 6:44:45 PM

brett1042002but will it run Crysis...


damnit you ruined it for me
Score
-10
October 9, 2009 6:47:10 PM

And we need 128bit because????

Wait, how much memory access does Win7 64bit have? Lets see...
16GB for home... fine. Most Win7 users won't need more than 2GB.
192GB for Pro+... anyone in the market for such a motherboard?

Okay, Tyan has a 256GB mobo for $800 (nVidia chipset)
Tyan and SUPERMICRO has 128GB mobos for $300~500 (AMD and nVidia chipsets)

Hmmm... 128GB of DDR2-EC is about $6400+ The 8GB DIMMs aren't out yet. So current 4GB x 16 = 64GB = $3200... Crysis had better run good.

And so consumers need 128bit for what?
Score
-6
October 9, 2009 6:47:47 PM

izlieciesWhat is the point of going higher than 64 bit?


If I remember correctly the term 64 bit refers to the largest single piece of information the processor can handle. Inside the processor there are things called registers. You put a piece of data in these registers and then you can perform operations on them. An example would be putting the number 4 in the AX register, and the number 5 in the BX register and calling an ADD operation to get the answer placed in the CX register. Then you can do whatever you want to with the result in the CX register, such as move it into system memory.

That is the basic gist-of-it, I think. The need for larger registers comes from the need to use multiple operation on a single piece of data. An example would be working with a double precision float data type (64 bits of memory are required to work with this data type). On a 32 bit system the ability to add two doubles together would require multiple operations at the register level. On a 64 bit system it would only require one. Thus leading to smaller and faster code.

Of course there is also the need to address larger amounts of memory, but as you can see in other posts that is no longer a problem. This is an issue with register size because the memory address you are trying to access (read or write) must fit into a single cpu register. Thus the maximum addressable memory on a 32bit system 4GB, and 16EX on a 64bit system.

But like I say, "If I remember correctly". It have been years since school, and even longer since my assembly days on a C64.
Score
9
October 9, 2009 6:49:28 PM

first off, most of you guys are misunderstanding the basics of computer architecture. IA64 is not AMD64 aka x64. IA64 is the platform for Intel's Itanium RISC processors used in huge super computers and high end servers. IA128 I would assume would follow suite, which means Microsoft let the cat out of the bag before Intel's official announcement of the next generation Itanium. However, rumor had it that Sun's next generation OpenSparc/UltraSparc processors will be 128bit.

So to answer your questions, "NO, it will not run Crysis. It will not be a consumer level Windows." The purpose of having a bus that wide will significantly help database and other cloud applications.
Score
9
October 9, 2009 6:51:41 PM

jasperjonesMerely two years ago, if you wanted to run a 64-bit OS, your best bet was Linux x86-64. 64-bit Windows Vista had driver issues. And not just with uncommon hardware. Of course, hardware support in XP Pro 64-bit is pretty bad, even today.So I'm glad to hear they're working on 128-bit now...


Yeah but nobody really supports XP directly anymore anyhow, considering Vista is around, and is now being replaced with Windows 7. Sure lots of people are stilling using XP, but it's not the current or future OS, therefore companies don't have as much reason to offer direct support for XP in new products (or even old products which they themselves don't support anymore).
Score
-3
October 9, 2009 6:53:16 PM

No he didn't, meat81 ruined it for you in the first post. You just didn't see it because it was voted down. It's a dumb thing to say, and it's not funny.
Score
-7
October 9, 2009 6:54:28 PM

It wouldn't surprise me if 64bit goes the way of DX10... slight benefits, more real trouble than it was worth and its lifespan cut short by a future development... Mass adoption to hit 128bit...

I can see it happening to be honest.
Score
-5
October 9, 2009 6:55:41 PM

JasonAkkermanIf I remember correctly the term 64 bit refers to the largest single piece of information the processor can handle. Inside the processor there are things called registers. You put a piece of data in these registers and then you can perform operations on them. An example would be putting the number 4 in the AX register, and the number 5 in the BX register and calling an ADD operation to get the answer placed in the CX register. Then you can do whatever you want to with the result in the CX register, such as move it into system memory.That is the basic gist-of-it, I think. The need for larger registers comes from the need to use multiple operation on a single piece of data. An example would be working with a double precision float data type (64 bits of memory are required to work with this data type). On a 32 bit system the ability to add two doubles together would require multiple operations at the register level. On a 64 bit system it would only require one. Thus leading to smaller and faster code.Of course there is also the need to address larger amounts of memory, but as you can see in other posts that is no longer a problem. This is an issue with register size because the memory address you are trying to access (read or write) must fit into a single cpu register. Thus the maximum addressable memory on a 32bit system 4GB, and 16EX on a 64bit system.But like I say, "If I remember correctly". It have been years since school, and even longer since my assembly days on a C64.


