With Windows 7 still not available for everyone, news has surfaced that Microsoft is already researching and working on some of the architecture for Windows 8/9, which includes "128-bit architecture compatibility with the Windows 8 kernel." This is surprising, seeing as we're at least 3-4 years away from the next release, and still on the brink of the release of the latest version of Windows.Microsoft Kitchen reports that they found a listing on a Microsoft employee's Linked-In profile (which has since been taken down - but hastily screenshot thanks to Microsoft Kitchen) with a job description that explained the employee, Robert Morgan is:
"Working in [a] 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."
Also, on the same LinkedIn profile page, Robert's status goes on to point out that: "Robert Morgan got called into the office, alarms in the morning are great. Someone didn't set the test for the new AMD 128bit properly."
Based on Microsoft's repetitive claims that Windows 7 is a "Major" release and that their release cycles alternate from being "Major" to "Minor", Windows 8 should be a minor release, even though it doesn't sound like it will be if it incorporates this feature. It also sounds like Microsoft is already getting involved with some of the big names in the hardware industry, namely Intel, AMD, HP and IBM already, which is impressive this early on. Interestingly enough, AMD is actually working on a 128-bit processor currently, codenamed "Bulldozer".
Another status update, according to Windows 8 News the following was posted by Robert earlier this year:
"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."
The sightings of more than one of these updates seem to indicate that 128-bit might actually be in the next version of Windows, although it's still far too early to tell whether or not this will be the case, as Microsoft is quite well known for removing features from Windows in the recent years.
What does Neowin think? Do you think that 128-bit processing will be needed by the time Windows 8 is released?
More like 100.
MS cannot even write 64 - Bit drivers for their devices 5 years after they announced 64 - Bit OPS'S.
So 128 - Bit maybe on planet next Millennium.
MS cannot even write 64 - Bit drivers for their devices 5 years after they announced 64 - Bit OPS'S.
So 128 - Bit maybe on planet next Millennium.
Huh? Do you honestly think that Microsoft writes all the device drivers for their 64 bit platform? Well guess what, they don't. It's the manufactures decision and responsibility to write drivers to support their hardware/devices/peripherals or what not.
MS cannot even write 64 - Bit drivers for their devices 5 years after they announced 64 - Bit OPS'S.
Don't confuse "can" with "want".
MS cannot even write 64 - Bit drivers for their devices 5 years after they announced 64 - Bit OPS'S.
So 128 - Bit maybe on planet next Millennium.
Strange, all my hardware works under X64. If you are referring to drivers for old, obsolete hardware then yep, you have a point Microsoft doesn't write drivers for it
MS cannot even write 64 - Bit drivers for their devices 5 years after they announced 64 - Bit OPS'S.
So 128 - Bit maybe on planet next Millennium.
Huh? Do you honestly think that Microsoft writes all the device drivers for their 64 bit platform? Well guess what, they don't. It's the manufactures decision and responsibility to write drivers to support their hardware/devices/peripherals or what not.
A bit of a harsh way of putting it butyou are correct... Although developers have to pay Microsoft for certification which a lot of manufacturers decided only to support 32-Bit and not 64-Bit drivers for Windows Vista 64-Bit and Windows 7 64-Bit.
Big manufacturers who will get their revenue back with sales will develop drivers for Windows 7 64-Bit. Smaller companies will not develop 64-Bit drivers because they cannot afford to do so.
MS cannot even write 64 - Bit drivers for their devices 5 years after they announced 64 - Bit OPS'S.
So 128 - Bit maybe on planet next Millennium.
Huh? Do you honestly think that Microsoft writes all the device drivers for their 64 bit platform? Well guess what, they don't. It's the manufactures decision and responsibility to write drivers to support their hardware/devices/peripherals or what not.
A bit of a harsh way of putting it butyou are correct... Although developers have to pay Microsoft for certification which a lot of manufacturers decided only to support 32-Bit and not 64-Bit drivers for Windows Vista 64-Bit and Windows 7 64-Bit.
Big manufacturers who will get their revenue back with sales will develop drivers for Windows 7 64-Bit. Smaller companies will not develop 64-Bit drivers because they cannot afford to do so.
And those who cannot afford to do so will fail once Windows switches entirely to 64-bit.
Are there really that many small hardware companies? I don't expect so.
