Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Leaks Details of 128-bit Windows 8

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the still-haven't-got-32-bits-right dept.

Microsoft 581

Barence writes "Microsoft is planning to make Windows 8 a 128-bit operating system, according to details leaked from the software giant's Research department. The discovery came to light after Microsoft Research employee Robert Morgan carelessly left details of his work on the social-networking site LinkedIn. His page read: 'Working in high-security department for research and development involving strategic planning for medium and long-term projects. Research & Development projects including 128-bit architecture compatibility with the Windows 8 kernel and Windows 9 project plan. Forming relationships with major partners: Intel, AMD, HP and IBM.' It has since been removed."

cancel ×

581 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

April fools! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29681817)

Six months early... or late.

More information (5, Informative)

SlashDotDotDot (1356809) | more than 4 years ago | (#29681941)

here [arstechnica.com] .

Not really (0, Offtopic)

christurkel (520220) | more than 4 years ago | (#29681819)

It refers to a 128 bit filesystem ala ZFS, not the whole OS.

Re:Not really (1)

almostinsane (770051) | more than 4 years ago | (#29681845)

The is no Robert Morgan that works at Microsoft. Not sure who this guy is but if he does work at MS its not his real name.

Re:Not really (5, Funny)

Clandestine_Blaze (1019274) | more than 4 years ago | (#29681903)

The is no Robert Morgan that works at Microsoft. Not sure who this guy is but if he does work at MS its not his real name.

Well, not anymore, anyway. :-)

Re:Not really (4, Funny)

PinkyDead (862370) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682239)

Just like that other chap who was always making wild statements about what Microsoft was going to do next.

They let him go too. What was his name again? Will? Billy? ...something.

Re:Not really (3, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682199)

The is no Robert Morgan that works at Microsoft. Not sure who this guy is but if he does work at MS its not his real name.

Well, we don't know who you are, either, so why should your input on this be paid any attention?

Re:Not really (5, Informative)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#29681963)

It refers to a 128 bit filesystem ala ZFS, not the whole OS.

Either we're not reading the same article, or I suspect you didn't read it at all. At no point is a filesystem mentioned.

Re:Not really (5, Informative)

noundi (1044080) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682033)

It refers to a 128 bit filesystem ala ZFS, not the whole OS.

Either we're not reading the same article, or I suspect you didn't read it at all. At no point is a filesystem mentioned.

I'm with you, I don't know where he got filesystem from:

The senior researcher's profile said he was: "Working in high security department for research and development involving strategic planning for medium and longterm projects. Research & Development projects including 128-bit architecture compatibility with the Windows 8 kernel and Windows 9 project plan. Forming relationships with major partners: Intel, AMD, HP and IBM."

Clearly says architechture.

Re:Not really (4, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682357)

Not only does it say 'architecture', it also says 'architecture compatibility'.

Why is that important? Because it does not mean that Windows 8 will necessarily be 128bit, just capable of being 128bit - for all we know, his entire role is ensuring that the teams code to a set standard which allows ease of porting to 128bit in future.

Re:Not really (5, Interesting)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682373)

Clearly says architechture.

Okay, but the question is what does that mean? If it just means 128-bit operations or registers, then that's been around since the original SSE. If it means 128-bit addressing (like it usually does), then who the fuck is making those chips and why? Very few 64-bit chips actually support the full 64-bits of address space (certainly not Intel or AMD), simply because there's no need. You could make every computer on earth part of a huge shared-memory system and have room to spare, not that you'd ever do such a thing. Once systems get far enough apart, shared memory stops making sense as maintaining coherence/consistency becomes too much of an overhead. If you were building a cluster as a shared memory system, and each node had 1 TB of RAM, you could fit ten million nodes in before you started to have address space problems. Even the most wasteful of Stupid Virtual Memory Tricks aren't going to put a lot of pressure on 64-bit addressing any time soon.

I mean I guess I can see the point for the distant future, and hey who the hell knows when Windows 9 is planned for much less will actually arrive, so it can't hurt to make sure it's 'compatible'... I'm just more surprised that any of the partners listed would have 128-bit on even far-reaching roadmaps.

