Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Wed 7th Oct 2009 19:15 UTC, submitted by JayDee
Windows 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.
Thread beginning with comment 388153
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by godawful on Wed 7th Oct 2009 19:29 UTC
Member since:

I know 128 = two times as awesome as 64, but, unless the release date for 128 bit windows 9 is decades into the future, I really can't think of any practical reasoning behind this, there has to be some miscommunication somewhere.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Uuuh
by Kroc on Thu 8th Oct 2009 00:15 in reply to "Uuuh"
Kroc Member since:

128 *bits* is not 2x 64 bits, it might be as simple decimal numbers but 2^64 is 1.844674407e+19 and 2^128 is 3.402823669e+38—exponentially bigger; 2^64 * 2 is 3.689348814e+19.

65 bits is 2x 64 bits!

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Uuuh
by lindkvis on Thu 8th Oct 2009 07:50 in reply to "Uuuh"
lindkvis Member since:

Actually 128 bits is 2^64 times as awesome as 64 bits.

The most powerful supercomputer in the world has a total of 100 Terabytes of memory. 64 bit memory addressing allows for 180 thousand times that amount. And that supercomputer isn't shared memory, so each individual system has much less memory than this.

It is a similar level of expansion from Commodore 64 to current 64-bit power-workstations (64 KB to 12GB).

So if memory expansion happens at the same rate, it will be well over 20 years until we need more than 64 bit memory addressing.

Reply Parent Score: 1