Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 22nd Oct 2007 13:48 UTC
Windows Earlier today, OSNews ran a story on a presentation held by Microsoft's Eric Traut, the man responsible for the 200 or so kernel and virtualisation engineers working at the company. Eric Traut is also the man who wrote the binary translation engine for in the earlier PowerPC versions of VirtualPC (interestingly, this engine is now used to run XBox 1 [x86] games on the XBox 360 [PowerPC]) - in other words, he knows what he is talking about when it comes to kernel engineering and virtualisation. His presentation was a very interesting thing to watch, and it offered a little bit more insight into Windows 7, the codename for the successor to Windows Vista, planned for 2010.
Thread beginning with comment 279892
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: my dream
by losethos2 on Mon 22nd Oct 2007 18:06 UTC in reply to "RE: my dream"
losethos2
Member since:
2007-10-22

Good point. Many novices use induction to say, well we ran out of 32-bit space and, now, 64 bit is needed, so lets jump to 128 bits.

Sometimes, people find uses for excess bits by incompletely utilizing the space... Like placing kernel stuff in 0x80000000-0xFFFFFFFF even before you run-out. I think I heard that IP numbers are way excessive, but good for routing.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: my dream
by sbergman27 on Mon 22nd Oct 2007 18:17 in reply to "RE[2]: my dream"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

One really good thing about living in the year 2007 is that both the hardware and software creators got out of the "let's add 4 more bits" mindset that we lived with through the 80s and 90s. Remember all those "barriers" we broke, only to face them again in a few years? Now we have the opposite problem: Adding an excessive number of bits gratuitously for marketing reasons. That's a far lesser problem though. As an old friend of mine was fond of saying: Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. ;-)

The ext3->ext4 transition is, hopefully, the last major barrier we will face for some time. (Famous last words!)

Edited 2007-10-22 18:17

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: my dream
by losethos2 on Mon 22nd Oct 2007 18:31 in reply to "RE[3]: my dream"
losethos2 Member since:
2007-10-22

Is ext4 128 bits? I tend to think that's excessive, but maybe you might have virtual drives composed of several physical ones and it might prove convenient to use high bits for physical drive number, or if they were on a network, include numbers for that. I picked 64-bits for my filesystem, but I can see reasons for 128.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: my dream
by philcaetano on Mon 22nd Oct 2007 18:36 in reply to "RE[2]: my dream"
philcaetano Member since:
2007-10-22

Now don't get me wrong, I agree with 64 bit being enough for a long time.

But when I first read the this, I read no one will ever need more than 64 bit for a software. ;) Is it possible that saying, we don't need it is too short sighted or arrogant?

But ya.. 64 is enough, and even the idea of 128, I'm not so sure if the advantages out way the disadvantages. Memory space available vs usage needed for a typical software is the first thing that comes to mind.

Edited 2007-10-22 18:39

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: my dream
by sbergman27 on Mon 22nd Oct 2007 19:36 in reply to "RE[3]: my dream"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

But when I first read the this, I read no one will ever need more than 64 bit for a software. ;) Is it possible that saying, we don't need it is too short sighted or arrogant?

"""

Never say never. And, of course, 40-60 years is not never. ;-)

But I don't *think* I'm being short sighted. The 20th century conditioned mind thought in terms of arithmetic progressions with regards to computer hardware and was continually underestimating future requirements. The 21st century conditioned mind is used to thinking in terms of geometric progressions. And the geometric constants for the increase in disk space, ram, and transistor density in processors have remained remarkably constant over the 20 years I have been watching. If anything, I would expect the constants to *decrease* over the years.

At any rate, and for now at least, one can figure 1 bit for every two years on memory, and 1 bit for every year and a half of disk.

X86_64 took us from 32 bits to 48 bits for memory addressing. A difference of 16 bits. So I figure we're good for 32 years. In fact, due to the way X86_32 works, one has to start making tradeoffs at less than 1GB. Not sure if and where such tradeoffs might need to be made with current processors.

I'm sure some kind soul will stop by to fill us in on that.

Edited 2007-10-22 19:38

Reply Parent Score: 1