Coming Soon: 128 bit Windows 8 and 9

Maybe.

 

very interesting... thanks mate.

anyone know when 128bit cpu's will be on sale? (have they even made them yet?)

 

128 bit...wowww...
what will be new stuff and features in 128 then?

 

Why 128-bit? 64-bit already allows 2^64 bits of memory.

 

You know what they said in the 90's? "Why 64-bit? 32-bit already allows 4 Gigabytes of memory".

Consumers won't have to worry about 128-bit operating systems for a while. That doesn't mean companies don't put R&D into it.

 

Right, that's why I was wondering why 128 bit is so sudden. 32-bit existed from Windows 95 till Windows 7. That's a 14 year lifespan. 64-bit barely existed with XP, and is less than half as old. We're not even close to maxing it out, so why start with 128-bit?

 

ditto. We're still transitioning into 64-bit so there's no reason to go into 128-bit already!

 

Oh god, don't believe everything you hear.128-bit cpu's are not coming to a computer near you.

64-bit can address over a billion gigabytes. That is over 250 million times the 4GB that everything thinks is more than enough for all but the most demanding applications. 9 years ago, 512MB was considered to be that amount, an eightfold increase in 9 years. You can obviously see that we are in no fear of needing 128-bit computing. This is what is meant by 32, 64, or 128 bit computing. I'm pretty sure that if there is a such thing as IA-128, it is not referring to the amount of memory it can address.

I also find it weird that other than some dude's blog, there has been absolutely nothing ever released, officially or not, about any 128-bit computing. Quite odd indeed.

I'm almost 100% sure that this can be entirely dismissed. We know that we have no use for 128-bit computing in the foreseeable future and there has been nothing on anything coming close to this by any player in the game other than some random guy's personal blog.


*EDIT*
Now I'm actually 100% sure as the dude's profile and entire blog were deleted. Sounds like someone got his password and started posting crap.

 

I say lets do it. 2^128 addressable is better than 2^64

Its a bit early in the game to be considering a 128bit system, but hey it will be much more future proof (could reasonably use it for 15ish years i would think)

 

Addressable memory isn't the only reason to step up in bit-width in architecture. I agree that we probably aren't going to see 128-bit in anything but the fringes for a while, but that doesn't discount it's value. For instance, it could be concievable that a 128-bit system could make 128-bit encryption operations near-atomic (much faster). That would have major implications in some circles. It would also allow for faster calculation of higher precision floating point numbers, as well as much larger integers, which has applications in lots of areas as well. I'm not saying it's of huge value to everyone, just that the idea that the only reason 128-bit would matter is for more address space is pattently false.

However, even if the major impact is address space, concider this. 128-bit architecture allows addressing of obscenely large amounts of storage. That would mean it would become feasible to concider putting the entire harddrive of your computer in memory address space. That could have some profound reprocussions, especially combined with SSDs and other such technologies.

Edit: When I say obscene, I mean obscene. 64 bit allows addressing of 16 Exabytes. That's 2 orders of magnitude above terabytes, and we are currently talking about single digit terabyte HDs as being enormous. 128-bit would mean 256 exa-exabytes. That's like 8 orders of magnitude above where we are now. We could put the whole HDD of current systems in 64-bit memory space, but with 128-bit, we would not have to worry about running in to headroom limitations for a long long time. More than enough time to move to 256-bit archs.

 

Well... you are talking about encrypting - what about the opposite?
Code breaking...

Just thinking... what are those supercomputers running on?

 

Well, it would make code breaking faster too... but if you are bruteforce codebreaking, it will still take you a very long time to cycle through all the options in a 128-bit key.

 

True.

But then I beleive it is said that the Indian intelligence agncy managed to break the 256Bit encryption on a Blackberry...

(Guess what - terrorists have fund encryption useful too)

 

I think this concept is like i7 vs Core 2 Quad.
Which i7 have much more cycles looping. Thus, increased the performance.
But I guess 128bit OS will not be very practical due to majority software/driver/applications support is for 32bit and 64bit.

 

I'm all for it but we're finally starting to use 64 bit Vista now because of the need to use more than 4GB's of ram. It might be awhile before we see 128 OS.