It's just another way to get people to upgrade.
Now it's just a question of how true it is.
MS cannot even write 64 - Bit drivers for their devices 5 years after they announced 64 - Bit OPS'S.
So 128 - Bit maybe on planet next Millennium.
you really need to get a clue
How about open-source drivers and modded drivers? Everyone's going to have to pay the MS Tax.
128-processing will be needed as long as the hardware is available and there is a demand for it, why not?
I think 3-4 years will be enough.
Last edited by g8crash3r on 08 Oct 2009 - 07:42
If they plan waaaay ahead for 128bit they can make the transition process much smoother.
If they plan waaaay ahead for 128bit they can make the transition process much smoother.
It's not just MS fault for the 32 to 64 bit change this architecture that should have been in place by now, people have been reluctant to move on because of the lack of support from 3rd party software apps etc, 128 bit + terrabytes possibilities of RAM
That and it really comes down to the whole "chicken and the egg" philosophy. AMD apparently has a 128bit processor in testing... now they need the OS to even make it worth producing.
lol tell me bout it
And you are both talking about whom? I know what I'm talking about!
32-bit processor use 32 bits to refer to the location of each byte of memory. 2^32 = 4.2 billion, which means a memory address that's 32 bits long can only refer to 4.2 billion unique locations that's 4GB! 2GB for the kernel 2GB for the app.
In a 32 bit world each app has it's own virtual 4GB mem space. Unless you talk about /PAE booted sys then each sys can access up to 64GB but still limited to 2GB per app.
You want to see the maths?
2^32 = 4,294,967,296 bytes
4,294,967,296 / (1,024 x 1,024) = 4,096 MB = 4GB
however for 64bit
2^64 = 18,446,744,073,709,551,616
18,446,744,073,709,551,616 / (1,024 x 1,024) = 16EB (exabytes)
with 128 bit
128-bit processors max memory addressing 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 bytes (~340.3 undecillion bytes or 281,474,976,710,656 yobibytes
As this exceeds the amount of available physical memory on the planet I referred to terabytes!
Maybe you should think before you slag other people off, or else they may come back and bitch slap the pair of you right upside your head and make you look like a pair of idiots! Not to mention provide the maths in figures you can't count! Some of us have PhD's, Master's Degrees, Degrees and an IQ of 174 so suck on that!!!!
Imo, even under developing modern home/business computing and general use standards 64 bit still has at least a good decade or two in it if not more until consumers need to start considering otherwise specially with the move to merge GPU and CPU into a single processor even taking into account the fact that XDR or GDDR memory could come into play in that architecture on the main board.
It's very much a beyond the horizon of computing idea and technology in general though.
Imo, even under developing modern home/business computing and general use standards 64 bit still has at least a good decade or two in it if not more until consumers need to start considering otherwise specially with the move to merge GPU and CPU into a single processor even taking into account the fact that XDR or GDDR memory could come into play in that architecture on the main board.
It's very much a beyond the horizon of computing idea and technology in general though.
I agree, i cant see home computing growing THAT fast int he next 6-7 years where well need 128bit
Adding 128bit support is another big step, If you need pure processing power and FLOPS a 128bit CPU will do it better than a 64bit one ofc, as long as the app uses it well. MS is just getting in on the game early.
the VAST majority of CPUs are 32-bit. You'll be surprised how many devices have CPUs in them
You do realise that most if not all netbooks have 32 bit CPU's? And before you say it Windows 7 is being tested with Netbooks in corporate environments.
If you put it that way, I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of CPU's are 24-bit, 16-bit, 15-bit, or 8-bit.
You don't have read i said 32 bits OSs, no 32 bits CPUs
How many of those cpu's are relevant though? I'm sure there are more 16bit embedded devices on this planet than there are personal computers. Netbooks will all be transititioning to 64bit once intel releases their dual core atom chip in Q1 of 2010.
Hmm, my bad in reading it wrong. I guess this is much due to the reasoning I made in my post after yours (#6). MS wants to make the transition as smooth as possible so that the world is not stuck in 32bit when the majority of desktop cpu's manufactured are 64bit.
It's called looking ahead. When Windows 8, let alone 9, becomes reality we're a couple of years further. The technology sector moves fast. If you don't plan now, you'll be behind when it actually becomes relevant.