Re:Not really (0, Flamebait)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682135)

It refers to a 128 bit filesystem ala ZFS, not the whole OS. Either we're not reading the same article, or I suspect you didn't read it at all. At no point is a filesystem mentioned.

Apparently, neither did the mods.

Re:Not really (2, Informative)

MrNemesis (587188) | more than 4 years ago | (#29681985)

Noooooo! I want to be able to say I have a 23488102 bit OS if that's the size of my bzImage! And once I have 1TB of porn I can call it a 8.79609302*10^12 bit operating system!

Seriously - it's one thing for some IT marketing types not to know that a 128bit OS would need a 128bit processor (which would be a Big Thing, especially if HP were getting back into the market of CPU design and manufacture), but for the submitter and eds to not point it out makes it look a little daft.

Re:Not really (1)

nevesis (970522) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682003)

That was what I thought at first glance, but no it is definitely referring to the architecture. (hence the forming relationships with vendors).

Core 2 Duo x128 around the corner?

Re:Not really (0)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682377)

Core 2 Duo x128 around the corner?

Either that, or MS are even resorting to guerilla marketing for their vaporware, now.

I guess which seems more likely is going to depend on what you think of Microsoft.

Re:Not really (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29682045)

It refers to a 128 bit filesystem ala ZFS, not the whole OS.

That makes a lot more sense, considering that there are no x86-compatible 128-bit CPUs available or even being publicly discussed. If I'm not mistaken, the 32-bit x86 CPU was around for 20+ years before the 64-bit extensions were added, and several years later we're only beginning to get widespread deployments of a 64-bit Windows. We probably won't see 128-bit Windows widely available until 2025 at least.

Re:Not really (3, Funny)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682097)

So, that's right on schedule for Windows 8 then.

Re:Not really (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682223)

That makes a lot more sense, considering that there are no x86-compatible 128-bit CPUs available or even being publicly discussed.

What about non-x86, 128-bit chips? Are there any of those? (I don't know of any, but I probably wouldn't anyway.)

The NT kernel has always run on other architectures... throughout the years, PowerPC, Alpha, MIPS, and Itanium. If there are places out there with 128-bit chips, I could believe that MS might work on targeting them.

Re:Not really (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682317)

However, none of those other architectures were very popular, because they lacked applications. I don't even think I've seen a 128 bit processor. I can't imagine Microsoft would target a market so small, than many don't even know it exists.

Re:Not really (4, Insightful)

Terje Mathisen (128806) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682147)

None of the linked articles say that the 128 bits is for the filesystem only, but I still believe you're right:

Making the entire os 128-bit would simply waste a _lot_ of memory, for zero real gain. (Rather the opposite: A larger working set always leads to slower code.)

Having 128 bits available for filesystem/storage makes it quite feasible to have globally unique addresses for everything, across huge populations of machines.

This has been done before, afair IBM has used a 128 (or 129!) bit address space for their AS400 platform, where everything is memory mapped.

I.e. there is no visible file system, you just access objects by address (which is really a handle).

I believe Amazon's cloud storage is similar, in that the only way to access a blob of data is via a 128-bit handle.

Terje

Re:Not really (3, Funny)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682315)

It refers to a 128 bit filesystem ala ZFS, not the whole OS.

Oh. I thought they pulled a Vista again and the 16 exabytes of RAM provided by 64-bit was not enough for their latest crime against humanity.

128, 64, 32, 16, 8 (4, Funny)

Luyseyal (3154) | more than 4 years ago | (#29681825)

Who needs 128? I haven't even used all 64 of my current bits yet.

-l

220... 221... whatever it takes (3, Funny)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 4 years ago | (#29681949)

Yeah, well I'm working on an OS that'll be 129 bits!

Re:220... 221... whatever it takes (0, Offtopic)

dunc78 (583090) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682117)

Nice obscure "Mr. Mom" joke.

Re:128, 64, 32, 16, 8 (0)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 4 years ago | (#29681959)

128 bits is the next logical step in the line of progression. They're shooting for 604 bits, which ought to be enough for anybody,... ;-)

Re:128, 64, 32, 16, 8 (4, Funny)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682031)

I hope you meant 640. :-)

Re:128, 64, 32, 16, 8 (3, Funny)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682203)

Lysdexia sets in. Dammit! =)

Re:128, 64, 32, 16, 8 (5, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682119)

Neither has AMD or Intel. 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.

