Starting Windows 8

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Windows 8 won't support 128bit processors since there's no reason to make them in the next few decades.

It's taken us 50 years to use 4GB of RAM, we won't jump to 16.8 million terabytes of RAM in 3 years.

[neo158]

Windows 8 won't support 128bit processors since there's no reason to make them in the next few decades.

It's taken us 50 years to use 4GB of RAM, we won't jump to 16.8 million terabytes of RAM in 3 years.

Maybe not, but you can bet that Microsoft will add support for the processors in Windows 8.

Seeing as most people don't even use 16GB or more of memory in a 64-bit system yet, they still have 64-bit support.

[yxz]

no

[Ci7]

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.

alright,

on the note .

FYI 16bit is not included in 64bit windows because of hardware limitation not software

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.

Hasewell are projected at earliest 2012,last i checked

128bit would be rather useful for high-ended Servers/Supercomputers

but not to much beside that atm.

hecks, Microsoft has just only recently dropped 32bit server release (WS 2008R2)

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

...

Hasewell are projected at earliest 2012,last i checked

128bit would be rather useful for high-ended Servers/Supercomputers

but not to much beside that atm.

hecks, Microsoft has just only recently dropped 32bit server release (WS 2008R2)

In 20 years they might be useful for supercomputers, but at the moment nobody in the world is anywhere near the limit.

We're talking about somebody using up 13,107,200,000 GB of RAM, that is very unlikely.

Edit: Whoops, got the number wrong, it's actually 17,203,200,000 GB of RAM.

[neo158]

Hasewell are projected at earliest 2012,last i checked

128bit would be rather useful for high-ended Servers/Supercomputers

but not to much beside that atm.

hecks, Microsoft has just only recently dropped 32bit server release (WS 2008R2)

Usually when they drop something from a server release, the client version follows, hence the reason why I think that windows 8 will be distributed as 64-bit only.

Edited December 3, 2009 by neo158

[George P Global Moderator]

Why do people only think about memory address space when talking about 64bit and 128bit? Being able to use more ram isn't the only advantage to have the ability to crunch through larget ammounts of data per cycle. You do understand that a true 128bit CPU running any type of HPC app would crush any 64bit CPU?

Performance isn't just about how much RAM you can access. 128bit CPU's would be a vast improvment over what IT uses today in it's massive datacenters and mainframes. Reducing the need for insane ammounts of CPU's and blade servers, cutting back on power usage and overall costs.

Saying we don't need 128bit because we'll never have the need to use more ram than what we can get with 64bit for the next 20+ years is missing the whole point.

Why do you think there's this big push to using GPGPU mroe for things other than games?

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Parallelization and FLOPS performance?

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

So I know what the whole 128bit CPU thing is about, it's about register length for some instructions.

SSE and such already use 128bit registers and operations, so you can add or multiply 2 64bit floats (4 32bit floats, etc.) in one go, these future registers are 256bits, allowing for storage of 2 128bit integers or floats in a single register.

So the CPU will still be 64bit, but it can operate internally on 256bit registers containing 2 128bit values (same kinda way a 32/64bit CPU can operate on an 128bit register containing 2 64bit values). And apparently there are plans for future 512bit and 1024bit registers (512bit allows for 4 128bit floats, etc.)

[Ci7]

So I know what the whole 128bit CPU thing is about, it's about register length for some instructions.

SSE and such already use 128bit registers and operations, so you can add or multiply 2 64bit floats (4 32bit floats, etc.) in one go, these future registers are 256bits, allowing for storage of 2 128bit integers or floats in a single register.

So the CPU will still be 64bit, but it can operate internally on 256bit registers containing 2 128bit values (same kinda way a 32/64bit CPU can operate on an 128bit register containing 2 64bit values). And apparently there are plans for future 512bit and 1024bit registers (512bit allows for 4 128bit floats, etc.)

that kind of huge :huh:

[George P Global Moderator]

So I know what the whole 128bit CPU thing is about, it's about register length for some instructions.

SSE and such already use 128bit registers and operations, so you can add or multiply 2 64bit floats (4 32bit floats, etc.) in one go, these future registers are 256bits, allowing for storage of 2 128bit integers or floats in a single register.