Nearly every netbook in existance uses a 32-bit processor.
Well, I agree except one thing: Windows 7 Starter & Basic should have been 32-bit, and Home Premium, Professional, and Ultimate/Enterprise should have been 64-bit only. Or a compromise that Home Premium would be 32- and 64-bit, while the two enthusiast editions (Pro and Ultimate/Enterprise) be 64-bit only. ^_^ That might have helped move folks to 64-bit while still supporting those blasted netbooks.
They're going to go 64bit only in time.
And that will change very quickly after Q1 of 2010 when Intel releases their dual core atom.
Oooh, you mean all existing netbooks won't be 32-bit anymore?
Come on, not every person with a netbook is going to buy a new one.
Are there that many laptops in use that are more than 3 years old?
I don't think so; it should be more like 2-3 at the most. The gap between XP and Vista, and even the gap between Vista and 7 were longer than usual for Windows. My goodness, between Windows 2000 and XP, there was only 20 months! (Feb 2000 - Oct 2001).
I can see how in the next 2-3 years, not just 64-bit but even 128 bit CPUs would start to be more used. I don't think the lag time between 64 and 128 will necessarily be the same as from 32 to 64.
By the end of 2010, likely all new computers will have 64-bit CPUs. Since AMD has had 64-bit processors for already some years now, I think 32-bit processors are going to quickly go the way of the dodo.
Windows 2000 Professional was considered a consumer OS to an extent, although it was mainly marketed to businesses and IT pros. There were seperate server versions of 2000.
No, it wasn't.
Maybe by some geeks running pirated versions it was considered and used as such, but Windows 2000 was _not_ aimed at the home consumer.
All versions of Windows 2000 were aimed at corporate customers. It wasn't marketed mainly at businesses, it wasn't marketed at consumers at all. There were different versions because different (sized) companies have different needs.
Thus was Windows Me born...
will we ever need that amount of RAM in the near future ?!
besides 64-bit software don't show great advantage over 32-bit ones afaik .. i wonder it would be the same case for 128-bit compared to 64-bit
Thats not to say that it wouldn't be useful. Even as recently as 10 years ago, the idea that 4GB of RAM would be commonplace at the end of this decade was proposterous.
15 years ago, we were pushing the limits of the 16-bit address width, 5 years ago we were pushing the limits of the 32-bit address width, I don't see why we couldn't be pushing the limits of the 64-bit address width by 2020.
n i hope u r right Majestic
Thats not to say that it wouldn't be useful. Even as recently as 10 years ago, the idea that 4GB of RAM would be commonplace at the end of this decade was proposterous.
15 years ago, we were pushing the limits of the 16-bit address width, 5 years ago we were pushing the limits of the 32-bit address width, I don't see why we couldn't be pushing the limits of the 64-bit address width by 2020.
even assuming memory size double every year
there would be still quite headroom
let say
this year memory size 16GB
by 2020 that would be 32TB which would still wont scratch 64bit headroom of 16exabyte
This support is more for early servers than anything for home use. The home always falls a few steps behind big business etc.
Why have a datacenter/mainframe with, say 16 64bit CPUs to run some DB/Simulation w/e, when you can do the same work and more with something like 4 128bit CPUs? (My numbers could be off but you get the idea).
Going to 128bit is more about pure raw GFLOPS (which is why there is this big move with GPGPU atm, CUDA, OpenCL etc) than just about being able to access more RAM.
That's just wrong. Nobody is surprised that 4GB of RAM is commonplace. RAM sizes track nearly as well as Moore's law for CPU speeds.
Because it's exponentially larger. Memory capacities don't grow at an exponential rate.
This support is more for early servers than anything for home use. The home always falls a few steps behind big business etc.
Why have a datacenter/mainframe with, say 16 64bit CPUs to run some DB/Simulation w/e, when you can do the same work and more with something like 4 128bit CPUs? (My numbers could be off but you get the idea).
Going to 128bit is more about pure raw GFLOPS (which is why there is this big move with GPGPU atm, CUDA, OpenCL etc) than just about being able to access more RAM.
None of that makes any sense at all.
It's pretty rare that you even need to do math with 64-bit precision, let alone 128-bit precision. Besides, any current CPU already supports 128-bit operations via MMX / SSE / etc, and they'll even be supporting 256-bit soon enough.