If we start using PCRAM then we are likely to want to use byte-addressable filesystems, rather than keep relying on blocks, which reduces the size you can address with 64 bits to 16EB, which is a lot less; there are almost certainly already people with datasets larger than this. Because PCRAM has similar characteristics to DRAM, the most convenient way of addressing it is likely to be mapping it directly into the CPU's address space, rather than treating it as a device. You could use paging tricks and only map accessed files, but having two MMUs doesn't make life very simple for operating system writers, so ideally you're going to want to have all of your persistent storage in your address space (like MULTICS: everything old is new again). If you do this, then you may well want to have more than a 64-bit address space within ten years. And, when I say 'you' I mean 'companies with a lot of spare money to spend on IT infrastructure'.

Re:128, 64, 32, 16, 8 (5, Funny)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682175)

With that uid, it's because your pr0n is ASCII art.

Re:128, 64, 32, 16, 8 (5, Funny)

Luyseyal (3154) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682337)

I'd make you a little ASCII lawn to get off of but I'm still looking for my dentures.

-l

128 bit? (4, Funny)

El Jynx (548908) | more than 4 years ago | (#29681831)

Why, is Google asking that because they're running out of addressable memory space again?

Holy shit (0)

mewsenews (251487) | more than 4 years ago | (#29681843)

Microsoft is researching 128bit architectures?!?!!! That's, like, DOUBLE what's available now!! I wonder how they chose that number?!# WHAT WILL COME NEXT???????????????

Re:Holy shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29681875)

256bit, of course.

Re:Holy shit (2, Funny)

dmbasso (1052166) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682087)

Not necessarily, they could skip a step entirely, just like WinXP was followed by Win 7.

Re:Holy shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29682145)

...That's, like, DOUBLE what's available now!! ...

Actually, it's like, doubled 64 times over what's available now.

Not sure... (5, Funny)

denzacar (181829) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682343)

But I'll tell you how it will end.

The final architecture EVER will be 640-bit. And that WILL be enough for everyone.

Volume: 11 (4, Funny)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | more than 4 years ago | (#29681853)

Well in *my* OS, the volume goes all the way to 11!

Re:Volume: 11 (-1, Offtopic)

noundi (1044080) | more than 4 years ago | (#29681943)

Well in *my* OS, the volume goes all the way to 11!

I'm going to try something new, bare with me:
 
In Soviet Russia 11 goes to our spinal tap overlords whom I for one welcome!
 
There, the ultimate slashdot meme, now we can all stop this nonsense.

Re:Volume: 11 (5, Funny)

SlashDotDotDot (1356809) | more than 4 years ago | (#29681967)

bare with me

*Shudder*

Re:Volume: 11 (0)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682023)

bare with me

*Shudder*

Yeah well it's chilly in here so put your clothes back on dufus! BTW, he meant "bear with me". Don't you feel stoopit...

Re:Volume: 11 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29682217)

Whoosh, whoosh and double-smackdown triple whoosh.

(Doublecheck our math...lessee, borrow 1, carry the 5,...)

Yep, that should cover it.

Re:Volume: 11 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29682365)

Ironic. Oh, and uh...

Whooooooosh!

Re:Volume: 11 (5, Funny)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682165)

bare with me

*Shudder*

Well, his (her?) user name IS "no undies".

Re:Volume: 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29681987)

I'm going to try something new, bare with me:

No thanks, I'd rather keep my clothes on.

Re:Volume: 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29682307)

Forgot: hot grits, libraries of congress, volkswagons, car analogies, and 'you must be new here'.

Re:Volume: 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29682037)

Or all the way to 18446744073709551617

Re:Volume: 11 (3, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682211)

Well in *my* OS, the volume goes all the way to 11!

In my 128-bit OS, the volume goes all the way to 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,455.

And our friend Robert (5, Funny)

captaindomon (870655) | more than 4 years ago | (#29681857)

has been transferred to another department - the Pit of Despair.

Re:And our friend Robert (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29681901)

More like the Pit of This Chair, I would think...

fishy (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29681861)

Sounds fishy to me. Producing a 128 bit operating system before 64 bit is in wide use just seems like a waste of time. Of course this is microsoft so who knows by the time they have that out we may actually have 128bit chips.

