128-Bit Support in Windows 8, 9?

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.

It was obvious that 128-bit operating systems would be rolling out sooner or later, but the only question was who and when.First, of course, we’ll need to have 128-bit processors available to the general public, not to mention other compatible hardware and drivers, but there is plenty of time for Intel and AMD (let’s not forget ARM who are making strides in their market) to duke that out on the processor field.

The information found that suggested 128-bit support by Windows 8 and/or 9 was in a LinkedIn profile of a certain Robert Morgan, who happens to be from Senior Research and Development at Microsoft. The information was afterwards taken down, but luckily it’s been preserved on news sites such as OSNews:

Working in high security department for research and development involving strategic planning for medium and longterm projects. Research & Development projects including 128bit architecture compatibility with the Windows 8 kernel and Windows 9 project plan. Forming relationships with major partners: Intel, AMD, HP, and IBM.

Robert Morgan is working to get IA-128 working backwards with full binary compatibility on the existing IA-64 instructions in the hardware simulation to work for Windows 8 and definitely Windows 9.

Windows 8 News, which first discovered Morgan’s profile, now claims to have secured an interview with him and is having its readers submit the questions. You, too, can participate, so meander on over before October 11th to do so. There is only one question thus far as of this article’s publication, so go show your OSNews spirit with intelligent queries worthy of science academies worldwide.

Overall, this doesn’t mean we can expect to see Windows 8 to appear with 128-bit support, but it’s for sure in the process. This also brings up the theory that maybe Windows 7 could be the last OS in Microsoft’s arsenal to have a 32-bit version. As Windows 7’s outlook is much better than Vista’s was and still is, it’s not hard to come to the conclusion that the release cycle between 7 and 8 will probably be longer than just three years, so this has plenty of time to brew. Also, who’s to say that Apple doesn’t have anything 128-ish being put together behind their iron curtain of mystery?

Time will tell.

65 Comments

  1. godawful 2009-10-07 7:29 pm EST
    • Kroc 2009-10-08 12:15 am EST
    • lindkvis 2009-10-08 7:50 am EST
  2. MatzeB 2009-10-07 7:29 pm EST
    • MatzeB 2009-10-07 7:33 pm EST
      • jgagnon 2009-10-07 7:46 pm EST
        • cerbie 2009-10-07 9:50 pm EST
        • Slambert666 2009-10-08 5:32 am EST
      • kristoph 2009-10-08 5:54 am EST
        • MatzeB 2009-10-08 11:44 am EST
  3. fasted 2009-10-07 7:30 pm EST
    • Nadir 2009-10-07 7:51 pm EST
    • modmans2ndcoming 2009-10-07 7:57 pm EST
      • etherealsoul 2009-10-08 11:05 am EST
        • sbergman27 2009-10-08 11:24 am EST
          • etherealsoul 2009-10-08 2:33 pm EST
          • sbergman27 2009-10-08 2:47 pm EST
    • cerbie 2009-10-07 10:03 pm EST
  4. Praxis 2009-10-07 7:31 pm EST
    • systyrant 2009-10-07 7:35 pm EST
      • panzi 2009-10-07 9:01 pm EST
    • jgagnon 2009-10-07 7:58 pm EST
      • andrewg 2009-10-07 9:44 pm EST
      • license_2_blather 2009-10-08 3:08 am EST
  5. ShadesFox 2009-10-07 7:34 pm EST
  6. Kalessin 2009-10-07 7:41 pm EST
    • sbenitezb 2009-10-07 7:50 pm EST
      • modmans2ndcoming 2009-10-07 8:00 pm EST
        • toast88 2009-10-07 8:11 pm EST
          • jgagnon 2009-10-07 8:24 pm EST
          • andrewg 2009-10-07 9:51 pm EST
          • OldK 2009-10-09 6:06 am EST
          • modmans2ndcoming 2009-10-07 11:23 pm EST
          • ari-free 2009-10-08 1:39 am EST
          • modmans2ndcoming 2009-10-11 7:02 pm EST
          • galvanash 2009-10-08 1:57 am EST
          • sbenitezb 2009-10-08 2:21 pm EST
          • galvanash 2009-10-08 5:12 pm EST
      • Thom Holwerda 2009-10-07 8:17 pm EST
        • sbenitezb 2009-10-08 2:16 pm EST
          • jgagnon 2009-10-08 2:30 pm EST
          • modmans2ndcoming 2009-10-11 7:06 pm EST
  7. sbenitezb 2009-10-07 7:45 pm EST
  8. poundsmack 2009-10-07 7:49 pm EST
    • sbenitezb 2009-10-07 7:53 pm EST
      • PlatformAgnostic 2009-10-07 9:07 pm EST
  9. galvanash 2009-10-07 9:28 pm EST
    • showcaser 2009-10-07 10:37 pm EST
      • twitterfire 2009-10-08 2:33 pm EST
        • jgagnon 2009-10-08 2:36 pm EST
  10. Nicholas Blachford 2009-10-07 10:44 pm EST
  11. marcp 2009-10-07 11:43 pm EST
    • galvanash 2009-10-08 1:25 am EST
      • marcp 2009-10-08 8:11 am EST
        • modmans2ndcoming 2009-10-11 7:12 pm EST
  12. rdean400 2009-10-08 1:25 am EST
    • galvanash 2009-10-08 1:39 am EST
  13. Milo_Hoffman 2009-10-08 1:34 am EST
    • marcp 2009-10-08 8:15 am EST
      • modmans2ndcoming 2009-10-11 7:15 pm EST
  14. 3rdalbum 2009-10-08 1:42 am EST
    • jgagnon 2009-10-08 11:29 am EST
  15. galvanash 2009-10-08 6:10 pm EST
    • jgagnon 2009-10-08 8:26 pm EST
  16. graigsmith 2009-10-11 3:01 am EST