 

Guys, this article is a copy of an original written by an incompetent journalist.

There are plans by Microsoft to implement a 128-bit filesystem similar to ZFS (praise be upon ZFS), not a CPU instruction set. The idea behind this plan is to address certain limitations that have become increasingly evident in NTFS, specifically the amount of addressable hard disk space. This has nothing to do with the CPU architecture.

 

We're still transitioning into 64-bit so there's no reason to go into 128-bit already!
I AGREE , oh yea they could do researches about it but we are just not ready for the next few years

 

What can I say, India has amazing tech support.

 

Thanks for the clarification.
I felt it was absurd when I read this.
There is NO NEED for 128bit even 10 years from now.
64bit CPUS have 128bit registers to handle fp so what the heck was that all about?

 

Please define "no need" - in what respct?

Office work? You can do that on 32Bit, you don't need 64Bit for that Word document you are writing.

But once you get into heavier applications - merging photos in Photoshop, solving simultaneous equations in Maple/Mathematica - once you do these things (an not 2 1MP photos and things like 2x+y=3 and x+2y=3 (x,y = 1)) more data procesed in every step is always good

 

considering how fast technology develops, i would say R&D needs to always go into making things better. regardless if software developers lag behind in optimizing applications - it doesn't matter. as long as we're progressing then it is good. with 128bit architecture for cpus we will be able to more intense calculations much better, thus, inevitably we would probably do them faster, thus, medical research, mathematics, physics, and many other sciences can expand at a much faster rate.

i would suggest that there is a large need of improvement. technology by it's sole purpose is in need of developing. better is just... better.

 

Well, will sciences "expand faster"?


I think as long as we can't get the principles behind something we're not getting far, but it definitely helps in modelling situations.

 

The thing is that development of software and requirements tends to go along a linear path, and if anything, is tapering off. 128bit is what's called an exponential increase in capabilities and requirements. The ONLY thing I could see being necessary in the next 20-30 years is maybe a 128bit floating point unit, or filesystem. There is absolutely no reason to have 128bit processing. 64bit doesn't make things any faster except certain floating point operations, double-width calculations, and 128bit has an even lesser chance of improving performance because nobody outside of major scientific laboratories and some major 3D rendering studios might use 128 bits of precision. 64bit already allows access to multi-terabyte address space, and there are no applications outside of top 500 style research supercomputers that would even use that, and they have custom software and hardware a lot of the time, so it's a moot point.

 

It's not so much about more data processed in every step as it is about larger data processed in every step. Yeah, for general office work and most things people do on thier PCs, 128-bit (and even 64-bit) makes no real difference. But when you start talking about bank software, stock trading software, databases with massive tables, scientific research (like modeling climate change, say), and other intensive tasks, word width becomes important. Hell, when we finally move to IPv6, even networking will benefit massively from 128-bit computing (a router with a 64-bit core will run much slower than one with a 128-bit core, for instance). Yeah it is probably a long way off, but the idea that it has no value is incorrect.

 

Bank and stock trading software? Scientific modeling? None of those are near 128bit precision yet, and are not going to be in the foreseeable future. Even 32bit processors can do 80bit precision. All modern x86 CPUs have floating point units that allow them to do that without spanning words. 80bits is more precision than most research computation calls for. So no, 128bits will not speed anything up until we have desktops with multiple terabytes of RAM readily available. Think about it... to really use 80 bits of precision to it's full potential (and thereby needing more bits), you would have to have a simulation containing 1.2x10^24 discrete elements. That's more than a zettabyte. Really... we'll just have 80bit FPU's. There is no need to go past a 64bit architecture for memory addressing and general pointer sizes (which is all the 64bit really means).

 

You got that right my point exactly

We already have 128bit SSE registers.

 

using linear mathematical systems, we could possibly find very amazing connections between different bits of mathematics that could lead to new scientific discoveries, though, we would have to be able to compute very complex systems.

i mean, it would lead to a perhaps better forecast of many disciplines, especially for the business / economics models.

 

Well, I don't think computers inovate...
Its the humans that drive advances in science - but they wouldn't get far without computers nowadays.