Fuck Everything (5, Funny)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#29681887)

We're doing five blades.

Re:Fuck Everything (4, Funny)

0racle (667029) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682067)

and we'll do it live.

Re:Fuck Everything (4, Funny)

Maniacal (12626) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682247)

WE'LL DO IT LIVE!!!

Re:Fuck Everything (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682323)

Microsoft will only make Windows 8 for servers in clusters of five?

Where's Windows 7? (3, Funny)

empgodot (1044446) | more than 4 years ago | (#29681895)

With Windows 6.1 being Windows 7, does Windows 8 actually mean Windows 7?

Re:Where's Windows 7? (1)

tuxgeek (872962) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682095)

Here's how it works

Win 6.1 == Win 7
Win 6.2 == Win 7 SP2
Win 6.3 == Win 7 SP3
Win 6.4 == Win 7 SP4

So Win 8 XF would really be Win 6.5 (w/ Extra Fanfare)

128-bit anal probe more like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29681897)

Fuck micro$hit

That would make... (5, Funny)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 4 years ago | (#29681927)

That would make Windows a 128 bit wrapper around a 64 bit implementation of a 32 bit extension for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system, originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that can't stand 1 bit of competition.

Re:That would make... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29682001)

That would make Windows a 128 bit wrapper around a 64 bit implementation of a 32 bit extension for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system, originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that can't stand 1 bit of competition.

Now that that point has been made, I think that we can safely end this discussion. I see no need for any further commentary.

Re:That would make... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29682025)

That would also make Windows a 0x10000000bit wrapper around a 0x1000000bit implementation of a 0x100000bit extension for a 0x10000bit patch to an 0x1000bit operating system, originally coded for a 0x100bit microprocessor, written by a 0x10bit company, that can't stand 0x1bit of competition.

Re:That would make... (1)

Cassini2 (956052) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682129)

That would also make Windows a 0x10000000bit wrapper around a 0x1000000bit implementation of a 0x100000bit extension for a 0x10000bit patch to an 0x1000bit operating system, originally coded for a 0x100bit microprocessor, written by a 0x10bit company, that can't stand 0x1bit of competition.

I'm not sure if those constants are supposed to be hex, octal or binary. No matter how I look at it, I sure hope you aren't programming!

Re:That would make... (3, Funny)

adisakp (705706) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682267)

That would also make Windows a 0x10000000bit wrapper around a 0x1000000bit implementation of a 0x100000bit extension for a 0x10000bit patch to an 0x1000bit operating system, originally coded for a 0x100bit microprocessor, written by a 0x10bit company, that can't stand 0x1bit of competition.

Putting numbers in hex (0x notation) doesn't make this a "programmer joke". Especially if you get your base wrong since you're obviously trying to use binary in which case the value 128 would be represented as 0b10000000 or 10000000b, not 0x10000000 (which is actually 256M or 268,435,456 in decimal).

Here's a programmer joke (which sounds better spoken than read): To be or not to be .... equals 0xff.

Re:That would make... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29682375)

actually it would be...

That would also make Windows a 0x80 bit wrapper around a 0x40 bit implementation of a 0x20bit extension for a 0x10bit patch to an 0x8bit operating system, originally coded for a 0x4bit microprocessor, written by a 0x2bit company, that can't stand 0x1bit of competition.

perhaps you meant 0b?

Re:That would make... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29682143)

Mod that guy up! Funniest thing i've read all day.....

Re:That would make... (3, Funny)

halfEvilTech (1171369) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682201)

That would make Windows a 128 bit wrapper around a 64 bit implementation of a 32 bit extension for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system, originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that can't stand 1 bit of competition.

and has 0 bits of common sense

Re:That would make... (0)

Maniacal (12626) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682269)

oh man that's funny

Re:That would make... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29682297)

Windows on Windows for 16-bit compatibility has never been shipped in the 64-bit Windows releases, that's why there was incompatibility with some ancient software installer programs.

Regardless, I welcome our forthcoming 128-bit overlords with open arms.

Re:That would make... (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682351)

I think you're pushing the joke a bit too far.

