Windows 8 expected in 2011 was expected to only come in a 64 bit version, because Windows Server 2008 R2 was released in 64 bit form only and the next Windows OS was expected to follow suit. However it is now believed that Windows 8 might ship in 64bit AND 128 bit versions, based on the linkedin profile of Microsoft employee Robert Morgan: "Working in high security department for research and development involving strategic planning for medium and longterm projects. Research & Development projects including 128bit architecture compatibility with the Windows 8 kernel and Windows 9 project plan. Forming relationships with major partners: Intel, AMD, HP, and IBM. 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."
If they actually manage to get 128 bit backwards compatible you can bet they won't stop there. 256 Bit anyone?
128 bits and PI Yes, I will be finally able to master the world record of the longest decimal representation ever on my 16 Intel core home PC.
What a nonsense! In 2011 there will be still a lot of old hardware in use, that is not capable to run a 64 bit OS. Does anybody think that MS won't be interested in selling a new OS to those customers?
MS (like any other company) is interested in making money, not in pushing technology to new levels. They offer what can be sold! Be sure there will be 32 bit versions of windows 8.
Then what is the point in have a 4+ core processor? You really think AMD and Intel will stop making bigger and better processors? Intel already has a 6 core processor slated to retail first quarter of next year, AMD has there Thuban 6 core due out 2nd quarter next year. 12 core processors are not far behind. I really do not see AMD or Intel saying "oh the customers don't need more cores or 64+ bits" If the customers can not afford to pay guess there stuck with old tech. But that will not stop the manufactures from pushing 128 bit or even 6+ cores. It's called end of life cycle, people need to learn to let go of old legacy technology and embrace the future technology.
Sorry, but you are completely missing the point. The article says there won't be 32 bit versions any more. I am just talking about that, not about 128 bit.
Too right there will still be people using xp in 2011, which is 15 months away lol. Newer tech will not be everyones cup of tea, like personal privacy will be less with newer tech, so you will find lots using tech that is older.
Bottom line - you can't stop people from running what windows they choose to. But on the other hand it's not going to stop M$ or anyone else from making newer technology and pushing it.
No way!. 128-bit registers, maybe, a 128-bit bus, ok,… but a 128-bit architecture wouldn't be very useful yet, just think of it a node of a doubly linked list would alone be at least 32 byte large!
Just to clarify it for some people, x64 is NOT IA64! x64 was actually developed and released by AMD, hence why on the Windows installation disks the folder is called AMD64 and not IA64. IA64 is actually a different architecture that Intel has on some CPU's (not sure if they're still made or not), which seems to be less efficient?... Windows Vista and Server 2008 R2 actually comes out in one 32 bit version x86-32 (shortened name to x86) and two 64 bit versions, x86-64 (shortened to the name x64) and IA64.
Providing that the people and companies you refer to have the money to upgrade hardware and OS licenses every 2-3 years...and that we never have another f-up like Windows ME or Vista...and that driver support moves ahead at the exact same time... No, Legacy support needs to exist in every OS, otherwise they are cutting a sizable chunk of profits out of the picture, simply due to "real world" customers being unable to afford to "start from scratch" every time Microsoft, or Hardware vendors, sign the papal-bull making such a decree. I'm a CPU-hungry gamer myself, and when I'm lagging, I'm not a happy camper. But $2000+ for a decent (Decent=not lagging in 6 months) gamer's rig, plus another 300 for a legal Windows license, every 3 years? Not with my rent and car payment. In a perfect world sure, but not this one sadly. On the flipside, I have no qualms with Microsoft, at least, testing the waters with trying to make a stable 128bit product. Granted, if Windows 8 goes 128bit at the expense of any 32bit compatibility, I won't be joining in. But considering that Vista was basically a very long "beta test", and money making scam, to perfect their OS before Win7, I can imagine many others not jumping the gun on a Win8 upgrade. Sure they might get things right, right out of the box. Or they might recreate the Vista disaster, leaving people stranded on another OS that needs years of patches to be truly viable. Basically just another issue that we can speculate on for a good while yet, until some time passes and MS/Hardware vendors set more of these facts in stone. --DKnight
Just remember... Windows 7 =/= 7 Kernel... It's still using the v6 kernel. What does it matter when THEY ALREADY CONTROL YOUR BRAIN?!?!?!??!
Did you guys not notice that they're talking about IA-128 Itanium's here? We're not talking about PC's and netbooks!
I think we should all embrace technology as it moves forward. . . . . If one can cope with the expense. However i an interested to know what the real life applications of a 128bit system would be for the average end user. I mean 32bit is ample for most users. For example 64bit is aimed at high end stuff like say CAD or real high end gaming. Really, what would the average user do with a 128bit system ? ? ?
People always say "it will be 128bit in the near future" 32bit can address 4GB of memory 64bit can address 16.8 million terabytes of memory. 128bit? pfft. The only possible tangible benefit might be the extra bandwidth for faster rendering, but it might not even be worth that.
128 is indeed not useful for normal users, but maybe it is for supercomputers à la roadrunner and its succeeders