Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Wed 7th Oct 2009 19:15 UTC, submitted by JayDee
Microsoft has been thinking about Windows 8 for a while now even through the production of Windows 7. Some information has been gathered by our friends over at Ars, and all of this said information points to possible 128-bit versions of Windows 8 and definite 128-bit versions of Windows 9. Update: Other technophiles better-versed than I in this whole 64/128-bit business pointed out that it must be for the filesystem (such as ZFS described in this article) rather than the processor and memory scheme.
Permalink for comment 388243
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-01-25
In overall summary I think that it's all about quality, not quantity.
Your talking about software quality. That has nothing to do with 32-bit vs 64-bit vs 128-bit or anything in between. Those are attributes of the underlying hardware. Yes, software does need to be changed to incorporate these "new" attributes as they become available, but doing so does nothing to address its quality - it is simply enabling additional modes of operation. Some software can take advantage of increased address space, additional registers, large integers, etc., but frankly for most software it doesn't matter one bit (pun intended).
I'm only responding to this because while I agree that software quality is definitely an issue, it is a _seperate_ issue. And the software worlds inability to get its collective sh*t together has nothing to do with whether or not moving from xx-bit to yy-bit is actually _useful_. Moving from 32-bit to 64-bit was most definitely useful, regardless of how crappy software still tends to be.