When will MS learn (4, Insightful)

dingen (958134) | more than 4 years ago | (#29681953)

Windows 7 isn't even officially released and already nonsense is leaking about the next release with promises they can't keep.

FIrst let them release WinFS.

Re:When will MS learn (1, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682109)

windows will not be relevant (for large systems). in fact, its already overcome by unix at the high end.

desktops do not need (or want) 128bit ANYTHING. such a total total marketing BS waste.

thin clients are better at the edge; NOT thicker ones. sheesh. and at the data center, MS's days are numbered.

I guess for the investors, you have to 'show' some future even if you don't have one, for long-term, as a company. (yes, I do believe MS will be irrelevant as 'free unix' makes stride after stride and shows better security and less lock-in than MS's offerings).

Re:When will MS learn (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29682275)

Nice baseless assertions fanboi.

Re:When will MS learn (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682335)

I recall hearing similar things when 64 bit architectures started coming out.

128 bit OS? (5, Funny)

gumpish (682245) | more than 4 years ago | (#29681969)

16.8 million terabytes of RAM should be enough for anyone.

Re:128 bit OS? (3, Funny)

Zedrick (764028) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682009)

At least until Duke Nukem Forever is released.

Re:128 bit OS? (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682197)

So yeah, forever then.

Re:128 bit OS? (1)

skine (1524819) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682139)

Also known as 16.02 exabytes (exbibytes).

Re:128 bit OS? (1)

narfman0 (979017) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682295)

Vista eats that for breakfast, I need my 340.3 undecillion bytes!

Upgrade paths (5, Funny)

Captain Spam (66120) | more than 4 years ago | (#29681975)

Well, that settles it, then! Why on earth would I buy a paltry 64-bit Windows 7 when a much shinier and newer 128-bit Windows 8 is right around the corner? I'd best hold off until then! Thanks, Microsoft!

dumb (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29682013)

This Illustrates how dumb Microsoft is. Tell me again how big 2^64 is?

Geese what a company of idiots. They usually miss the boat then when hey finally catch up they do something idiotic and irrelevant that proves they just don't get it.

Ha ha (2, Interesting)

DavidR1991 (1047748) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682083)

They haven't even got 64-bit mig. done / smooth for their users, and they're looking at 128-bit already? Is this some kind of a joke? Or have they just realised they've missed the 64 bit boat and they're just going to work seriously on the next step up?

Re:Ha ha (1)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682207)

No, they're announcing it now so folks don't run to the competition. That way folks won't change OSes because they know that MS will eventually come out with a 128 bit solution.

It's an old trick in the software industry - IBM invented it.

Re:Ha ha (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682291)

They haven't even got 64-bit mig. done / smooth for their users

What is Windows missing in terms of 64 bit migration, and what else can Microsoft do about it? Keep in mind that most of it is up to software authors and hardware manufacturers, anyway. Microsoft can push them to 64-bit somewhat (like that recent story where "Designed for Win7" hardware logo will require 64-bit drivers), but in the end it doesn't get to decide. Migration will keep going at a glacial pace short of an overnight switch to 64-bit only, and that is obviously a bad idea because software compatibility is one big reason why people stick to Windows in the first place.

and they're looking at 128-bit already? Is this some kind of a joke?

Imagine that you're Microsoft, and Intel comes to you and says, "oh, coincidentally, we are developing 128-bit server CPUs to be released in next 5 years or so". What do you do?

Re:Ha ha (1)

ArbitraryDescriptor (1257752) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682299)

Is this some kind of a joke?

Planning ahead, hilarious.

If chip makers are looking to go 128bit during the projected life-cycle of Win8, it behooves MS to get started on compatibility now; or would you prefer they try to patch it in later?

Re:Ha ha (1)

KnownIssues (1612961) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682329)

This is actually a clever viral marketing campaign to guage consumer feedback to 64 vs 128 bit operating systems. Slashdot users will spend so much time arguing the pros and cons that Microsoft will get 80% of their research for free.

But seriously, I find it funny that when Microsoft copies someone else and produces been-there-done-that products, everyone complains, but when they discover Microsoft is working on forward-looking technology that few if any other vendors are working on and has no (yet) apparent use, they are reamed as well.

Have we learned nothing from "X units is enough for anyone" statements?