I was talking to a work colleague only yesterday that was talking about going into a shop to buy a 5.4" floppy many moons ago, and being told he had to buy a pack of 10. His response was: "Why would I ever need TEN of them?". 5 years ago, people laughed off terabyte hard drives on the desktop as totally unnecessary, and now we're seeing 2 terabyte hard drives come to the desktop market. I remember my second ever computer having a 4GB hard disks, which at the time was perfectly adequate for my needs, and now 4GB of RAM is commonplace.
Except that they have in the past. 0xFFFF (15 years ago) is exponentially larger than 0xFF, which is in turn exponentially smaller than 0xFFFFFFFF (5 years ago), and so on.
Sorry, I should have said nobody in the industry or nobody who bothered to make an educated extrapolation is surprised. There are always people who don't think ahead. Plus, buying 10 floppy disks is silly no matter what capacity they are these days. Who buys 10 USB sticks? Most people have one or two at most.
Even if memory capacities do grow an an exponential rate, it's a much slower growth than address space. You can easily extrapolate this out. If you follow Moore's law, memory capacity roughly doubles every 2 years or so. I find it hard to believe that can continue indefinitely or that it even needs to for personal computing devices, but that's another discussion. Let's say RAM capacity doubles every two years and use 4GB as the baseline. This isn't quite what happened recently since 2GB became standard more than 2 years ago, and 1GB was common more than 2 years before that, but I'm willing to go with an agressive timeline for the sake of argument.
Using that exponential growth rate, 20 years from now you'd have roughly 88,000 TB of memory. That's still pretty far from hitting that 16 Exabyte limit.
I'm not saying we'll never use 128-bit addressing, but it's going to take enough time to get there that it's impossible to say whether we ever will. Not because it's hard or unnecessary, but because the entire computing paradigm could change in that time and make our current memory addressing schemes irrelevant. Plus, you have techniques like PAE which could end up being far more effective in the 64-bit world (decades from now).
Anyway, 128-bit addressing would be a massive waste right now. The page table entries alone would be a ridiculous waste of your existing memory.
Funny that you seriously believe he is editing his own page. I don't see why that's such a great secret anyway.
@g8crash3r, Dell isn't on the list because they don't make CPUs. HP does.
Windows 8 will have both server and client OS releases.
The tech. and features has not yet been determined. And I cannot discuss the suggested features list.
Windows 7 was a minor release, a move from NT 6.0 to NT 6.1,
Therefore windows 7 will have less compatibility issues, as most of the software and drivers compatible with Windows Vista, will also be compatible to Windows 7.
Windows 8 will have both server and client OS releases.
The tech. and features has not yet been determined. And I cannot discuss the suggested features list.
Windows 7 was a minor release, a move from NT 6.0 to NT 6.1,
Therefore windows 7 will have less compatibility issues, as most of the software and drivers compatible with Windows Vista, will also be compatible to Windows 7.
Insider my ass - your lack of understanding of the "NT6.1" designator shows that very clearly lol
Windows 8 will have both server and client OS releases.
The tech. and features has not yet been determined. And I cannot discuss the suggested features list.
Windows 7 was a minor release, a move from NT 6.0 to NT 6.1,
Therefore windows 7 will have less compatibility issues, as most of the software and drivers compatible with Windows Vista, will also be compatible to Windows 7.
Total fail. I wouldn't come back around these parts if I was you--we tend to remember you fake 'insiders'.
Windows 8 will have both server and client OS releases.
The tech. and features has not yet been determined. And I cannot discuss the suggested features list.
Windows 7 was a minor release, a move from NT 6.0 to NT 6.1,
Therefore windows 7 will have less compatibility issues, as most of the software and drivers compatible with Windows Vista, will also be compatible to Windows 7.
Insider my ass - your lack of understanding of the "NT6.1" designator shows that very clearly lol
Except that Windows 7 IS a minor update - MS has publicly stated so, they are not making any major changes, just cleaning it up, speeding it up... if that's not minor, I don't know what is!
Windows 8 will have both server and client OS releases.
The tech. and features has not yet been determined. And I cannot discuss the suggested features list.
