Microsoft Developing a 128-bit Windows
"Microsoft is planning to make Windows 8 an 128-bit operating system, according to details leaked from the software giant's Research department."
Is this really a big deal? Are we going to need 128-bit operating systems?
So what's with this 128-bit future, is it really practical? Is anyone close to being limited by 64-bit? It seems that we expand our needs right along with our computing power, but 128-bit seems like a big leap. One commonly-cited estimate is that all the printed material in the world uses about five exabytes.
Sun Solaris already offers 128-bit computing-- 2 to the 128th power bytes of storage, and 2 to the 64th power for everything else such as file systems, snapshots, directory entries, devices, and more. In comparison, one exabyte is 2 to the 60th power.
This Slashdot comment raises some interesting points:
Of course my first reaction to the news that Windows is going 128-bit is "They couldn't even get 64, 32, or 16-bit right." But snarks aside, it seems this is coming, and as far as I know nobody is working on a 128-bit Linux. Does this really matter? Don't ask me, I'm still on 32-bit :)."Most 64-bit processors provide 40 or 48 bits of address space; they ignore the other two or three bytes of the address (often they support a larger virtual address space than physical, but even then it's usually less than 64-bit). I've yet to see a consumer-grade machine with more RAM than PAE (36-bit addressing) could address. That said, memory is not the only place where the number of bits is important. Hard drives are typically addressed by 512-byte blocks, so 32 bits gives you 2TB, which is a single disk these days. 64 bits gives you 8ZB, which is quite a lot, but it's not a completely unreasonable amount; some people are going to find that constraining in the next few years, which is why ZFS uses 128 bits. It's not that 128 bits are necessary, so much that 65 bits are and 128 is the most computationally-convenient size after 128. Making sure everything in the kernel supports 128-bit filesystem offsets is an important for long-term project."
References
Microsoft mulling 128-bit versions of Windows 8, Windows 9How Things are Measured.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Microsoft Developing a 128-bit Windows.
TrackBack URL for this entry: https://swarm.jupitermedia.com/mt-tb.cgi/9050
Yeah, first of all Windows 8 will absolutely NOT be "128 bit". There is simply no way that they would do such a thing, first because there are no general purpose CPU's that they can actually use to develop a 128 bit operating system, and secondly because the vast majority of people in the world will not use such a thing anyway, so it would be a waste of time and money. Such speculation about future versions of Windows is completely moot, and the fact that Microsoft "leaked" information is just business as usual for the kings of vaporware.
Secondly, "bitness" for a file system is meaningless tech-speak. Linux already offers many file systems that vastly overshoot any reasonable requirement for either home or even enterprise use. For desktop users, Ext4 supports up to 16TB file sizes on 1 EB volumes. For "enterprise" users XFS and btrfs offer much more massive file and volume sizes, matching what ZFS and NTFS offer (8EB for XFS and 16EB for btrfs).
So how much memory is Windows 8 actually going to need? I though Vista was a pig.
I'm a Linux fan, but I don't agree with Carla.
The question isn't whether it is necessary. The question is if Linux will be able to achieve this capability. Though I really dislike Microsoft in most cases, I will give them credit for this.
Media hype. Like Wayne said, there are no 128-bit general purpose processors. (Maybe they'll write an OS for a quantum computer while they're at it) So it's likely that Microsoft is just building 128-bit file system support into their OS and throwing words around to excite the idiots that get hard-ons for technical crap they don't understand.
@PV
Linux already supports ZFS.
@PV: Come on, get serious. Linux can currently scale to 4096 CPU's, but does that help it get traction as a desktop or even SME server OS? There is a point of diminishing returns with raw numbers. Go take a look at some of the next-gen linux filesystems (BTRFS, e.g.) and tell me when you anticipate needing more capability than that on anything but a supercomputer.
Can Linux achieve it? We are talking about an OS that had version that worked under 64-bit back when Windows was 16-bit. I would be surprised if someone wasn't running some variation of it on one already, some place.
Aside from the larger address space does this mean a regular int will be 128 bits and a float will be 128 bits and a double would be 256 bits. Certain applications prone to truncations might benefit from this
@ PV The "unbiased observer".
I love Microsoft, I really do, but they are pulling a fast one with this 128 bit nonsense. Don't get me wrong, Microsoft is one sharp company but they will be two times as late and two times as faulty with their delivery of a 128 bit OS if it indeed every happens.
Shills are the only posters who use that lame unbiased observer approach. Unless, of course, they are being parodied.
