Advertisement
Wow. I have to admit, the most amazing thing about this rumor is that anyone believed it. I won't single anyone out, but spare me. It's completely and utterly bogus. Obviously.
Discuss this Article 42
It's already on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_8#Windows_8
@dj - 128-bit support as mentioned in Wikipedia is quite different to 128-bit only as mentioned by Paul.
Going 128-bit for Windows 8 seems pretty pointless to me. Most people will still only just be going 64-bit, and won't really need so much RAM in desktops or notebooks to justify the additional memory space (I know there's more to it than just RAM space, but that's the biggest driver for 64-bit adoption right now).
Maybe would be good for Windows Server 2014 (or is that Windows Server 2012 R2?), but nowhere near relevant to Windows client for quite a while yet.
Could someone point me to sites where they say it will be 128-bit ONLY. Thanks.
meason
"next steve jobs will come out and say OSXI is 256bit!"
And he still won't have OS X at fully 64-bit at the time he says it.
meason said:
"next steve jobs will come out and say OSXI is 256bit!"
No no WAIT!! OSX already support 512-bit.... At boot time you have to keep the Apple+F3+5+1+2+B+I+T keys pressed... and you will start up OS in 512-Bit....
lololololol
Um so I guess AMD is hiding a 128bit processor for the consumer like it did with the Athlon 64 though will this 128 bit processor be able to support 64 bit OS's haha.
128 bit is over kill on the memory front the only thing it would be good for is faster information processing.
Considering 64 Bit can support what 4,000 TB I can't remember right now.
Look at Mikey he made a funny about Apple!!! You should get a scooby snack.
I saw this on neowin.net which is a joke of a site, and the comments there where hilarious, with Windows fansgirls believing this trash . We wont have 128bit mainstream computers/hardware for 6 or more years.
I can see it now
AMD Phenom III x128
followed by select Intel processors for the high-end that will sadly probably out pace the AMD processor in performance,
but then again AMD has been known to surprise.
Will AMD even be around by the time this stuff comes out. How long can that company take year after year loss's before it folds it sells its name and assets in a fire sale?
What rumor? Paul you did not state your source! Maybe your just trying to tweak the audience.
The only possible way that 128-bit computing is going to be offered is if Intel makes it into an IA-class architecture as it did with the Itanium (and everybody knows how well that went....).
You'd have to have probably something in the way of hardware-managed many-core processing before that happens too. Maybe some future incarnation of Larrabee is where we'll see this.
Once such source....
http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/10/08/windows-8-and-9-may-support-128...
rr0de74@live.com, AMD is looking to be profitable in Q4 of 2009 or Q1 of 2010, there new Phenoms and Athlons are sell pretty good, though the profit margin isn't the best, but that is what happens when you come in second in performance, though there new graphics card line might help them a lot.
We shall see if AMD will make it, considering they are not losing 4 billion a quarter after they did that spin-off of there FABS
Paul,
Let me help you out. This orginated from an article on a website called The Standard. Ii mentions that this guy on LinkedIn had in his profile the following text. "Development projects including 128bit architecture compatibility with the Windows 8 kernel".
No where did it say that this meant Win 8 was going to be 128 bit. I don't see that but maybe you do, because your are really bored and have no interest in being a responsible journalist. Adding fuel to the rumor that you just do this to increase the hits to your site to increase your ad revenue.
Oh and it looks like IE8 splashed a little mud on Windows 7......
http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/10/08/microsoft-to-fix-first-critical...
I keep forgetting about how fast tech moves in the processor world,
in the early 80's we had 8 bit, in the late 80s to early 90s 16 bit, late 90s to now 32 bit, early 2000's 64 bit, and now it seems early 2010's 128bit, sounds like fun.
AMD will probably look great for 3 or 6 months gain a lot of market share for a bit, then Intel will respond and the cycle continues.
Hah! That's assuming they follow 7 with 8! If history is any indication, they'll avoid naming it sequentially--so's not to associate it with yet another bad release.
Personally I think "Windows Whatever" would be appropriate.
According to wikipedia 64 bit allows for about 16 exabytes of RAM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#History
"The emergence of the 64-bit architecture effectively increases the memory ceiling to 2^64 addresses, equivalent to approximately 17.2 billion gigabytes, 16.8 million terabytes, or 16 exabytes of RAM. To put this in perspective, in the days when 4 MB of main memory was commonplace, the maximum memory ceiling of 2^32 addresses was about 1,000 times larger than typical memory configurations. Today, when over 2 GB of main memory is common, the ceiling of 2^64 addresses is about ten trillion times larger, i.e., ten billion times more headroom than the 2^32 case."
and for 128 bit...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/128-bit.
