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 view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2008-06-24
I'm in agreement on this. I also believe the 128-bit reference was for the file system, not the processor.
Most desktops today don't even cap out the 4 GB limit of 32-bit processors and no server or desktop on the planet comes anywhere close to maxing out a 64-bit memory space. As was said, even with 48 address pins that is 281,474,976,710,656 bytes of addressable memory (281 TB, or 281,000 GB). That's a lot of memory, even for data miners.
Member since:2006-01-02
That's what I thought, as well. 128-bit in the CPU also won't do much good until there is some idea of how hardware and common languages will be implementing 128-bit ints (not that they would do it strangely, but it could be a pain to rewrite code for the actual hardware/language standards, when your data type or keyword or semantics guesses end up wrong). However, NTFS is getting long in the tooth, and while they've got the whole, "we can use this RAM stuff," pretty well down in 7, being stuck at 64-bit for the FS will likely become a problem. Even before getting too close to the edge, performance may suffer.
With embedded x86 machines getting 1/4-1GB RAM these days, Atoms and Nanos (and whatever AMD may come up with) replacing POSes in the near future (like Cyrix-based Geodes), and desktops 2-12GB (not even getting into big server setup where big storage may actually be used), going from 8 to 16 bytes to declare a small space in the FS will not do harm.
Microsoft needs these kinds of things ready to go before anyone really needs them.
Edited 2009-10-07 21:51 UTC
Member since:2008-10-30
I also agree that this is probably for the file system and not the processor.
However with a 128 bit virtual address space you can do some pretty interesting things, where a 64 bit space may be too limiting.
One thing is for sure, we will never see computers that will physically run out of a 64bit memory space.
However with a 128 bit space you can give each person, machine, thing, CPU, program and library each own 64bit virtual address space and never run out.
This means you do not need relocatable binaries (ever), and even hourly re-compiles will never run out of available spaces (this might happen in a 64 bit space).
Also opens up some interesting possibilities in DRM and security like programs and data will only be available in your own personal address space. Or your address space is relocatable in a cloud computer space and will move around yet always be yours. Sending messages (like an email) could be something like pushing data into the recipients address space in the cloud etc. etc.
A lot of this could be possible in a 64 bit world but you would need to manage it tightly. In a 128 bit world you do not need much management.
I can definitely see why this is interesting from a research perspective.
Member since:2006-01-01
You are mistaken and the 'update' to this posting is also mistaken.
The original linkedin job description of Robert Morgan clearly stated that he is working on ...
'Research & Development projects including 128bit architecture compatibility with the Windows 8 kernel and Windows 9 project plan'
... this clearly implies a 128 bit CPU architecture. The addition of 128 bit instructions - probably in the Kittson timeframe - logically progress the architecture and is by no means esoteric (the Dreamcast, back in the day, had a 128 bit FPU).
]{
Member since:2005-07-06
Well you already have 128bit registers today in the SSE units. I'm quiet sure that 128bit for integer values wouldn't make sense for the big majority of application (in fact even in 64bit programs most values which are not pointers are still 32bits because that simply saves memory).
There might some uses where 128bit floating or maybe even 128bit integer makes sense. But it would be a minority of applications and the additions would be more like an instruction set extension like SSE is...
This story based on a (now removed!) LinkedIn profile looks very dubious to me. IA-128 is also very odd name. IA-64 is the name for the Intel Itanium architecture which intel isn't developing further in favor of AMD64 (or EM64T like Intel calls it).
And well if you want more bits wait for Larabee - it will have 512 bit registers ;-)
Member since:
2005-07-06
The reference to IA-128 in the article is probably bogus (written by an incompetent journalist) and such an architecture doesn't exist. But seeing that several references in the lower part talk about files and file systems, I guess that windows will switch the file system to support 128bits.
For external storage it might be possible that we see storage arrays which such gigantic spaces in the next 10 or 20 years. SUNs ZFS supports 128bit for a few years now, so I assume microsoft doesn't want to lack in that area...