I think there has been a misunderstanding, an OS is not a file system. NTFS is a 64 bit filesystem, and yet has been in use for ages on 32 bit CPUs. The 128 is in reference to the file system, not the instruction set. Probably still needs defragging, and ext4 probably still craps all over it. Yawn.
This question is way more important than the OS war, I think. It's about human achievement and the future of computers and even humankind. By 2050 we will defenitly be laughing at this "discussion". We'll need computers able to program nano-bots, even your home vacines. Of course we'll need 128-bit and 512-bit and forward. It's just evolution baby!
As long as computers are silicon-based, 64 bits for the internals of the machine and 128 bits of storage should be enough. But if we get something else, perhaps based on DNA, 64 bits will be insufficient. I once heard the estimate that the universe contains 10**70 atoms. That would need 233 bits. Perhaps we need 256- or 512-bit computing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/128-bit "Sony's Playstation 2 CPU Emotion Engine is advertised as a 128 bit processor. It has 128-bit SIMD registers, like many processors, but is only a 64-bit processor in the traditional sense as it can only use 64-bit memory addresses." I think ps2 linux already is a 128-bit os.
Forget CPU and OS bittiness. File system bittiness is different, especially considering the disparity in storage size compared to memory requirements.
As for your mp3 collection, Carla, 128-bit FS is not necessary. But for researchers and big business with HUGE data volumes, 64-bit file systems won't cut muster. ZFS is already a 128-bit file system in the wild.
I don't have faith that MS can implement an OS that can handle such data requirements, and I wouldn't have faith in anyone who chose MS for such a task!
McPop.
ohh..no, we have to get ready to buy a new PC as well, isn't it? :(
Neo
http://www.expertcore.org
128 bit ought to be enough for anybody.
:o)
128 bits Operating Systems will be a reality, and I say they will around in at most 10 years. Let's just jump back in time 20 years... yeah, it was exactly 20 years ago (more or less 6 months) when my parent bought their first computer (yes, my father is a programmer, and I am an IT engineer).
Back than, we bought a 286 CPU at 4MHz with 1MB of RAM and 80MB of harddisk having a graphics card on ISA port with 64KB video memory, capable of VGA 256 colors at 800x600 resolution. At that time, we had the most powerful personal computer in town (except companies).
Now, here we are 20 years later. What have changed? A lot ... and I mean it. Let's just take my 2 years old home computer and compare it with what was 20 years ago:
- CPU: 1x2MHz 16 bits vs. 2x1800Mhz 64 bits
- RAM: 1MB vs. 3072MB
- HDD: 80MB vs. 1005649920MB (that's 960GB)
- Video RAM: 64KB vs. 524288MB
- Resolution: 800x600 (but mostly text) vs. 2048x2048
... you do the math.
I say by 2020 128bits both for CPU and disk space will be an everyday thing.
128bit will only be relevant once we start getting into protein memory and storage. There is speculation that 10 years or so from now we will be using protein instead of transistors or magentic bits. I head rumors that a protein chip the size of a pendrive will be able to hold 100 terabytes.
What Microsoft needs to work on is in becoming a contributor instead of a monopoly inovation stealing bully and a closed-architecture and closed-standards manipulator. Microsoft needs to join the rest of the world and become an open architecture tech company or they will get their Gholiath head cut off.
After they do that then they can talk about going forward inovation.
I suspect we need to think outside teh box. Sure, ZFS is already 128-bit and storage growth is huge but what about next-gen GPU's? Both Intel and AMD are moving quickly on the CPU/GPU front. Nvidia's Tesla is interesting, especially the systems that are based on Intel/AMD + Tesla. They cost about the same as a high end PC just 5 years ago. Then consider the life-cycle of a major OS change and all the products that it needs to encompass.
Could a 128-bit OS be a more efficient and high performance way of addressing the next-generation GPU's? What attributes would a GPU OS need?
Umm...there's something that a lot of people seem to be forgetting here:
What 128-bit processors would this "128-bit Microsoft Windows OS" actually run on?
--SYG
I do not think MS meant a 128 bit OS, but 128 bit File System support. Intel nor AMD have a 128 bit chip that I am aware of.
128 Bit File System support is already a reality. This must be what is being referenced here and if that is the case, then it makes sense that MS is venturing into this market. They are losing market share in the server OS world but I doubt this will help them much. Why pay for an MS license when Solaris, Linux, and BSD are free and are all much more proven for high volume processing (especially Solaris).