 

So what's wrong in having 128bit computing or even more? People who think of only 64bit max is akin to adamantly staying with XP. 128bit computing would open up a whole world of faster applications and not only for personal computing.

 

Excited about 128 bit "Windows 8"? Don't hold your breath.

 

...I don't think you actually understand how these things work. 128bit would not open up anything for at least the next 50 years, even in enterprise space. Really... I have my degree in Computer Science, I know how it all works at a theoretical AND practical level. Look at my previous post as to exactly why 128bits wouldn't be useful as a main architecture. The only thing that might be useful is an expansion of FPU's to handle more than 80bits, but even that is stretching it.

 

One of the major limitations they run in to when building simulations is the maximum level of sclae + granularity they can achieve efficiently on hardware. Things like climate models (including things as mundane as weather prediction) could be more accurate on wider, faster systems. If there is one thing you can count on, it is that when a technology becomes available, someone will find a new and valuable use for it. As I pointed out, IPv6 practically begs for 128-bit processing. Wider width would have benefits in encryption. Statements like "you would have to have a simulation containing 1.2x10^24 discrete elements" are still relying on the idea that something will in some way require addressing. Again, I'm not saying application will be widespread, just that to dismiss it as pointless and useless is as silly as to say that it will be the best thing since silicon.

 

Seriously pick up a book on assembly then you will know why 128bit CPU architecture isn't needed for a long long time.
As I have said they HAVE 128bit SSE registers in Intel and AMD to handle floating point value for multimedia is anyone listening?
But the main addressing registers RAX etc are still 64bit.
When people refer to CPU architecture it is with reference to internal addressing when they call it 64 and 32bit.

 

just in case no one picked this up, there is NO SUCH THING as IA-128.

Any 'simulation' is based on conjecture not from Intel or AMD. Thought experiments only.

Microsoft doesn't even support Itanium for gosh sakes.

 

Wow, this thread is still alive?

 

I can see it in my crystal ball...

Someone will come in, read the thread and while half-understand the concepts, will start parroting "ZOMG 64 BIT INTEL AND AMD CPUS ARENT ACTUALLY 64 BIT IT'S ALL A BIG SCAM" elsewhere on NBR because of what was mentioned about FPU's not being 64 bit.

 

I wonder how Windows 8 is going be..How long you think before they release two-three years??

 

Probably 2012.

 

This should put the 128bit processor/operating system rumors to rest.

http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/10/08/excited-about-128-bit-windows-8-dont-hold-your-breath/

Gary

 

I already posted that.

 

I already said it complete bologna anyway.

 

This is all very interesting but 128 bit is a very long way off. MS need to work on a better filing system before the move onto anything else. Filing system needs to become one of there number one priorities.

 

Read about WinFS. It was one of the many promising projects slated for Longhorn until it was cancelled.

 

The problem with windows is that there is little incentive for development other than just enough of the right kind to stimulate sales.

 

file systems, at their core, are databases. The WinFS team bit off way too much to hope to get their project rolled out as a feature of an OS intended for use by Joe Six Pack.

WinFS is not canceled. Tier1 customers & partners can get the development code for experimentation and there are scheduled updated for the people in the development program.

Google has been working on their in-house Linux derivative, GoogleOS and the GoogleFS file system for what, 5 years? And their expectations are that the combo will be used in controlled environments only.

 

I'll probably be old and gray or dead before 128 bit computing comes out.

 

Jeez, kill the thread already... unless you want to talk about ZFS!!!

 

I'll bite...

But seriously, is making snapshots, of f.i. a large mp3 collection, really that fast (crazy fast as I've read) with ZFS?
I've got some experience with FAT, NTFS, EXT2, 3 and 4 but never used ZFS.
Why is it a suitable/superior file system for home users (also) and not just server environments?

 

I can just see it now when people move to ZFS.

OMG, Y THE SYSTEM IS USING SO MANY HD SPACE. HALP!!!!

 

Personally, I would really like to see msft decouple the file system from the OS. The current scheme of file system mini-port drivers is too troublesome for production reliability kind of use.

ZFS, JFS1/JFS2, etc, etc have a lot to recommend them over NTFS.