"128-bit processors could become prevalent when 16 exbibytes of addressable memory is no longer enough (128-bit processors would allow memory addressing for 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 bytes (~340.3 undecillion bytes or 281,474,976,710,656 yobibytes ). However, physical limits make such large amounts of memory currently impossible, given that amount greatly exceeds the total data stored on Earth."
I don't think it's necessarily completely bogus--if you don't assume that he's talking 128-bit memory addressability. Given that he talked about AMD and 128-bit, it's very likely that he's talking about the 128-bit FPU in AMD's upcoming "Bulldozer" CPU:
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/4/15/amds-next-gen-bulldozer-i...
bluvg, that's nonsense. We already have incredible mathematical precision on current 32 bit systems, even. Graphics processing has made use of 256, and 512-bit pipelines for years.
Also, we can do 64-bit floating point arithmetic on a 32-bit processor, running a 32-bit OS.
This is just a bollorx rumour.
Just wow. If anyone believes that....... Lol, soon enough we will have Windows 17 512-bit version. We will be able to have a 5 terabytes of RAM, A Googleplex of HD space, and 20 core processors. And that will be just home users. And now if anyone believes this...... then just wow.
Um 64 bit is going to be able to handle 5 TB of Ram
and a Googleplex, do you realize how big that is.
redunion
A little clarification...
8-bit was pretty much mainstream from 1975-1980 or so.
16-bit kicked in with the 68000, 8086 and Z8000 systems in the early '80s and kept being mainstream for through multiple generations of processors.
32-bit really didn't get acceptance until the mid 1980s By comparison, we're really only seeing 64-bit really get mainstream in the last year or two although 64-bit systems have been available for several years.
8-bit was mainstream in personal computers for about 5 years
16-bit was mainstream in personal computers for about 5 years
32-bit was mainstream in personal computers for about 25 years
So, while things did move fast in the early days, that really hasn't been true in quite a while
redunion
Actually, the numbers are googol and googolplex
The pun of google and googleplex (that nobody gets and just think are misspellings) refer to the advertising company out of Silicon Valley.
Ah okay I thought he was referring to the numbers, and I forgot about the correct spelling as it is quite a large number, and thought it unimportant.
As for my confusion on the bits Yeah I should have known better but I grew up in the 1990's and 2000's so my exact knowledge on this is a bit off, even though I should have remember 8 bit comes from at least as fart back as the 70's I use to play the Atari 2600 all the time.
Gorath, why don't you read the article before the knee-jerk reaction? 128-bit FPU--neither Intel nor AMD have that today. 128-bit precision requires extra clock cycles. A 128-bit FPU can process multiple 32-bit/64-bit instructions at a time. Neither do Intel nor AMD CPUs have 128-bit general purpose registers currently. "Bulldozer" has both.
It has nothing to do with memory addressability. It has everything to do with the width of the pipeline. The OS can take advantage of that--and Morgan working on that is plausible... 128-bit memory addressability for Windows 8/9 is not.
This is too much. The rumor is a rumor. Yet everyone is talking about it like someone at MS actually said this. WOW!
Let's of course go to who actually "broke" the original story, and see how it got messed up through the chain.
http://msftkitchen.com/2009/10/exclusive-windows-8-and-windows-9-kernals...
To everybody taking Paul's tongue in cheek posting seriously...geez, ya'll are gullible. He even says, " It's completely and utterly bogus."
--tayme
"32-bit was mainstream in personal computers for about 25 years:"
32-bit IS mainstream, I would argue. However, I have recently seen laptops (and, I assume desktop) ship with 64-bit Vista. So it looks like the tides are turning.
de Slientio
"32-bit IS mainstream, I would argue."
And, there's a good case to be made for that. We're certainly very close to the transtion from 32-bit to 64-bit either way.
The reason I'd say we're on the 64-bit side of the switch is that, for the last year or so, retailers have been selling 64-bit systems (hardware and system software) without even bothering to list that as a distinguishing feature.
Remember that current "64-bit" x86 processors only have 64-bit extensions onto 32-bit CPU's. I wouldn't say it's the same as the fully 64-bit IA64 CPU's.
I'm actually kinda hoping that Intel goes back to that platform for the next platform shift, but the gods of backwards compatibility probably won't have it that way.
When Intel releases Atom's as 64-bit across the board, there will be little reason to build future operating systems on strictly 32-bit x86 code.
Gorath, for the love of crumbcake, read the article I linked. Even the author--who covers CPUs and knows his stuff--was considering the question "is this a 128-bit CPU?" It's not--not in the sense most of us are thinking of it (memory address space)--but the 128-bit GPRs and FPU are very important elements.
This is similar to the OS taking advantage of SSE functions, but 128-bit GPRs and a 128-bit FPU is much more significant than 128-bit SSEs.
Again, please read the link first, folks.