Windows 7 was a minor release, a move from NT 6.0 to NT 6.1,
Therefore windows 7 will have less compatibility issues, as most of the software and drivers compatible with Windows Vista, will also be compatible to Windows 7.
Insider my ass - your lack of understanding of the "NT6.1" designator shows that very clearly lol
Except that Windows 7 IS a minor update - MS has publicly stated so, they are not making any major changes, just cleaning it up, speeding it up... if that's not minor, I don't know what is!
Ok - show us all the quote where MS state it's "minor". That's right, you just got on the FAILbus.
Windows 8 will have both server and client OS releases.
The tech. and features has not yet been determined. And I cannot discuss the suggested features list.
Windows 7 was a minor release, a move from NT 6.0 to NT 6.1,
Therefore windows 7 will have less compatibility issues, as most of the software and drivers compatible with Windows Vista, will also be compatible to Windows 7.
Insider my ass - your lack of understanding of the "NT6.1" designator shows that very clearly lol
Please watch your language
As someone who worked for the client devision at microsoft for the last 3 years, I consider myself as insider.
After Windows Vista Criticism, Microsoft didn't want to have major changes, the specs for windows 7 were mostly, to have almost full compatibility to Windows Vista and improve performances.
Windows 8 will most probably be a major change.
Where is this information coming from? I doubt that they would do something as stupid as that. What "legacy" apps are coded for NT 6 but are not made using the recommended coding practices? Could I get a link to where Microsoft said this? Windows 7 in my opinion is a very minor release. It is extremely similar to Vista but with a new UI and some speed improvements.
Windows 8 will have both server and client OS releases.
The tech. and features has not yet been determined. And I cannot discuss the suggested features list.
Windows 7 was a minor release, a move from NT 6.0 to NT 6.1,
Therefore windows 7 will have less compatibility issues, as most of the software and drivers compatible with Windows Vista, will also be compatible to Windows 7.
Insider my ass - your lack of understanding of the "NT6.1" designator shows that very clearly lol
Please watch your language
Ass worries you? Grow up. And whilst you're at it post something that'd make us believe your 'ex-MS' claim to fame - nothing you've said so far backs that up in any way shape or form.
Last edited by dangel on 08 Oct 2009 - 16:04
Not an official article, but it quotes someone here one Neowin who works for Microsoft.
http://windows7center.com/news/windows-7-k...anged-still-70/
Windows 8 will have both server and client OS releases.
The tech. and features has not yet been determined. And I cannot discuss the suggested features list.
Windows 7 was a minor release, a move from NT 6.0 to NT 6.1,
Therefore windows 7 will have less compatibility issues, as most of the software and drivers compatible with Windows Vista, will also be compatible to Windows 7.
Insider my ass - your lack of understanding of the "NT6.1" designator shows that very clearly lol
Except that Windows 7 IS a minor update - MS has publicly stated so, they are not making any major changes, just cleaning it up, speeding it up... if that's not minor, I don't know what is!
Ok - show us all the quote where MS state it's "minor". That's right, you just got on the FAILbus.
You obviously dont work in IT. If you did, you would know the article is wrong and that windows 7 is a minor release. I was just at a talk yesterday with Microsoft and they said just that. The underlying kernal of win7 is the same as vista. So who's riding the failbus now? Idiot.
Server 8 will be 64bit only (I hope our NDA didnt cover that tidbit...I cant see how it would). Thats a fact. There was mention of supporting 128 way processors, but nothing about 128 bit. I wouldnt be surprised if windows 8 was 64bit only too since there will be no 32bit server.
Windows 8 will have both server and client OS releases.
The tech. and features has not yet been determined. And I cannot discuss the suggested features list.
Windows 7 was a minor release, a move from NT 6.0 to NT 6.1,
Therefore windows 7 will have less compatibility issues, as most of the software and drivers compatible with Windows Vista, will also be compatible to Windows 7.
Insider my ass - your lack of understanding of the "NT6.1" designator shows that very clearly lol
Except that Windows 7 IS a minor update - MS has publicly stated so, they are not making any major changes, just cleaning it up, speeding it up... if that's not minor, I don't know what is!
Ok - show us all the quote where MS state it's "minor". That's right, you just got on the FAILbus.
You obviously dont work in IT. If you did, you would know the article is wrong and that windows 7 is a minor release. I was just at a talk yesterday with Microsoft and they said just that. The underlying kernal of win7 is the same as vista. So who's riding the failbus now? Idiot.
