Windows 8 to be 128-bit compatible?
As we’ve known for some time, Microsoft had already begun work on Windows 8 before Windows 7 was completed. The reason being that different teams work on different aspects of the operating system, which is why Microsoft was able to do this. Microsoft previously shed some light on what we can see in Windows 8 through a job description.
It appears though, that one specific Microsoft employee was not too careful with their LinkedIn profile, and had accidentally leaked some interesting details regarding Windows 8. According to his LinkedIn profile, which seems to have had many of its details removed, Robert Murdon has been working at Microsoft since January 2002. Windows 8 News managed to catch this on the Microsoft employee’s LinkedIn profile before it disappeared:
“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.”
“Robert Morgan is using Hestia (custom software package) for experimenting with the processor for scientific analysis and 3D graphics. Error: Memory Latency? Always gotta be a challenge barrier, it’s gotta be a bug in Hestia. right?!”
“Robert Morgan is frustrated with process standards and regulations! Delays Delays!”
Murdon seems certain that we will see 128-bit compatibility with Windows 9, while it appears that whether we will see it in Windows 8 or not is still uncertain. Coincidentally, many do believe that Windows 7 will be Microsoft’s last 32-bit OS. So could this mean we will see Windows 8 come in 64-bit and 128-bit flavors? Let us know what you think in the comments.
No related posts.
47 Responses to “ Windows 8 to be 128-bit compatible? ”
Leave a Reply
Loading ...
never heard about windows 8 b4
It’s currently in development, will be Microsoft’s next OS after Windows 7
No Sh*t?
You be trollin booiiii
[...] [...]
The world just reached 64-bit computing. Why do we need 128-bit computing directly after 64-bit computing? Weird and false.
“Why do we need 128-bit computing directly after 64-bit computing?”
If we have the technology, why don’t we make it available and let people choose if they need it or not, as long as we have reasonable profit/cost expectations? What does it have to do with the time passed after the previous technology?
Why not? Moving the power of personal computers forward can only be a good thing, and the pace is only quickening. Considering that 64-bit is only now becoming mainstream (and was initially released in the final XP days), it’s also likely that 128-bit will begin popping up several years before its prime.
Actually, I was also saying the same thing and the first quote was from the comment above mine. Forgot to hit the reply button; sorry for the misunderstanding.
as we get more complicated processors we are going to experience more power, but for what more use of a harddrive just to hold the the biger bit os? look at win 7 32-bit 16 gb and 64-bit is 20gb may not be much but it will considerably grow if we go into 128-bit for mainstream.
Actually, the only reason Windows 7 64-bit is a larger install than Windows 7 32-bit is backwards compatibility with 32-bit apps (ugh, Flash Player, talking about you…). If Microsoft ditches 32-bit compatibility with Windows 8, the 128-bit version would end up being larger than the 64-bit version, but most likely in the same proportions that Windows 7 64-bit is larger than its 32-bit brother, for much the same reason (we just got 64-bit apps, nobody’s going to be ditching them any time soon). It’s always been Microsoft’s SOP to hang on to aging architectures well past their prime (IE6, talking about you now…), so there will no doubt be 64-bit compatibility long after no one has any reason to be using it.
Just like 8-bit techbology had it’s time in the sun, so has 32-bit.
The big concern for Microsoft in developing Windows 8 as a >= 64-bit OS would be any backlash from folks who just bought 32-bit machines for Windows 7.
In addition, how about the millions and millions it would cost for corporate IT departments to buy new 64-bit machines?
I think alot of companies will not upgrade until Windows 8, when this new paradigm shift will occur.
I should have bought a mac since Microsoft can’t make up it’s mind
y not just build on windows 7 instead of making a new os every 1 or 2 years?
In case you didn’t know, building new OS’s is how Microsoft stays in business. They make billions off of Windows and Office; without these two products they would have either been bankrupt by now or bought out by a competitor.
I was wondering… Thanks for the clarification! *starts coding his o.s.*
Macs Suck Testicals, Whats the big deal if they build windows 8 from scratch instead of building off windows 7, is it a big deal?
I believe that full 128-bit support is not needed anytime soon. The 64-bit instruction set architecture can support over 2^63 bytes (or 2 billion gigabytes) of memory, even though actual hardware is currently not capable of supporting that much memory. That is over 500 million times the memory supported on today’s computers, and is definitely not needed anytime soon. 128-bit registers and 128-bit arithmetic support might be considered, but that can be implemented as extensions to the current 64-bit architecture or as a new 64-bit architecture with 128-bit wide registers and 128-bit arithmetic instructions. 64-bit registers are already large enough to accommodate timestamps for a long time.
I agree with you about the 128-bit, John.
Just like digital TV replaced analog earlier this year, 64-bit is going to be the next “big thing” in mainstream IT circles.
Therefore, if you are thinking of buying a new computer with the intent of keeping it for years to come, I would seriously consider investing in a 64-bit machine.
hmm it will be expensive……
but i dont know any firm that make 128 processors
To illustrate the adoption of 64-bit technology, for the first time ever, Microsoft’s Office 2010 will be available in both 32 and 64-bit versions.
Look at the gaming consoles.
PS3 is already 128-bit…
It’s quite amusing that GamerX is comparing 128-bit consoles to 32/64-bit computers.