Re:Ha ha (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682341)

They haven't even got 64-bit mig. done / smooth for their users, and they're looking at 128-bit already

Perhaps that is WHY they are looking at it now. 64-bit wasn't thought about well enough ahead, so they are getting a jump start

Re:Ha ha (1)

odin84gk (1162545) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682381)

R&D People. It is a different department. Of course they need to look at 128 bit OS.

Surprise! There is some innovation inside Microsoft. The question is... How much of this innovation can get through marketing, management, and the other morons who say "We haven't even finished 64 bit, why do we need 128 bit support?"

If you don't plan for the future, then you will be way behind the times. Let the R&D guys come up with the back end, and let the coders get your silly drivers to work.

For security (4, Funny)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682113)

Quoth Balmer, "Let's see hackers find our security holes in this address space!"

Fix the problems first (-1, Troll)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682151)

Is this going to be the first stable release of Windows.

Re:Fix the problems first (1)

amnezick (1253408) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682339)

I think they're trying to get Windows back in the stables.

Classical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29682159)

Classical MS vaporware announced right before a new Windows release. They will discuss this endlessly for a year or two, then drop it from the official feature list a year before Win8 sees the light of day.

Why they need 128 bits? (4, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682163)

- BSOD now in 4D (3 spatial dimensions and time, more precisely from 1988 to 2015)
- That is what requires Security Essentials to have a string sample in memory of every Windows virus/trojan before 2006
- Bill Gates finally agreed that 640k wasnt enough for everyone.
- Codenamed Windows TNG, where no bit has gone before
- You actually will need all that memory to not require swapping (unless you load more than 3 apps)

OSX WILL STILL BE BETTER (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29682167)

even with 128, the mac osx of today will still be better than windows (then) in every possible way.

There is no 128 bit architecture (1)

Crass Spektakel (4597) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682189)

This seems like major horse poo, there simply is not reasonable general purpose architecture available for 128bit and I even fail to see a requirement for the far future. Sooner we will see shard architectures based on massive parallel multiprocessing like today GPUs but they will be per core a lot simpler than today 64bit systems, not more complex.

I doubt 128-bit addressing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29682219)

Do they really need it anytime soon. Do any of the so-called 128-bit chips use anything more than 64-bit addressing.

If this actually more than some blog profile bullshit, it would seem to be more about establishing some base-line level of SIMD streaming requirements for windows.

It could be provided via "128-bit" cpus or the future compute shaders from the GPU or larrbee or wherever else ATI/nVidia take us as GPUs become more general and CPUs become more specific.

Surely this is a bit early (4, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682249)

In terms of memory, 64 bits can address 18 exabytes. Even Google isn't going to be using that for a decade or so. Assuming Moore's law continues, it will be about half a century before PCs need that much RAM. Dealing with 128 bit numbers for mathematics is of limited use (if you do want to deal with them, you'll probably have a need for 256 byte and 512 byte numbers as well).

And it's not like there's been much perception of a need for 128 bit CPUs. 64 bit processors have been around since the 1960's with fairly mainstream CPUs sine the early 90s. I don't think this is like RAM. I think there's a limit to how many bits we can use.

idiot (2, Funny)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682259)

His page read: 'Working in high-security department for research and development involving strategic planning for medium and long-term projects.

Yeah right. Gob like the mersey tunnel.

Fix 7 first (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29682273)

Dear Microsoft,

Hey I know that you need to plan for the future; so I get wanting to plan out and start working on a 128 bit OS.

But for Zarquons sake would you please finish a Belgium 64 bit OS first?

Really, it is? um, NO. Win 7 64 bit is a joke, well aside from the fact that it works (for which you deserve credit)

but why is there even a 32 bit version? why in 7-64 is there a program files (x86) folder? that was your kludge for working with 32 bit apps? Really?

So, please give the world a secure (stop laughing) clean, robust OS.

Sell it to the share holders as everyone buys our OS with new computers anyway we donâ(TM)t need to ship a new OS for a while; so weâ(TM)re going to just make 7 as secure and robust as humanly possible .

well at least i can dream. (dream / nightmare, your call) ./s

Makes sense (1)

Schnoogs (1087081) | more than 4 years ago | (#29682387)

Crysis will finally be smooth as butter
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>