Aww bless, upset are we?
http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/10/16/i...rnel-version-61
That link is the official explanation. If you look really deep, you will see that Windows 7 uses the kernel 7.0 but just reports itself as 6.1 for compatibility reasons.
Actually the biggest reason for 6.1 is due to applications which hardcoded checks for XP such as (if MajorVersion =>5 && MinorVersion >= 1) - this works on XP and Windows 7, but fails on Vista (MinorVersion=0).
That was part of my understanding but here is how I understood it. They basically had stripped down Vista to it's kernel (check "minwin"). Once they did that they optimized it and had it work as well as they could. Afterwords they added back all the needed components and this time went with a modular route which allows for some of the changes that we see like being able to remove IE from the system. This ended up producing a faster and leaner OS.
In essence you could say that Windows 7 is both a major and minor release. They did enough to display itself as a major release but since they still used a kernel based on Vista it still only got a minor version nudge on the NT release. So rather than move it from NT6 to NT7 they just made it NT6.1. The same thing happened with XP. I would say that XP is a major upgrade from Windows 2000 (it's base) but since it still had the Win2k kernel base they just nudged the NT version to 5.1. Vista got a bump from NT5.1 to NT6 since it uses an entirely new kernel that is not based on any prior kernel.
P.S. - Minwin isn't the kernel but what they used as a guideline.
http://windows7center.com/news/windows-7-k...anged-still-70/
It's also on the E7 blog, by Steve Sinofsky. Google it
In essence you could say that Windows 7 is both a major and minor release. They did enough to display itself as a major release but since they still used a kernel based on Vista it still only got a minor version nudge on the NT release. So rather than move it from NT6 to NT7 they just made it NT6.1. The same thing happened with XP. I would say that XP is a major upgrade from Windows 2000 (it's base) but since it still had the Win2k kernel base they just nudged the NT version to 5.1. Vista got a bump from NT5.1 to NT6 since it uses an entirely new kernel that is not based on any prior kernel.
P.S. - Minwin isn't the kernel but what they used as a guideline.
The Vista kernel is the Vista kernel. It is based on the prior NT kernels (namely, it grew from Server 2003 / NT 5.2), but has significant changes.
The Win7 kernel is the Win7 kernel. It is based on the prior NT kernels (namely, Vista) but has significant changes. That's the main reason Win7 / 2008 R2 can scale to 256+ cores where Vista / 2008 couldn't do that very well.
It's not hard to do, but then if MS does something like that people would yell BLOAT, and so on.
My opinion: let just the -main- software programs (like even MS Office, and I'm not talking on the to-be release of Office 2010) run on 64 bit systems (and thus 64 programming) before jumping to 128 bit.
My opinion: let just the -main- software programs (like even MS Office, and I'm not talking on the to-be release of Office 2010) run on 64 bit systems (and thus 64 programming) before jumping to 128 bit.
Actually it is probably more mainstream than you might think. My last laptop (which I owned for 3 years) had a 64-bit processor and my current one does as well. I currently run Windows 7 64-bit and I can see myself doing so for quite some time. Just about everyone I know runs 64-bit OS's right now.
Actually 16-bit code doesn't run on a 64-bit platform. You can only go one generation back on a processor. Therefore when 128-bit OS's come out then 32-bit code won't run on them when the processor is running in native 128-bit mode. If they are running emulated 64-bit mode then they will do 32-bit but otherwise.
Moving larger memory blocks per CPU instruction? I can't think of much else...
If you have two scientific apps sifting through data, if the apps are written right the 128bit will give you better results and faster than the 64bit one.
You can also get more processing power with fewer physical CPUs/Cores as well when you work with specific apps that can take advantage of 128bits.
Adding CPU instructions, mainly useful for stuff like SSE/CUDA so that they can calculate stuff very very fast! That's about it really, it can also address more ram but 64bit takes care of that nicely.
Look at what they're doing now with XP mode for Win7 and how you can run apps in win7 so they look and feel like a native win7 app. It's signs of things to come.
You'll have a 128bit OS with a 128bit CPU etc, and running 32bit apps without even knowing the difference. That's the goal in the end.