Today’s consoles can only provide 128 bits.
Plus, 8-bit processors are still used for calculators and other simple pico-screen devices. The 32-bit architecture is still popular.
Do we need 128 bits right now? We still don’t need above 16 TB RAM which is too much RAM for the average PC.
Yes, 128 bit is good but the industry is not yet ready to place them in PCs. Plus they will get a little more expensive.
I can’t think of a practical reason that a desktop PC for almost all users would need a 128-bit processor at this point.
lets be honest hear no new OS is for all user they are slowly assimilated into the system. 128 bit with start out with large organizations and then over time move to games before ever seeing the general user. i predict a 5 year gap before we even see a desktop CPU that 128 bit maybe a server CPU by then but thats it.
wow, good work on your article!
So where will the 32bit DLL’s be put? Sure as hell can’t be in \SysWOW64\ anymore. What about 64bit DLL’s on a 128bit system?
as you said John Platts is not needed… why??? 64bit OS can support Exabites not gigabites, so there is no need!
thats is for rich man only ??? haha… very exspensive for buy computer with 128, 256, 512, 1024 Bits….. Only Super Computer Can Do That… in fact… people need 64 bits for work….
windows 10 will be good in the future
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:BQ1-4H56ZKcJ:blogs.msdn.com/sharad/archive/2010/01/31/whats-in-store-for-the-next-windows.aspx+
there’s no way Microsoft would remove 32 bit support from their next OS.
They would have had to start phasing out 32 bit processors a long time ago. As long as they still sell 32 bit computers, they will not remove that compatibility in the next 10 years. If even that. It’s not happening.
You can phase out video card, ram, even the power supply. But the processor is so hard to replace, if replaceable at all on some computers, that Microsoft will probably not discontinue support. Maybe eventually, but not by Windows 8 for sure. Probably not even Windows 9.
@reactosguy you’re fucking dummbb! Makes me wonder if you even know what 32-bit and 64-bit mean. 128-bit will mean faster computing and nooo lag time. It’ll allow you to do more because it can take more processes at the same time!
i think its you that have no idea what 64 bit is
what computer do you know has over 16tb of ram? (needed to see any improved performance)
there is no point in micrsofr comeing out with a 128 bit and a 32 cause people are just now changing to the 64 so they wouldent get rid of a proven and use os flavor
@wnatedeadshot
I’m sure they will come out with a 128 bit processor support. People always want the newest things.
They real question is whether they will keep 32 bit support. Which is really no question at all. They CANT get rid of that. Not for a long time.
Well, it’s going to be hard to remove 32-bit support in the near future. It would prove hard seeing as the majority of applications are still based on it. After we reach 1024-bit processors or so, we may have already progressed in Quantum Computing and gone on to build those supercomputers…
32-bit must die. period.
it had a good life, but now it’s time for it to rest in its peace.
128-bit sounds cool for arithmetics and other calculation abilities and its time will come in a couple of decades. for sure.
for now – viva la 64-bit!!
I cant wait
when windows 8 released plz tell me
That is why AMD is developing a new CPU architecture called BULLDOZER which gonna support fully 128 bit system .
That’s what I’ve heard lately
You need at least 18446744073GB of ram
to use a 128 bit OS properly.(2^64)
So forget it.
32 bit system maximum ram is 4GB (2^32)
*For some reason the video card ram are included that is why you don’t actually have 4GB of ram available on 32 bit.
Maximum ram for 64 bit is 18446744073GB (2^64) So that 32 bit 64 bit 128 bit stuff is only made to use more ram, that is all no other benefits.
Are processors 128 bit capable? I expect 64 bit to be mainstream.
people it’s waste talking within our selves let us wait for the big guys(the microsoft & the manufactures)to to answer because when win vista showed up it’s face of compactablity issue people thought the rest of microsoft’s os will have this same issue but win7 gave a little relif so like wise let us wait for the big guys to open there mouth
*facepalm, most of you are confusing register size for data path. x86-32 to x86-64 was to increase the data width on the processors and physical addressable memory. IA64 to IA128 is completely different. IA64 uses VLIW(very large instruction words) to execute multiple opcodes in parallel. Addressable memory and opcode length aren’t increased in IA128, only the amount of opcodes that can be slotted into the processor are doubled. Windows 8 128bit support is for the 128bit Itanium architecture that’s been avalible for a while now, consumers who use x86-based systems will not see pure 128bit processors in windows 8.
“PS3 is already 128-bit,” no it isn’t. It’s a 64 bit core with 128bit vector registers. Since SSE came out in x86 processors there has been 128-bit registers for SIMD. Even 32-bit cores have 128bit registers in them, it doesn’t make them 128-bit processors.
Wow. It only took until June for someone with a brain to post the obviously flaws in this article.
It’s about as vague as it can get. Atari Jaguar was “128-bit” and so was Apple G4’s Velocity Engine.
Shoot, my SSL is 128-bit.
This article is completely useless.
I hope for a better
MS dumping 32-bit definitely will lead to people dumping MS. If somebody at Microsoft has a brain, it’s not going to happen.
[...] Posted by Al in Windows 8 News on November 2nd, 2009 | 45 Comments [...]