Considering 80-90% of all

Submitted by dag1992 on Thu, 10/08/2009 - 1:39pm

Considering 80-90% of all pcs still run 32 bit flavors, lets focus on 64 bit adoption first.

Login or register to post comments

I don't think I can handle

Submitted by lunchbox73 on Thu, 10/08/2009 - 5:44am

I don't think I can handle Windows 8 talk yet. Too soon.

Login or register to post comments

I don't think so.

Submitted by Taz0 on Thu, 10/08/2009 - 4:35am

The 64 bit address space will scale up to 17,179,869,184 GB of RAM. There is no reason to increase pointer register sizes other than to accommodate more addressable memory. 64 bit will also suffice for hard drives, since it can address 16,777,216 TB of data.

Since every bit doubles the amount of addressable memory, and assuming consumer computer technology doubles every 18 months (a very rough but useable estimate), basically we need one extra bit every 18 months. Assuming we've hit the limit of 32 bit around five years ago, that means that by now we need 35 bits (=32 GB of RAM), and that in 10 years we'll need 41 bits, and in 44 years we'll need 64 bits.

You see, the advancement of computer technology is exponential. A linear expansion of bits creates exponential growth in address space, which satisfies the exponential advancement of computers. But we're not expanding bits linearly, we're expanding them exponentially, which is why the distance between each expansion will be exponentially bigger (I.e. tech is advancing at the power of 2 while we're expanding the address space by the power of 4). It took around 5 years to move to 16 bit, 7 years for 32 bit, 18 years for 64 bit, so 50 years is a reasonable value for 128 bit, as it follows the exponential curve.

Of course there could be some rule-changers during that time. But in any case, I wouldn't hold my breath for 128 bit.

Login or register to post comments

Don't believe it

Submitted by SEALBoy on Wed, 10/07/2009 - 11:22pm

Considering Windows 7 is going to come in the 32-bit variety, I am extremely doubtful Windows 8 will have 128-bit support. Hopefully it will be 64-bit only.

Maybe, just maybe, Windows 9 will, but that depends on a lot of things - not the least of which is CPU support.

Login or register to post comments

sources?

Submitted by 555monkey on Wed, 10/07/2009 - 7:15pm

cite your sources, please  I had to look it up myself: http://blog.eightforums.com

Login or register to post comments

If anything...

Submitted by lien_meat on Wed, 10/07/2009 - 6:49pm

If anything they are just figuring out how to extend their existing libraries to 128bit so that it's doable in the future.  I haven't heard any talk about any 128bit CPU's or anything, so unless windows 8 is 8 years off *chuckle chuckle*, then I'd be pretty shocked if 128 bit support was really that close.  I mean, what are they going to support that's 128 bits and needs dirrect support like that?...anyone....?
### I'm an idiot, and I approve this message ###

Login or register to post comments

Riddle me this...

Submitted by msnight04 on Wed, 10/07/2009 - 6:42pm

Are there even 128bit capable processors?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Even the smallest breeze can cause big things to turn!

Login or register to post comments

If they're even THINKING

Submitted by mattman059 on Wed, 10/07/2009 - 6:25pm

If they're even THINKING about making 128-bit version of an OS then they had BETTER get the word out to hardware manufacturers and get some freakin DRIVERS MADE for it. I hated when 64-bit XP came and I had absolutely no Wireless adapter because no drivers existed for anything they carried at  best-buy (dumbass "geeks" said "Oh yeah it'll work"...bullshit.)

Login or register to post comments