So the CPU will still be 64bit, but it can operate internally on 256bit registers containing 2 128bit values (same kinda way a 32/64bit CPU can operate on an 128bit register containing 2 64bit values). And apparently there are plans for future 512bit and 1024bit registers (512bit allows for 4 128bit floats, etc.)

Exactly, it's all about running apps faster not about being able to use xGB of ram.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

that kind of huge :huh:

It's a wide data type, but due to how it's used it's not really that big (a 128bit data type can store 4 32bit integers (say, for a 2x2 matrix), 2D drawing engines use 3x3 matrixes)

Exactly, it's all about running apps faster not about being able to use xGB of ram.

Well sure, but the CPU will still be 64bit. We don't call old Pentium's 128Bit CPU's since they have a 128Bit data type.

[hdood]

FYI 16bit is not included in 64bit windows because of hardware limitation not software

AMD64 processors can run 16-bit code. The reason it isn't supported in 64-bit Windows is because there is so little demand that adding support for it costs Microsoft more than they get back. Simple business decision.

[Saburac]

AMD64 processors can run 16-bit code. The reason it isn't supported in 64-bit Windows is because there is so little demand that adding support for it costs Microsoft more than they get back. Simple business decision.

How does adding support for something they've owned for decades cost them anything? It's a simple subsystem, I can see it being removed for security or better stability but cost? Nah.

[HawkMan]

How does adding support for something they've owned for decades cost them anything? It's a simple subsystem, I can see it being removed for security or better stability but cost? Nah.

I don't think you fully understand the amount of Q&A and bugtesting that needs to go into every piece of code of a operating system especially one as widely used as Widnows where the economy of one of the worlds largest companies rely on that product. even if it's old ancient code known to be stable. and it still needs to be modified to fit inside the new OS and interpreters and the systems to support the sub system needs to be built. which requires more code work and even more bug testign and Q&A for something that there's absolutely ZERO demand or need for.

Just because something is relatively cheap compared to stuff like a new graphics system, new audio system, new shell/task bar and any number of big visible changes in vista and 7, doesn't mean that they don't cut it for the costs.

If they where to keep everythign that was relatively minor and relatively cheap, windows would be REALLy bloated, especially in code.

[hdood]

How does adding support for something they've owned for decades cost them anything? It's a simple subsystem, I can see it being removed for security or better stability but cost? Nah.

Because it has to be modified to work on the new platform. You can't just drop the old files in and have it work. Also, it's not a "simple" piece of code (and not a subsystem, Windows only has half a subsystem). It wasn't removed, it was never added.

[Alladaskill17]

Youtube video

I LOL'd, havent seen that in a while, never gets old. :D

[TDT]

Is there any fresh news about Win 8 yet? Some leaked screenshots, or something? It's too quiet, that's a little unusual for a Microsoft product.

[Solid Knight]

Well sure, but the CPU will still be 64bit. We don't call old Pentium's 128Bit CPU's since they have a 128Bit data type.

Things like SSE have 128-bit registers but when dealing with the CPU on the Pentium it only has 32-bit registers hence it being a 32-bit processor.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

Is there any fresh news about Win 8 yet? Some leaked screenshots, or something? It's too quiet, that's a little unusual for a Microsoft product.

agreed, i wan't some updates

[amon91]

Is there any fresh news about Win 8 yet? Some leaked screenshots, or something? It's too quiet, that's a little unusual for a Microsoft product.

Was exactly the same thing with Windows 7. No official screens from MS before PDC, even though builds leaked months earlier. We've already seen some alleged post-RTM builds but they're visually identical to 7.

[ccoltmanm]

Any update on Windows 8 as far as screenshots go?

[+Frank B. Subscriber²]

Any update on Windows 8 as far as screenshots go?

No.

[derkim]

I think at the moment Windows 8 looks not different like Windows 7.

Changes at the Interface comes most at the end of development.

[ccoltmanm]

That is a good point. However, if they are planning on using a new "small app" or "web app" interface, as well as motion sensing technology, i'd imagine some big changes right away.