No, Windows 7 is a minor release, that was just said in defense of the 6.1 moniker in the kernel version string. Windows 7 is basically Vista with speed enhancements, a new taskbar, and UI polish as main features. From all I've heard on Windows 8, that should be a major release. UXExperience has already posted some resume indicating a new UI platform.
Last edited by Jugalator on 08 Oct 2009 - 10:42
Windows 8 should be a major release; let's hope vista story won't repeat again!!
No, Windows 7 is a minor release, that was just said in defense of the 6.1 moniker in the kernel version string. Windows 7 is basically Vista with speed enhancements, a new taskbar, and UI polish as main features. From all I've heard on Windows 8, that should be a major release. UXExperience has already posted some resume indicating a new UI platform.
That's it.
I don't from where they got that information, 128-bit, are you kidding me?, AMD Bulldozer, are you kidding me again?.
I love AMD but they've to much troubleright now to even think in an architectural change.
We are living in the 32 to 64 transition and that transition will take a lot of more time than 16 to 64.
Well said Jugulator, BTW I love the Jugulator album by Judas Priest
Again, NT6.1 is simply for compatibility reasons, NT7.0 is the actual kernel. NT6.1 is used to allow legacy applications be fooled into thinking that they are installing onto Vista. Drivers designed for Vista can install on Windows 7 for exactly this reason.
It's designation as NT 6.1 or NT 7.0 doesn't matter. Those numbers have no concrete effect on anything.
You proved my point yourself by saying that Vista drivers work fine on 7. If most kernel-level drivers are still generally cooperative with the Windows 7 kernel, that must mean not much has changed for it to retain that fined grained compatibility.
Even Microsoft thinks its a minor version. Thats why they called the server edition of Windows 7: Windows Server 2008 Release 2. Thats right. A minor naming update for a minor OS update.
Stop the misinformation. If you don't have non-marketting derived evidence of your cause, stop.
Stop the misinformation. If you don't have non-marketting derived evidence of your cause, stop.
So your definition of "major" is that drivers must stop working? How insightful.
The fact vista drivers work isn't a shock, they share the same driver model. MS doesn't change driver models every other windows version.
Stop the misinformation. If you don't have non-marketting derived evidence of your cause, stop.
So your definition of "major" is that drivers must stop working? How insightful.
Precisely. So if Windows 8 has the same basic driver model then it'll be 'minor' too. Guess what kids, we don't get to decide if it's minor or major - MS do - they don't need to meet some random checklist of what you think constitutes a major release of their operating system. Each and every MS OS is derivative in some form - even when they do a major rewrite the underlying APIs remain much the same for compatibility, though are often extended (e.g. ITaskbar3 in 7).
Last edited by dangel on 08 Oct 2009 - 14:39
Not that this matters, that was a subset of my argument. Also, you know you're fighting a pointless cause when the opposition will take down logical arguments made by an actual MS ex-employee. (shoutout to raindrop)
Pointless.
Except kernel drivers for 7 have also required changes, as have user mode drivers - and subset or not this still fails to demonstrate this triggering the need to fling 'major' around. As I said, if MS rewrote the internals of the model and yet kept the same API to the outside world then what does that count as? As for raindrop, he's said nothing significant to warrant him being ex-MS (or even if he was nothing to show he did more than make cups of tea). The 'pointless' arguement is that you or I get to designate the criteria for 'major' or 'minor' - and that's my er.. point
You proved my point yourself by saying that Vista drivers work fine on 7.
Again. Windows 7 is a major release.
How did that prove your point when XP drivers also worked on Vista?
Second time I link to this: http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/10/16/i...rnel-version-61
This post explains it pretty well:
http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/10/08/w...e#comment905470
Uhh, Windows 7 is a "major" release and already has a new UI platform. Actually, more than one (Direct2D, Scenic, etc).
Keeping in mind that the 32-bit capable 80386 came out in 1985-6, it took what, nearly 20 years before we started running into the 32-bit address space limitations? We've just started being able to justify the need for a 64-bit capable consumer OS...
Keeping in mind that the 32-bit capable 80386 came out in 1985-6, it took what, nearly 20 years before we started running into the 32-bit address space limitations? We've just started being able to justify the need for a 64-bit capable consumer OS...
if we keep doubling the size of ram
as of 2009 there are 16GB desktop systems
by around 2029 would have system which well hit the limitation of 64bit
So that would mean that Windows Vista was a minor release after all!
