Microsoft leaks details of Windows 8 and Windows 9

Microsoft leaks details of Windows 8 and Windows 9

www.pcpro.co.uk

Microsoft is planning to make Windows 8 an 128-bit operating system, according to details leaked from the software giant's Research department.

Microsoft has said very little publicly about Windows 8, although on a visit to the UK earlier this week, CEO Steve Ballmer denied rumours that Windows 7 would be the last major client OS the company produced. Ballmer admitted that planning was underway on Windows 8, although it's highly unlikely that the OS will arrive until 2012 at the earliest.

Morgan's talk of planning for Windows 9 supports Ballmer's claim that the company thinks there i

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
yarchive.net

I been hearing that AMD will bring 128bit cpus to the market by 2011.

Microsoft will have an OS that will be able to be runned on a 128bit system by 2012.

I heard rumors about the next cycle of game consoles to have these 128bit cpus.

This means that 32bit systems will be too old by year 2011 and you would need to buy a 64 bit system or a 128 bit system from now till 2011 you can only buy a 64bit system but those 64bit systems will be kinda old by 2011. Right now 64bits system are the newest types of system. We haven't really used the 64bit systems to it's fullest yet.

I would like to hear what others on ATS thinks about this. I know their are some computer science majors in here.

I added some more links to 128bit cpus. So it looks like technology is changing quickly.

I would love to hear what you guys think about this.



www.pcpro.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

I would've assumed the same to be honest. What I don't understand is why everyone isn't using the x64 version of Windows XP/Vista/7 already. Everyone I know has a 64-bit processor yet uses a 32-bit version of Windows, it baffles me. It's so much more responsive in every aspect but I suspect x128 will be the same way, people will assume compatibility problems without ever actually trying.

128-bit, wow, supercomputer tech for the desktop! Perhaps that means IE will opens up in less than 3secs (i use FF)

I've just developed a .NET app and when porting it to 64-bit, read about the sysWoW64 folder, which is a 'windows-on-windows' OS!

To ensure backwards compatibility, you have to compile in x86 to tell a 64-bit machine to target 32-bit legacy libraries and executables within this sysWoW64 folder! How retarded is that; why not call it sysWoW32Legacy?

Basically, M$ are getting bogged down with their code-base and have started to make it difficult for developers to ensure cross-platform compatibility. Doesn't bode well for the future, especially as Google ramps up their online 'cloud' apps.

Not surprising though, as M$ have close commercial links with CPU OEM's and so continue their monopoly stranglehold by forcing customers to buy new hardware every 18 months; probably to do with Moore's law.

Anyway, back to 128-bit...holy crap, imagine the game engines and porn on that beast

reply to post by ZombieOctopus


I read somewhere that there was only a slight performance increase in 64-bit.

However, i suspect this is because of the ever increasing OS demands. I couldn't stand vista on my laptop and much prefer my win xp on 32-bit!!!!

Why fix something that aint broke?

Who needs 128bits anyways? Not many people are even taking advantage of the 64bits that are available in most processors and OSs. Also, the number of 32bit applications far outnumber the amount of 64bit applications even though most OSs have been released with 64bit versions for years now.

When I finally reassemble the beast (AMD dual core 3600), and possibly Beast II (AMD dual core 3800), I may just shove Linux on both machines. I have had a gutful and a half with MS. The only thing I need to do is find a Linux flavor that works with me- I am leaning towards the really small OS's that float around 64 MB. I need the machines for mostly power, and the apps I want to use are Linux flavored as well- and only need to connect to the internet to move files to people who need what I make (good ol 3d).

Reading Vista's requirements in a machine DO NOT make for a faster, more efficient machine. Vista's requirements make for a bogged down machine where 90% of the computer's power is going to just RUN VISTA. I would love to see 7's requirements.... Probably need double the ram.

128 bit processors by 2011...
Yum.

No major percentage of companies worldwide are ever going to get around to rolling out 7, let alone purchase "Windows8". Dumb for Crazy Ballmer to even have opened his mouth, after saying it was the last "major client release" of a Windows based O/S.


oh yeah.....
BTW:

reply to post by Hyzera


I remember in the 90's when people said wow @ 16 MB of RAM and could not see the point of upgrading to 32 MB. And even before that as well!

