Windows 8 to support 32, 64 or 128-bit?

Mike Halsey | Oct 09, 2009 | Comments


Tip: Click here to run a free scan for Windows related errors

Recently there have been rumours that the next version of Windows will move the whole platform completely over to 128-bit architecture, dumping 32 and 64-bit compatibility completely.

This first came about because of a news story broken by Microsoft Kitchen a few days ago in which Robert Morgan, a senior research and development officer at Microsoft posted the following on his LinkedIn profile.

Experience
Senior Research & Development
Microsoft
Public Company; MSFT; Computer Software industry

January 2002 – Present (7 years 10 months)

Working in high security department for research and development involving strategic planning for medium and long-term 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.

Since then the sweaty masses have, frankly let their imaginations run away with themselves so I thought we needed to look at the situation more objectively, fact by fact.

datacentre1

It’s true that AMD and Intel are working on 128-bit chips, this is something that’s been out there for a while now.  But Windows 8 can’t possibly be 128-bit only.  The reasons for this are as follows.

Windows 7 is still, sadly, saddled with 32-bit compatibility.  This is despite the fact that almost every modern processor supports true 64-bit computing.  This is purely to maintain compatibility with older software (primarily in Microsoft’s most important market, business).  XP Mode, the virtualisation plug-in that allows you to run older software in a licensed copy of XP, goes some way towards addressing this and many people are hoping that 32-bit support will be dropped from Windows 8 completely.  Sadly though, it can’t happen.

This is because in order for XP Mode to work you need hardware virtualisation support on the motherboard and nowhere near enough motherboards yet support this.  By the time Windows 8 comes out it’s possible that all motherboards will, but Microsoft have to get started on Windows 8 code now, and they can’t guarantee this will happen.

It is for exactly the same reasons why Windows 8 can never be 128-bit only.  By the time the technology is mature enough Windows 8 will be ready to launch but the cost of the chips will still be extremely expensive.  They will, I predict, only be used in server farms for hard-core virtualisation tasks on servers.

It’s much more likely that Windows 8 Server will offer full support for 128-bit architecture and that the feature will then be ported to the business and consumer editions of Windows for Windows 9.

The move to 128-bit in itself isn’t such a big job, but it becomes a nightmare when you consider that you also have to maintain compatibility with 32-bit applications.  I can’t foresee a situation where we can have an operating system that supports 32, 64 and 128-bit code simultaneously while still remaining stable.  The only reason that Windows 8 Server could support it is because the 32-bit legacy support has already been dropped from Windows 7 Server.

For all the people who want to see 128-bit support in Windows 8, forget it.  Frankly you wouldn’t get any benefit from it at all anyway.  No software will be written to support it for years to come, full 64-bit support in software is only beginning to appear now, and it will offer the average user or gamer no additional benefits over the 64-bit architecture you already have.

Unless and until the whole computing experience we use in our daily lives demands a move to such technology, it will remain in the server farms of the future.


Read Related Posts

  1. Windows 8 To Be 128 Bit? Windows 8 To Be 128 Bit?
  2. Windows 8 - 128bit Rumours Were Fake? Windows 8 – 128bit Rumours Were Fake?
  3. What Windows 8 needs to be… Part 1 What Windows 8 needs to be… Part 1
  4. Ten Items On My Windows 8 Wishlist Ten Items On My Windows 8 Wishlist
  5. More Job Postings Hint At Windows 8's Future More Job Postings Hint At Windows 8’s Future



««
»»

Latest Posts

Filed Under: Misc

Tags: • • •

About the Author: The author of the new Windows 7 Power Users Guide. You can follow Mike on Twitter or on his own website The Long Climb

  • Lennon
    Why not just skip 128 and 256 and go right to 512 bit?
  • Admin_RobertCity
    Because 1240 bit is way cooler.
  • Stannieman
    "compute the factorial of like 100000"
    Yes, x64 of 128 will be faster than 32, but only when the app (in this case the calculator) is a x64 or 128 app. As far as I know a 32bit calc on a x64 os won't be faster than a 32bit calc on a 32bit os.
  • where was this first reported?
  • nk
    Also
    “[...] and it will offer the average user or gamer no additional benefits over the 64-bit architecture you already have.”
    Wrong. Have you never heard about Streaming SIMD Extensions? Many applications take advantage of these 128-bit registers to accelerate floating-point calculations.

    Most people say the transition from 32-bit to 64-bit didn't change a thing because they are not actually using all the benefits from the 64-bit computing. For example, try using the calculator to compute the factorial of like 100000 on both versions and you'll see the difference.
  • nk
    Rumors are they are making it 128-bit *COMPATIBLE*, which means IF the need rises, it can be rebuilt with 128-bit support without a 1-2 year rewrite.

    The dropping of 32-bit support is possible, although unlikely. Microsoft wanted to ditch 32-bit version on Windows 7 but the majority of users won't be happy with this for obvious reasons. 16-bit support only ceased with the release of the 64-bit OS, so I'm guessing the 32-bit support will die very slowly like what happened to 16-bit support.
  • Jim
    The main reason we're beginning to drop 32-bit is not for performance, but to utilise more than 4GB of RAM. In theory, 64-bit would allow memory up to 16 exabytes. So if the move to a 128-bit architecture is going to be reached, there would need to be significant performance benefits to make the cost of 128-bit chips worthwhile.
  • some guy
    The limit on many of today's CPU's is around 64GB. This is with the aid of a 36bit register on a 32bit CPU. By default, it is left at 4GB limit. The OS must supports this feature to be able to break that boundary.
    Of course, 64bit CPU's have a limit of 16EB. Whilst 16 isn't a high number, the EB follows Mega, Giga, Terra, Peta, and then Exa. Now it's a huge. I will presume the CPU will have a larger register so the memory supported will also probably be greater; by how much I do not know
blog comments powered by Disqus