dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1212
share rss forum feed


Blogger
Jedi Poster
Premium
join:2012-10-18

A 64 bit world for Windows OS?

I wasn't sure if this was the most appropriate forum. If it isn't please move to appropriate forum.

I’m just a very average technically a low end but heavy computer and Internet user. I’ve got lots of experience in years of continuous use but nothing sophisticated or high end in terms of general computer topics or hardware and software related knowledge .

Starting with Windows 7 the 64 OS version started to become increasingly more influential and increasingly popular v its 32 bit cousin as time as passed. Still we are tied in a lot of ways to 32 bits software including browsers on our 64 bit OS.

Question:

Will Windows 8 and IE 10 speed up the functional transition where essentially all Windows users with newer computers and Windows 7 64 bit and Windows 8 64 bit version will result in speeding up and functionally eliminate the 32 bit world. Except for rare or specific exception situations the result will be virtually everyone’s browser and their Windows OS will be 64 bit as will all most all applications and programs?

Thank you.


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA
said by Blogger:

Will Windows 8 and IE 10 speed up the functional transition where essentially all Windows users with newer computers and Windows 7 64 bit and Windows 8 64 bit version will result in speeding up and functionally eliminate the 32 bit world. Except for rare or specific exception situations the result will be virtually everyone’s browser and their Windows OS will be 64 bit as will all most all applications and programs?

Yes.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us


mozerd
Light Will Pierce The Darkness
Premium,MVM
join:2004-04-23
Nepean, ON
+1

and get ready for the 128 bit Windows world coming soon.


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA
said by mozerd:

+1

and get ready for the 128 bit Windows world coming soon.

Native word sizes just keep getting longer - like iPhone screens
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
Perhaps, but by the usual rule of thumb, the extra 32 bits of addressing (from 32 to 64 bits) will keep us going for 48 years.

If you date the need for 64-bit systems as starting around the early 1990s (DEC Alpha), we've still got nearly 30 years of run-room left.

(I hold to the convention that an N-bit system means one with an N-bit virtual address, the size of an integer being a trivial concern that can easily be handled by the compiler).


Blogger
Jedi Poster
Premium
join:2012-10-18

1 edit
reply to mozerd
said by mozerd:

+1

and get ready for the 128 bit Windows world coming soon.

If some concept or feature is an improvement or advancement of progress isn't the the phrase, "Windows...coming soon" an oxymoron or contradiction?


mozerd
Light Will Pierce The Darkness
Premium,MVM
join:2004-04-23
Nepean, ON
said by Blogger:

If some concept or feature is an improvement or advancement of progress isn't the the phrase, "Windows...coming soon" an oxymoron or contradiction?

In your world not in my world. -- On the other hand I find your characterization of "Windows...coming soon" as oxymoronic. Why? well did YOU KNOW that the enabling technology underlying Microsoft Windows runs an arbitrary set of applications in an arbitrary configuration with arbitrary devices, and that the Windows Operating System is designed to run on machines that are not designed yet? Now THAT is Windows much to your surprise.
--
David Mozer
IT-Expert on Call
Information Technology for Home and Business


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA
reply to dave
said by dave:

Perhaps, but by the usual rule of thumb, the extra 32 bits of addressing (from 32 to 64 bits) will keep us going for 48 years.

It's not just the addressing though, it's also doubling the data bus width, which is one way to "double" (some aspects of) processing performance without needing to make the electrons go faster.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us


Blogger
Jedi Poster
Premium
join:2012-10-18
reply to dave
said by dave:

Perhaps, but by the usual rule of thumb, the extra 32 bits of addressing (from 32 to 64 bits) will keep us going for 48 years.

I'm an old man. My world, referred to by another poster, is the real world.

Guess I can scratch this off my things to deal with list!

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
reply to JohnInSJ
Sure, but if you want 128-bit additions (for example) to go as fast as 64-bit additions today, just wait 18 months and they will. This is much more cost-effective than overhauling Windows to produce a '128-bit edition'.


Dustyn
Premium
join:2003-02-26
Ontario, CAN
kudos:11
Reviews:
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to mozerd
said by mozerd:

+1

and get ready for the 128-bit Windows world coming soon.

The transition to 64-bit hardware/software was hard enough for many... and now were talking about 128-bit already? Good grief!
--
Remember that cool hidden "Graffiti Wall" here on BBR? After the name change I became the "owner", so to speak as it became: Dustyn's Wall »[Serious] RIP

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to Blogger
Yes. 32bit was dead with the release of Win7 IMO. Once win7 came out there was no reason to logically buy a 32bit OS unless your hardware was already obsolete.

Keep in mind that when Win7 released that 64bit CPUs had been out for awhile already.

64bit will only improve more when MS can weed out all 32bit code, Right now it has to stay so that old software can still run. This is especially true in the highly profitable enterprise market where many companies run software originally written for WindowsXP.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


howardfine

join:2002-08-09
Saint Louis, MO
Reviews:
·AT&T Southwest
reply to dave
Data size has less to do with processing speed than anything else. The purpose of a wider width suits scientific computing and those with large memory addressing but home users have little, if any, need for 64-bit computing. Even 32-bit was only necessary due to large memory requirements for graphics and video prevalent today.

Manufacturers may struggle to create general-purpose, single chip 128-bit processors. They exist today but don't resemble anything in a PC. The physical size would just be too large which is why you see multiple cores and not longer word size.


drew
Radiant
Premium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
kudos:6
reply to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd:

This is especially true in the highly profitable enterprise market where many companies run software originally written for Windows NT4.0.

FTFY
--
flickr | 'Cause I've been waiting, all my life just waiting
For you to shine, shine your light on me

reply to Blogger
I'm shocked "128 bit" is being thrown around ... we don't need 128bit... yet...

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

2 edits
reply to howardfine

Data size has less to do with processing speed than anything else.

Just to make it clear, I'm not the one that claimed that data width was a performance issue.

Wider fixed-point integers are trivial to implement in software with not a huge loss in efficiency. Greater-precision floating point is probably trickier (don't ask me, I'm an integer guy)

x86 has had 80-bit floating point since the 8087 math coprocessor, so it's clearly not related to whether we're talking about 16, 32, or 64-bit CPUs. IEEE 754 specifies a 128-bit form but AFAIK the x86 doesn't implement it - though from the preceding, it ought to be able to do so independent of turning x86 into a 128-bit architecture.

x86 has 128-bit registers for SIMD instructions but they're used to hold 2 x 64-bit numbers, 4 x 32-bit numbers, etc.

The VAX, bless it, had some 128-bit operations back in the late 1970s (though it was only a 32-bit machine)

The physical size would just be too large which is why you see multiple cores and not longer word size.

That seems implausible. The cost of a 128-bit processor is, what, doubling the register size of a couple of dozen registers, and (probably) making ALU data paths twice as wide.

The reason why there aren't 128-bit general-purpose processors is that 128 bits of VA are not yet needed. And if it doesn't have 128 bits of VA, it's not a 128-bit machine. That is all I meant.

EDIT: I just read in Wikipedia that the amount of data stored on Earth is around 2-to-the-70th bytes; i.e., around 70 bits is enough to uniquely address everything we've got. So it'll be a while before any individual computer needs 128-bit addressing.

EDIT2: I was once part of a team that defined a software shared-memory architecture that used 128-bit addresses, but the idea there was that addresses were never reused, i.e., the address space was sparse. Once you'd destroyed the object at address 0x1234, nothing else would ever have address 0x1234.