I'm sure windows 8/9 will have so much integrated stuff that running it on an AMD Athlon 64 6000 would probably be like running vista on a 1 GHz or even 2 GHz 32-bits processor.

There's always new developments to use the extra bandwidth. Naturally apps will move to 128-bit, with possibly many users bypassing 64-bit altogether.



[edit on 19-10-2009 by john124]

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
reply to post by ZombieOctopus

 

I read somewhere that there was only a slight performance increase in 64-bit.

However, i suspect this is because of the ever increasing OS demands. I couldn't stand vista on my laptop and much prefer my win xp on 32-bit!!!!

Why fix something that aint broke?

It depends, if you're only doing one thing at a time, it's slight but still noticeable. If you multitask, it's night and day, like going from a single core to dual. x64 enabled games are more than significantly faster in load times.

It's not broken, but you paid for a 64-bit processor and you're not even using it. Plus, you're holding up progress I wish MS would just can support for x86 so more applications would take full advantage of x64, you've all had SIX YEARS to get on the 64-bit train.

I'm sure windows 8/9 will have so much integrated stuff that running it on an AMD Athlon 64 6000 would probably be like running vista on a 1 GHz or even 2 GHz 32-bits processor.

See- a few of us don't WANT all that integrated crap on our computers. Just something that turns the computer on, that we can run stuff to the fullest capacity of the processor, memory and videocard. Not have some hungry monster lurking in the background burping and grinding progress to a halt.

reply to post by ZombieOctopus


I bought the vista laptop about 6 months ago....IT'S 32-BIT!

It came pre-installed with Vista Home; if it was the pro/biz version the box would have included a CD to upgrade to XP from Vista, which i would have done in a heart-beat, because the BlueTooth connectivity didn't work with my old BT dongle.

M$ will always force new technology onto customers meaning they have to continually upgrade because of their ties with OEM's. I find that disgusting, only because old hardware fails to work anymore, because they intentionally deprecate dll's.

Ditching x86 support would be a death-knell for M$ and the INSTANT migration for all to Google OS or Linux.

I seriously think M$ should disenfranchise; just have one company for browser, one for x-box, one for apps and just do a black-box engineering revamp. They won't be around in 5 years at this rate!

reply to post by wylekat


Windows 8 will probably need 4 gb RAM minimum requirement. Maybe that's being too optimistic!

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus
Everyone I know has a 64-bit processor yet uses a 32-bit version of Windows, it baffles me.

How can we tell which we have?

I'm using whatever came installed on the machine. I'm sure it's the same for most people.

I'm still debating if my next 'pooter (at least a year from now) is going to be an Apple laptop or a PC running linux.

I guess I need to consider this "bit thing" as well.
.

great, I just bought a new computer two weeks ago, 64 bit. I do not want to buy another one in three years.

Originally posted by Gools

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus
Everyone I know has a 64-bit processor yet uses a 32-bit version of Windows, it baffles me.

How can we tell which we have?

I'm using whatever came installed on the machine. I'm sure it's the same for most people.

I'm still debating if my next 'pooter (at least a year from now) is going to be an Apple laptop or a PC running linux.

I guess I need to consider this "bit thing" as well.

.

Press ctrl-alt-del goto the task manager and then look in "about" under help.

reply to post by amatrine


2 weeks ago? What'd you get a stone tablet? Time to upgrade again

reply to post by Gools


Click [start], then right click [my computer]. In general tab you should see 64-bit under 'system'; if it's 32-bit, it will probably just say 'Microsoft Windows XP Professional Version blah blah'.

If you really want to know what little hamster makes the wheels turn in your confuser, download this free software then check the chipsets from the manufacturer.

Edit:
Here's a link for newer PC's than my ZX Spectrum XP Pro, to check bit version.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by PrisonerOfSociety]

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety

Ditching x86 support would be a death-knell for M$ and the INSTANT migration for all to Google OS or Linux.

MS ditched true-DOS support post-Win95, people said the same thing, some mild whining ensued for a year or two, then everyone forgot about it and moved on.

Linux will never be a competitor, Google might take a couple percent a decade from now. You under-estimate the investment the entire world has in MS software. The only people who actually consider switching OS's to spite MS are power-users which might make up 1% of consumers, the rest will take whatever comes and smile.

[edit on 10/19/2009 by ZombieOctopus]

reply to post by CanadianDream420


What the hell was that?

Balmer is a freak...