• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Windows 8 128bit?

He's insane.

There are no 128bit x86 processors known to be in Intel or AMD's development pipelines. It wouldn't make sense. It's not even possible to fit enough RAM to max out a 64bit system today.
 
Virge, you said exactly what I wrote in that thread.

Here was the reply I got: "Why would they design an OS for a hardware system that doesn't exist? Money."
 
We will soon have 1000s of CPU on one small chip. 64bit will be obsolete eventually.
 
bigi said:
We will soon have 1000s of CPU on one small chip. 64bit will be obsolete eventually.
Click to expand...
Sure, but not for many years. You can address 18 exabytes of RAM with 64bit addressing. It's going to be a long, long time before we have 18EB of RAM.
 
I don't believe it's 128bit x86... After all - There's no "x128" processors available or even being developed anywhere to my knowledge. This one is for Itanium, if I recall correctly. Therefore it'll be a specialty version of the OS, not mainstream.
 
I have my doubts that 3.402824*10^38 bits of memory has even been manufactured in all of computing history.
 
Last edited:
3) Speculation: 8 will be designed for 128-bit computers. It will not work on 32-bit systems.
Click to expand...
From my reading of key bits of the article I don't think a Windows 8 128-bit release will happen. The wording, to me, indicates that the Windows 8 128-bit kernel will be for internal use only, with public availability scheduled for Windows 9.

As for not working on 32-bit systems, I'm not too sure about that either. There is some speculation that the Windows 8 release will be 64-bit only but they said the same thing about Windows 7.
 
I felt like I was 12 again, and was discussing why Nintendo was better than Sega or vis versa, and the main argument of the other guy is that 32x IS THIRTY TWO BITS!11

Its hard to argue with these people.
 
A cpu that can break a program down into multiple threads, sort of like transmeta, would be of more benefit. Right now getting programs to use all cores is the biggest headache.
 
Modelworks said:
A cpu that can break a program down into multiple threads, sort of like transmeta, would be of more benefit. Right now getting programs to use all cores is the biggest headache.
Click to expand...

And that will never happen to the point people want because it's impossible for a CPU or even a compiler to automagically determine all of a programs interdependencies.
 
tthat Vince guy is totally retarded... cant believe he got that many replys in the first place...

128-bit is not even on anyone's thoughts yet... forget having plp already workin on it... hes just makin stupid shit up
 
Its called progress folks. Get use to it.
1080p video and tv's will be so VHS in a few years too.
After all... Tech updates keep sales going in software,
hardware and electronics.
Even cell phone tech is changing.
Yep... Even everyones 3G iphone will be junk in a few years.
 
sportage said:
Its called progress folks. Get use to it.
1080p video and tv's will be so VHS in a few years too.
After all... Tech updates keep sales going in software,
hardware and electronics.
Even cell phone tech is changing.
Yep... Even everyones 3G iphone will be junk in a few years.
Click to expand...


No one is arguing about progress, but im sorry, some things come before others in the industry. You have to crawl before you walk. What you said just shows you didnt read anything here. Youre way out in left field somewhere.
 
There are no 128bit x86 processors known to be in Intel or AMD's development pipelines. It wouldn't make sense. It's not even possible to fit enough RAM to max out a 64bit system today.
Click to expand...

i agree, he's making it up. however if there was a 128bit chip and developers took advantage of it i would love to run it, even if i'm only using 4gb of ram. it would mean there are more registers to store data instead of having to use access ram which takes more clock cycles.
 
I could see 128-bit computing, in the sense of making heavy use of SIMD instructions. SSE instructions keep growing out to include things not related to media processing, and it'd be a decent way to break the x86 hegemony. AFAIK, all the code reordering trickery of x86 processors goes out the window with SSE, so it puts in-order designs on equal footing.
They could also be going for an abstracted virtual machine design, in which case they just use 128-bit words as their byte code equivalent and use a JIT compiler to target specific architectures. Windows has been moving that way with .net anyway, and it has big benefits for security and platform lockdown.
 
128bit will not see the light of day until 32 bit is a thing of the past. I am still confused why Win7 included a 32 bit version except after the Vista debacle MS didn't want any bad press on this release. With the Pro version having a Win XP virtual machine everyone should be running 64 bit and even then we are not using 64 but in a lot of apps, they are compatible but but not optimized. Those things need to happen before 128 comes to fruition.
 
MS want a piece of the ever increasing netbook market. i have a sammy NC10 (atom), and is 32bit only but runs win 7 like a dream.

if win7 was 64bit only then i'd have to choose between vista and xp (linux is a no go), meaning it would run xp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top