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.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-05-09
You're obviously talking about desktop, where the need for 64 bits hasn't really been that great (apart from complex video editing I guess). The only part of java which wasn't 64-bit was the browser plugin, and that has been fixed recently. The server JVM has been able to run in 64 bits for ages, and that's where Java counts.
Flash has also been available in 64-bit form for a while now, so no excuse there.
Member since:2005-11-09
not seeing a rush?
take a look at the CPU you are running... it is a 64 bit CPU if it was manufactured in the last 4 years.
if you are talking about software.... desktop OSs are moving to 64 bit in such a rush, that the certified for windows 7 systems have to be 64 bit systems. 4 Gigs of memory will be common place in a few years.
If you are talking about programs.... so what if it is not a 64 bit program? Most programs don't need more addressable stack space than 32 bits. 64 bit is really for the OS and a few specialized programs (probably games as well in the near future) everything else can live in 32 bit world until the end of time.
Member since:2009-07-01
Well, sorry mate but even nowadays computers come already with 6GB of memory, 4GB is the minimum where I'm living and I'm talking about laptops for general purpose.
Anyway, in the server market I've seen already systems with 256GB and now with the 8GB dimms I'll see systems with 512GB of RAM. Of course for memory address space 64-bit will be more than enough for the next 5 to 10 years I believe.
Don't forgeet about quantum computing ... there are already some prototypes and if they are getting the right dose of investigation soon they will be out here and greed for mem and more 
Member since:2006-01-02
The compatibility is all there. It was an issue back when all this 64-bit stuff was new. I run quite a few Windows applications that are 32-bit in Linux, and some FOSS apps that don't seem to work as 64-bit (Qdu, FI).
Even if applications don't need 64-bit, it's nice for those that do, and PAE could cause some apps and drivers problems. FI, I run 32-bit Firefox on Windows 7, because it uses remarkably less RAM (more pointers than actual data?), while I run 64-bit FF on Linux, because it's noticeably faster. Either way, I can run them with 8GB of RAM, and no swap, yet still never close anything, because there are always a few GB spare.
Member since:
2006-11-09
Would the purpose of 128bit be to address more memory?
Maybe the enlightened readers among us could fill in the gaps for me, as I am not seeing a rush to 64 bit. So , are we talking 4-6 years down the road? I read a lot of comments in linux to avoid the 64 bit versions like the plague , as most software doesn't really take full advantage of it (flash, java especially), but backwards compatibility is improving. I'm writing this on a 32 bit hp mini, and have had 64 bit in the past, but never had more than 4 gigs of ram. Not much experience with 64 bit, so I'm just curious to the benifits of a true 64 bit system.