Anyway, seeing how slowly 64-bit got adopted and how both Apple and Microsoft still offer full support for 32-bit with their latest OS releases I don't see 128-bit becoming mainstream before the next big Windows version hits. That is unless it faces major delays again just like Longhorn/Vista did.
as early as Athlon 64 in 2003
--------
Enterprise systema
that another story (in '90s)
So since current gen "aint broke.." we should just stick with it forever. Sounds like a plan genius.
as early as Athlon 64 in 2003
--------
Enterprise systema
that another story (in '90s)
Yeah, and how many of them are in use now compared to 32 bit?
New is not always better. You have a consumer mentality. Not everyone is addicted to bright and shiny like you. When its time comes it will come.
You miss the big picture obviously. We're talking about 3-4 years down the road the very least. In the end, no one will force you to upgrade.
Why do consumers need 128 bit in the near future (10-15 years).
If its for memory, consumers mostly use 2^33 at most 2^34 because of hardware limitations.
As far as number crunching, I can see how 128 bit registers will be helpful especially for space applications. (go go floating point accuracy!
Remember in 1981's, someone thought 640KB of memory ought to be enough? http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=48924
Remember in 1981's, someone thought 640KB of memory ought to be enough? http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=48924
Isn't that an urban myth. That never actually said it?
Lol wut?
They were talking about 128 filesystems, like OpenSolaris' ZFS. - NTFS will be enhanced with 128 bits to support bigger filesystems.
It'll be much more longer then 8 years. Although 64bit has been around since 70's in RISC the reason it came into play much sooner was because of memory restriction. Even with progressing technology atm maximum on core i7 you can get is like 24GB ram which is nothing compared to 16EB limit 64bit has or 128GB limit that vista/7 has on OS which i highly doubt will get reached anytime soon within 8 years.
Again no.
Im going to wear out my Ctrl+V buttons
This is where you are wrong. I actually have used both and 7 is nothing like Vista. I'm using 7 on an Acer Aspire One Netbook with only 1 gb of RAM and it runs smoothly.
There is a chicken called a Vista, but in the case of the OS it is more like a turkey. The services packs were just too late to save.
There is a chicken called a Vista, but in the case of the OS it is more like a turkey. The services packs were just too late to save.
+1 (Y)
Last edited by GreyWolfSC on 08 Oct 2009 - 16:03
MS work with hardware vendors on new hardware and their specification long before they hit market - you think ATI defined the DX11 spec for their HD5870 alone? It's common sense for mutually supporting vendors to work on products behind closed doors to get them ready for market - Intel, AMD and Microsoft all have a long history of working together simply because their interdependant in their market ecosystem.
Last edited by GreyWolfSC on 08 Oct 2009 - 16:27
core i10 8/16 core cpu
16GB ram
1TB hdd
holographic drive....
and a main stream computer is
corei10 - 10 physical cores 20 logical 128bit support
ram moudles of 16GB each so aberace computer with 32 GB..
a pair of 2TB hdd's
nvidea 9999leet geforce with 6GB of ddr5 video ram
blueray drive for the windows blue disk
Technology will be smaller by then anyway though.
PS2 i think it was 128bit
The Nintendo 64 was, but there were others before it. The one I mentioned, the Super Nintendo, was 16-bit. The original NES and Famicom was 8-bit.
I think you might have a point about 128 bit compatibility. It does not have to be a CPU. FPU, arithmetic or integer library. It would lay the groundwork. It is not much of a breaking story, however.
My question, where is the 128 bit CPU? Not a prototype, not 128 bit operations but a true CPU. We could see one in the next decade, but I am not currently sure where the benefit is for a fully 128 bit CPU.
z0mFG wTF L0LCAT I must have a super-uber-1337 computer!
Ha not.
Because something thats proprietary in the computer worlds equals bad.
*cough* Apple *cough*
A GPU is of course an entirely different beast than anything that runs x86 code but with new virtualization technologies and some clever merging of existing and future technologies, we could see ourselves running Windows 8 or 9 on a virtualized platform on top of a "do-it-all" CPU/GPU/PPU hybrid with umpteen gigs of ram and modular upgradability within the next 10 years.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.