Common assumption (in this thread too), and DEAD WRONG!
In any talk of 16-, 32-, 64-bit processors, software and operating systems, It's always about the length of adress pointers. This is the crucial issue.
In terms of width of registers, data, data paths and processing, we've already been at 128-bit for a long time, with 32-bit processors/software/Windows. That's essentially what all these SSE extentions are about, since the Pentium days.
Score
-5
Anonymous
October 9, 2009 6:55:53 PM

You guys know it fake right.
Score
-2
October 9, 2009 6:55:56 PM

My post above is in response to VioMeTriX. Damn, give us a EDIT FUNCTION!
Score
-1
October 9, 2009 6:56:55 PM

liquidsnake718That was the first thing I thought of. If 16gb for Win 7 is maxed out, then 32gb would be the estimated Gb amount of Ram since 128 double the bit. Wow I remember when whole console systems were 128bit and THAT seemed revolutionary in 1999! This is a damn OS which is virtual!I can imagine 32 GB or even 64gb worh of RAM. By then our Ram might even be 32nm SSD type of RAM or something.... But I suspect we wonot be seeing this until 2015 or WIN9 by 2018... Still a long way to go.


Win7 isn't maxed out at 16Gig, that's your Motherboard. Win7 will support up to 192Gig in the client versions.
Score
3
October 9, 2009 6:57:00 PM

P.S. Also, am I right in thinking that because 'Robert Morgan is working to get IA-128 working backwards with full binary compatibility on the existing IA-64 instructions'... does that mean that they have a working model of Win 8 in 128bit mode and that they are just focusing on compatibility?
Score
-1
October 9, 2009 6:58:18 PM

Just skip up to 512 bit, I want to have a GOOGOL-Byte of RAM on my PC.
Score
1
October 9, 2009 6:58:54 PM

And there is absolutely no point to a 128-bit OS.
This "IA-128" is either a complete fraud, or it's a name for something else. What I'm saying is that the "128" in that case does NOT concern the adress width of an ISA.
Score
-5
Anonymous
October 9, 2009 7:00:48 PM

There's no reason why 128-bit would ever be needed. People say: "Well, in 1990, I never thought I would need more than..", BUT, computers are much more mature now than they were in the 16bit and early 32 bit days. 64bit vs. RAM limitations is a bit of a misnomer anyways, Windows Server Datacenter edition has supported huge amounts of RAM(32/64/128GB) even as a 32bit OS, thanks to NUMA. Developing a 128bit OS before AMD or Intel has devised a x86_128 standard makes even less sense...


Believe it or not, computers will eventually be 100% mature, with no more room to improve. How much can you possibly discover before you've discovered everything?
Score
-6
October 9, 2009 7:06:08 PM

-FFS! Are you all so clueless about how a computer works!
64-bit adress pointers are good for 16 ExaByte. And that's:
16 X 1024 X 1024 TeraBytes.
Even with Moore's law going on, 64-bit will last for decades.
Score
-3
October 9, 2009 7:15:12 PM

This is not for you guys... at least for near term future.
this porbably will be for NASA or weather center, where they need to analyze huge data in very small period of time

So maybe google will have it for it's search engine... where it will be able to analyze 1mln photos in 1 second and give you a picture with a small hair fluctuation....

it is good thing to have all of this.

but do nto forget, soon, maybe HDDs will be able to work on the memory speed, then, to have so much memery will not make that much difference.

So relax, let see how it will turn out
Score
-1
October 9, 2009 7:27:44 PM

WTF is everyone babbling about. 64bit is capable of addressing 2^64 bits or 2,147,483,648 Gigabytes. Windows memory limitations have nothing to do with 64bit.

128bit will have a practical application when they make 1 exabyte ddr35 modules.

Furthermore 64bit doesn't make code faster than 32bit, so 128bit doesn't have a direct performance impact.

128bit will not happen for Windows 8. There is no reason for it, 128bit hardware is far far away for PCs.
Score
-1
October 9, 2009 8:03:13 PM

hellwigThey said IA-128, which means Itanium.


You sure? I doubt it. IA-32 means x86 after all. IA-64 is Itanium whereas Intel 64 is Intel's implementation of x86-64.

But it's doubtful that Intel will continue to develop Itanium longer than it is contractually required to do so. Itanium is not a money-maker, contracts with HP are the primary reason Intel doesn't dump Itanium (just yet).
Score
0
October 9, 2009 8:12:20 PM

awsome!
Score
-4
October 9, 2009 8:15:24 PM

liquidsnake718That was the first thing I thought of. If 16gb for Win 7 is maxed out, then 32gb would be the estimated Gb amount of Ram since 128 double the bit.


That is not at all how the limitation is calculated, that's just Windows 7 boundary as it stands now, the actual memory limit of 64-bit is 2^64 Bytes, which is somewhat larger. If you want to know the maximum memory supported by xx-bit hardware, then take 2 and raise it to the xx power.
Score
0
October 9, 2009 8:18:50 PM

Correction on my part since I can't edit, it isn't Windows 7's limit, it is that of the motherboard/memory controller.
Score
1
October 9, 2009 8:20:52 PM

Im sure there has to be to the 128-bit architecture than just memory access. Granted Im sure the supercomputers will have the need to access more than what a 64-bit operating system can access but there has to be something they know about the direction hardware is headed that is causing them to do this. Every piece of silicon is getting smaller and smaller every year and we are on the verge of CPU and GPU integration. Maybe that has something to do with it.
Score
0
!