Windows 8 128-bit possibility

[PorPorMe]

Microsoft mulling 128-bit versions of Windows 8, Windows 9
Microsoft is working on 128-bit architecture compatibility with the Windows 8 and Windows 9 kernels. Consequently, the company is also forming relationships with major partners, including Intel, AMD, HP, and IBM.

By Emil Protalinski | Last updated October 7, 2009 12:55 PM CT
Microsoft mulling 128-bit versions of Windows 8, Windows 9 - Ars Technica

Believe it or not, Windows 7's successor(s) have been in the planning and early development stages for a while now. We haven't posted anything about any of them yet, but we've been watching closely to see if anything really interesting turned up. Exactly two weeks ago, it did. A LinkedIn profile, which has already been taken down, for a Robert Morgan, Senior Research & Development at Microsoft, has shone a sliver of light on the possibility of 128-bit support coming to Windows 8. According to the LinkedIn page, which has been removed since, Morgan has been with the software giant since January 2002, but we're more intrigued with what his profile (first paragraph) and his status (second paragraph) before they disappeared:

[Daniel ~]

Looks very expensive and I'm not sure there's much to be gain...Perhaps some one in a better position to know can set me straight on this?

[Samuknow]

Shouldn't they sort out 64 bit first. We have been there for a while and there is no real advantage. On the contrary, there is more frustration. Any time I have tried a 64 bit OS, I have been banging my head against the floor begging the pain to stop. Let's just fix what we have MS.

[chrisbard]

No matter what I do I use Vista 64. Spreadsheets, docs, browsing, gaming. Gaming with more than 3GB on V64 is absolutely brilliant. So stop moaning and use it properly !!!

[Daniel ~]

And what did you gain Chris? Seriously I haven't seen anyone posting real gains for 64 over 32 bit computing and I was a real fan when this all started up. 128 will require all new hardware and software again, for the hobbyist not to terrible but for the businessman I think this will begin to look like a scam!

What do others think?

[Gizmo]

I think it's a lot of hype and bull****.

There is NO mainstream hardware support for 128-bit computing, and to the best of my knowledge there are no plans to support such in any serious fashion within at least the next 5 years.

The main reason for the push from 32-bit to 64-bit hardware was due to memory constraints; we were actually starting to see the need for more memory than could be handled by a 32-bit address space.

The fact is that the ONLY place where 128-bit or greater computing power is needed is in a few esoteric engineering and scientific applications, and those can already be handled (the current generation 64-bit CPUs provide the capability to do 128-bit math using the SIMD extensions).

Therefore, the only reason we could possibly justify a 128-bit architecture is if we needed more than 16 exbibytes of RAM (That's 16 GIGA-GIGABytes, or 8 Billion times the amount of ram that is supported by Windows in 32-bit mode without tricks). I have no idea what the world-wide manufacturing capacity for a year is, but I have to suspect that just ONE machine capable of that much RAM storage would take a sizable portion of it.

[Samuknow]

Originally Posted by Daniel ~

And what did you gain Chris? Seriously I haven't seen anyone posting real gains for 64 over 32 bit computing and I was a real fan when this all started up. 128 will require all new hardware and software again, for the hobbyist not to terrible but for the businessman I think this will begin to look like a scam!

What do others think?

that is the question. I can add more memory that the "system" will recognize. But will all my apps utilize it? Will it be worth all the driver headaches?

[cloasters]

How long can we suffer without Giga-Giga bits of RAM? Oh, the humanity!

[Daniel ~]

I don't know George...But I'm going to start my suffering right now! ":O}

[candle_86]

its gotta be a lye, there is no reason for 128bit except to say oh look 128bit. It should take longer and longer to gain the bits. 1-2bit was fast, 2-4bits was fast 4-8 was kinda fast 8-16 kinda fast, 16-32 1979-1985, but now 32-64 was 1985-2003. Now why, 16bit only supported 1mb of ram, 32bit supported 4gb of ram. You show me an app in the next 5 years for a normal computer that will even appraoch the limit of XP 64bit of 127gb, or a ram company that can make ram modules with that much ram for a normal desktop computer.