Starting Windows 8

[neo158]

32bit support won't be removed for a long long time, like a decade or more.

I think we will start to see Microsoft depreciate the 32-bit version of windows, starting with windows 8.

By this I mean that there probably will be a 32-bit version but they will only ship the 64-bit version, and considering the uptake of the 64-bit version of Windows 7 I think that's a fair bet.

I also think that windows 9 won't have a 32-bit version available, and that windows 10 will see the removal of WoW64 and any related 32-bit code.

[fix-this!]

the whole UI needs to be redone on top of a better file system.

[Ci7]

I think we will start to see Microsoft depreciate the 32-bit version of windows, starting with windows 8.

By this I mean that there probably will be a 32-bit version but they will only ship the 64-bit version, and considering the uptake of the 64-bit version of Windows 7 I think that's a fair bet.

I also think that windows 9 won't have a 32-bit version available and that windows 10 will see the removal of WoW64.

guesstimating win10 it would be around 2019/20

why bother remove wow64? with increasing size of hdd ,they could instead make it optional subsystem that you can remove from control panel if you don't went it

[neo158]

guesstimating win10 it would be around 2019/20

why bother remove wow64? with increasing size of hdd ,they could instead make it optional subsystem that you can remove from control panel if you don't went it

But by then who is going to be using 32-bit programs anyway?

the whole UI needs to be redone on top of a better file system.

What file system would you like to see?

Don't say WinFS because that was just a relational database on top of NTFS.

On that subject there is nothing wrong with it.

[timmmay]

But by then who is going to be using 32-bit programs anyway?

I have a customer who still uses a 16bit accounting package that runs in DOS. They have no intention of changing it as it does exactly what they need. Who know's but they still might be using it in 2020 :)

[Guest]

the whole UI needs to be redone on top of a better file system.

[Digitalx]

i think besides aero and UI/X being refined basing off windows 7 they shouldn't really have much else to do other then natural refinements and improvements.

[Ci7]

But by then who is going to be using 32-bit programs anyway?

i mean what harm would it be if they just make it removable component instead of tear it off altogether?

remember this?

i renamber it was project it after ten year we would have as big storage drive as 12TB !! or something of that sort

I have a customer who still uses a 16bit accounting package that runs in DOS. They have no intention of changing it as it does exactly what they need. Who know's but they still might be using it in 2020 :)

16bit won't run in 64bit windows,so that is irrelevant anyway

[soldier1st]

32bit apps will be around even when 64bit is the norm.

[neo158]

i mean what harm would it be if they just make it removable component instead of tear it off altogether?

remember this?

i renamber it was project it after ten year we would have as big storage drive as 12TB !! or something of that sort

Yes I do know the Turn Windows Features On or Off Dialog, however, AMD is working on 128-bit processors (Microsoft's 128-bit indiscretion) and Windows 8 and/or 9 is supposed to support that architecture. So, by windows 10 we won't need a 32-bit compatibility layer anyway, so why include one.

Edited December 3, 2009 by neo158

[soonerproud]

Ah yes, the old "based on" fun. You know there's no limit to it? It's not like 2000 was from scratch either.

The poster I answered was factually incorrect. Vista is a direct decedent of XP so it is based on XP, end of story.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Yes I do know the Turn Windows Features On or Off Dialog, however, AMD is working on 128-bit processors (Microsoft's 128-bit indiscretion) and Windows 8 and/or 9 is supposed to support that architecture. So, by windows 10 we won't need a 32-bit compatibility layer anyway, so why include one.

We could be running on 256bit processors, that won't change the fact that we have 20 years of 32bit programs.

And on 128Bit CPU's, we'd have a "Windows64 on Windows128" layer just to run 64Bit apps.

[Jayayess1190]

Win 8 may run on Win 7/Server 2008 R2 Enhanced Core

[Quillz]

the whole UI needs to be redone on top of a better file system.

There's nothing wrong with NTFS at all.

Perhaps you can explain exactly what needs to be made better about it?

