Windows 8 in 2012, Maybe, but with 128-Bit Architecture?
|
The blog Microsoft Kitchen (motto: "Serving up some seriously tasty Microsoft," which for some inexplicable reason creeps me out) posted two road map slides--purportedly shown by Microsoft during PDC in Los Angeles--suggesting that both the next Windows Server and Windows 8 would be released in 2012. The rumor mill has been churning busily away on Windows 8 for some time. Earlier in October, the LinkedIn page for one Robert Morgan, "senior member of Microsoft's Research & Development team," stated that his current projects included, "128-bit architecture compatibility with the Windows 8 kernel and Windows 9 project plan." That page was taken down as soon as people started linking to it, and the cached version seems to have expired, but my original story on it can be found here. (An interesting rumor's been circulating through my inbox that Robert Morgan doesn't actually exist and that the original LinkedIn page was fake. I've asked Microsoft to confirm that he a) exists and is b) an employee, and will c) let you know as soon as I do.) A few days after Morgan's page--real or not--made the tech-news circuit, a European health care newsletter quoted Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer as telling the audience at a UK press event, "We've got Windows 8 under development now." When I asked a Microsoft spokesperson for confirmation of Ballmer's quote, the response was:
A number of journalists have approached Microsoft for comment about the Microsoft Kitchen slides over the past few days, and Microsoft is offering pretty much that same "nothing to share" response to all the current queries about Windows 8. Big surprise there. But a 2012 release for both products would be in keeping with Microsoft's general road map, wherein a new operating system is released roughly every three years and a major server release every four to five years. I've been hearing some new Windows 7 users wrestling with the migration to a 64-bit operating system, particularly if they were coming from a 32-bit version of either Windows XP or Vista. If Microsoft truly is considering a 128-bit option for the succeeding version of Windows in three years, I'm wondering if that's a bit too rapid an expectation for next-generation architecture, especially considering that mainstream processors are currently topping out in the 64-bit realm. But considering that Google will likely have its browser-based Chrome OS out to users by late 2010, potentially unleashing seismic change in the operating system market, Microsoft may be more concerned strategically about how its next operating system will interact with the cloud than with its underlying architecture options. |
Comments (6)
Duh, It's quite possible that the human kind won't see general purpose CPUs ever - 128 bits of storage require more energy than boling the oceans.
Posted by Fulano | November 24, 2009 4:04 PM
Windows 8 in 2012 doesn't seem at all far fetched. However, a 128-bit architecture is pointless, since there are no processors roadmaps that show 128-bit memory addressing any time soon. I suspect that something is getting lost in translation somewhere, maybe their referring to supporting 128-bit encryption throughout the OS, that might make sense.
Posted by Nik Simpson | November 24, 2009 4:06 PM
not gona happen!
why not? Because i dont see how anybody should get any profit out of 128Bit-Addresses
Just think about it, every just doubles the addressable space for your RAM and things like it (as example: your graphic-card too needs a peace of this space)
So we had the problem that 4GB with 32 bit are a little to less for todays computing, so we use 64Bit.
33Bit makes 8GB, 34 => 16GB, 40Bit=>1TB, 50Bit=>1PB and so on...
Do you really think 128Bit would be needed? What for?
On the other hand if every Pointer in your code gets the doubled length, it then will take the doubled space.
So if your PC is getting some Programm from your harddrive, while it executes it, when it transfers it back into the RAM... everytime it needs to copy the double amount of data.
Todays computing has no problem with computing-times inside of the CPU, neither has it any Problems with the Adress-Range beeing to narrow. Todays Problem is the CPU beeing not able to get Data fast enough.
Posted by Dr. Azrael Tod | November 24, 2009 6:15 PM
When Windows 7 was launched some people pointed out that it was dumb to choose a name that could be confused with a version number. That was howled down by supporters of the product who stated that Windows '7' was a label, as much as 'XP or 'Vista' and no-one could possibly confuse it for a version number.
And yet you (and almost everybody else in technology journalism) seem to be confused! By adding one to it to get Windows '8' you're treating is as a version number, not a label.
It's not Windows 8, never will be, and calling it thus just adds to everybody's confusion.
Posted by David Hamilton | November 25, 2009 3:07 PM
Presumably they will implement the 128-bitness across two 64-bit cores. So what we are really talking about here is a dual-core OS. But dual-core processors are already commonplace. And by the time Dimdows 8 comes out, we will already have plenty of 4-core machines needing a 256-bit OS to take full advantage of them, or even 8-core machines requiring a 512-bit OS.
In other words, this is just another case of Microsoft falling behind the times. As usual.
Posted by Lawrence D’Oliveiro | December 2, 2009 9:18 PM
Presumably they will implement the 128-bitness across two 64-bit cores. So what we are really talking about here is a dual-core OS.
yeah right... as if we would be able to use multiple cores on current Windows-Versions...
(although its locked on a limit of CPUs per Version of Windows and Consumer-Versions only support one CPU with some Cores, but this is only for arbitary reasons and for selling more Enterprise/Server-Products)
If you don't understand what you are talking about, maybe you shouldn't write about it. ;-)
Posted by Dr. Azrael Tod | December 11, 2009 7:46 AM