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

And even if MS were to use a different file system, there's nothing to be "re done", since they support pluggable file system drivers like OS X and Linux.

[hdood]

Yes I do know the Turn Windows Features On or Off Dialog, however, AMD is working on 128-bit processors (Microsoft's 128-bit indiscretion) and Windows 8 and/or 9 is supposed to support that architecture

Windows 8 is scheduled for release in three years and will support an architecture that doesn't exist yet? Get real.

Win 8 may run on Win 7/Server 2008 R2 Enhanced Core

Really? Windows 8 MAY be based on Windows 7 and its refactored core (MinWin=refactoring work being done)? Are you saying there's a chance they could base it on Windows 3.11 instead?

[Commodore Max]

How should they start building Windows 8?

Should they build off of previous OS releases and their code, or should they start from ABSOLUTE scratch and build everything from the registery to the calculator from nothing?

I can see benifiets on both sides, where you can cut time and resoucres starting on top of other OS's, or start fresh and build the bare nessities. I can only imagine they have improved their code writing and how they organize stuff.

Starting from scratch is pretty much impossible if you want to release it in less than 5 years.

I haven't laughed this much in a long time.

[neo158]

Windows 8 is scheduled for release in three years and will support an architecture that doesn't exist yet? Get real.

Thats just it, it's a prediction, just like all the other posts on here.

Fact is, we just don't know anything about Windows 8, apart from the release date being three years away!!!!!!

Actually 128-bit processors could be here as soon as 2011, especially if AMD's Bulldozer and Intel's Haswell Architecture turns out to be 128-bit.

[ToneKnee]

I think they should work on refining the NTFS for SSD's, or just make another file system with the same idea as NTFS but obviously designed just for SSD's.

[Jayayess1190]

Really? Windows 8 MAY be based on Windows 7 and its refactored core (MinWin=refactoring work being done)? Are you saying there's a chance they could base it on Windows 3.11 instead?

Sorry, my mistake. :(

[George P Global Moderator]

I think they should work on refining the NTFS for SSD's, or just make another file system with the same idea as NTFS but obviously designed just for SSD's.

MS already made changes in Win7 to support SSDs better. Windows 7 makes use of the TRIM command on supported SSDs. This optimises when erase cycles are performed, thereby reducing the need to erase blocks before each write and increasing write performance. However, as of November 2009, hardware support for this command is limited with many drives requiring new firmware or not supporting TRIM at all.

If anything, SSD's have to better support the changes MS made to the file system first.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Thats just it, it's a prediction, just like all the other posts on here.

Fact is, we just don't know anything about Windows 8, apart from the release date being three years away!!!!!!

Actually 128-bit processors could be here as soon as 2011, especially if AMD's Bulldozer and Intel's Haswell Architecture turns out to be 128-bit.

They won't be though, there's no reason to jump to an 128bit address space when current hardware doesn't even use the full 64bit address space (most CPU's only use 46bits or something)

There's no reason to go to 128bits for a very long time.

[yxz]

There's no reason to go to 128bits

qubits > bits

[neo158]

They won't be though, there's no reason to jump to an 128bit address space when current hardware doesn't even use the full 64bit address space (most CPU's only use 46bits or something)

There's no reason to go to 128bits for a very long time.

Microsoft haven't stated anything about Windows 8 apart from a launch window of 2012, so you can't say that they won't support 128-bit, honestly, no one knows for sure what windows 8 will support.

[yxz]

Microsoft haven't stated anything about Windows 8 apart from a launch window of 2012, so you can't say that they won't support 128-bit, honestly, no one knows for sure what windows 8 will support.

128-bit processors could become prevalent when 16 exbibytes of addressable memory is no longer enough (128-bit processors would allow memory addressing for 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 bytes (~340.3 undecillion bytes or 281,474,976,710,656 yobibytes ). However, physical limits make such large amounts of memory currently impossible, given that amount greatly exceeds the total data stored on Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/128-bit