1. You may have noticed things look a little different around here - we've switched to a new platform (XenForo) and have some new forum styles and features. This how-to guide will help you find your way around. If you find anything that looks strange, post it in this thread.

Tablets are 32 bit or 64 bit?

Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by aigle, Sep 1, 2011.

  1. leslieann

    leslieann Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    820
    Messages:
    1,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Microsoft has stated that Windows 7 would be the last 32bit OS it ships.

    Granted they may have meant desktop, but considering Windows 7 was designed for everything, I don't see why the desktop would only be 64bit, while the other is only 32bit. Google has at times even stated you need 64bit Ubuntu to compile Android, though they have gone back and made it work on 32bit as well.

    Microsoft knows things about upcoming products long before we do. It's possible the new chips will be ready by then. Just don't expect a cheap Windows Phone.
     
  2. Indrek

    Indrek Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    2,264
    Messages:
    2,116
    Likes Received:
    114
    Trophy Points:
    81
    Do you have a link or something to back that up? People might think Win7 will be the last 32-bit Windows (the same thing was thought about Vista), but I haven't heard anything to that effect from Microsoft. Even most of the Win8 leaked builds so far have been 32-bit.

    On the server side, sure - Windows Server 2008 (Vista's server counterpart) was Microsoft's last 32-bit server OS. But ditch 32-bit on the desktop? No way. Not yet.
     
  3. leslieann

    leslieann Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    820
    Messages:
    1,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Early on they announced they were considering it. Here is one piece discussing it, I'm not going to dig further though.
    http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Exploring-Windows-8-Exclusively-64-Bit-Scenario-98641.shtml

    At this point there are 32bit test builds out, so they are at least working on it, but that doesn't necessarily guarantee anything.

    Interestingly, some sites are claiming that 32 and 64bit will have different interfaces and apparently MS is considering a 128bit version of Windows 8 and Windows 9.
     
  4. funky monk

    funky monk Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    233
    Messages:
    1,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    128 bit? Why even bother? I can't imagine anyone using more than 16 exabytes of memory any time soon. The only benefit I can see is that you could get data to processors faster which is more important given the increasing amount of cores CPU's have.

    Have microsoft got rid of that stupid home screen thing in windows 8 yet? If they release the final version like that them I'm going to look for a mod as soon as I get it, if that fails then I'll just turn green, rip of my shirt while yelling with a vein sticking out on my forhead and then crush cars with my feet while devouring a whole cow.
     
  5. HTWingNut

    HTWingNut Mostly Harmless...

    Reputations:
    20,767
    Messages:
    32,076
    Likes Received:
    4,211
    Trophy Points:
    681
    128-bit? Windows 7 still has 32-bit! 64-bit is only catching on, and that would mean 128-bit CPU instructions to take advantage of it right? I don't see that anywhere on the roadmap.
     
  6. Indrek

    Indrek Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    2,264
    Messages:
    2,116
    Likes Received:
    114
    Trophy Points:
    81
    Yes, I've seen such articles as well. They all seem to be from 2007-2008, or in other words, from before Windows 7 was even released. Also, they never actually reference MS making any statements about dropping 32-bit support from Windows 8. What they report on is MS researching the willingness of 3rd party software developers to produce 64-bit versions of their programs. While it does indicate a long-term plan to go exlusively 64-bit (which is obvious anyway), there's no official indication that it will happen with Windows 8. Therefore jumping from some preliminary survey MS released 3 years ago to "Microsoft has stated that Windows 7 would be the last 32bit OS it ships" seems like quite a leap, with no actual evidence to back it up.

    Yes, 128-bit support is another myth floating around about Windows 8.

    As for different interfaces, as far as I know, the regular Windows desktop and the new Metro-style home screens will both be available, regardless of CPU architecture.
     
  7. kent1146

    kent1146 Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    2,173
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    116
    Because people automatically assume that a higher number must somehow automatically mean better. Or that newer must automatically mean better.

    Comments like asking for 128-bit OSes are usually based off of uninformed assumptions, rather than actual practical knowledge (which you are trying to bring to the table).
     
  8. leslieann

    leslieann Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    820
    Messages:
    1,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Go look in stores and see how many systems are shipping with 32bit.

    64bit Win7 outsells 32bit by a decent, if not large margin. A year ago they were nearly equal in sales, not anymore. I think we would have been done with 32bit already had Vista been released on time.


    I have seen info on it since then, but I couldn't find it.

    As for 32bit support, that will remain for a while (probably another 10 years). They kept 16bit support going for much longer than they should have.
     
  9. jeremyshaw

    jeremyshaw Big time Idiot

    Reputations:
    657
    Messages:
    2,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    CPUs are already internally 128-256bit (well, that last one will be a function of Bulldozer), in certain executions units (specifically, the FPU). In addition, the AVX instruction set supports 256bit...

    x86 itself may not, but that won't stop developers from exploiting 128bit SSE and 256bit AVX instructions and capability.
     
  10. davepermen

    davepermen Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    2,972
    Messages:
    7,791
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    the bitness does not mean the internal registers for special computing, or the bus, or anything. it means the amount of bits to address memory.

    16bit was 2^16bytes = 65536bytes or 64kilobytes
    32bit was 2^32bytes = 4294967296bytes or 4gigabytes
    64bit is 2^64bytes = 18446744073709551616bytes or 16million terabytes (i'm aware current 64bit cpu's don't allow that much, they're more like 48bit cpu's or something for memory?)
    128bit would be 16 billion billion times 16 million terabytes.

    so each step is not just doubling, or quadrupling the space.

    the last step from 32bit to 64bit increased the amount by 4 billion. that'll take some time, till we fill up 4 billion times the memory we fill up right now (4gb of ram is still plenty in most use cases).


    there's no need on a single system to ever have 128bit. with 64bit, we could have, on a single system, enough ram to virtually run 4 billion 32bit systems, that means one 32bit pc for every other human out there. in ONE 64bit system.

    the next step would simulate 2billion 64bit pc's per human on earth on one 128bit system. where each one would contain all those 32bit systems.

    128bit might be fine for skynet, if that would be a single cpu one day.

    other than that, arm will most likely push 64bit rather soon. i bet win8 tablets will pop out reaching the limit of 4gb ram, and then the wish for more will be there.
     
  11. leslieann

    leslieann Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    820
    Messages:
    1,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    2Tb drives is where Win7 hits the wall on clusters, just as we did with fat16, fat32 and 32bit ntfs. Too large of a cluster and you start losing efficiency, yes it can go larger, but there are tradeoffs for it. We need a new file system, usually this is handled by a new OS and/or bit rate.


    And, I disagree about never needing more than 64bit in computing, just because you can't foresee the need for that kind of power doesn't mean we won't find a use for it. A famous man once made a similar comment about 640k.
     
  12. funky monk

    funky monk Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    233
    Messages:
    1,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    In 30 years there may be a possibility to use more than 16 exabytes of RAM but simply pushing for it "because you can" is pointless. The entirety of the internet is estimated to be less than 1000 exabytes (a zetabyte if you want to call it that).

    Trust me in saying that we will have no need for 128 bit memory adresses in a long long time. The only acception I can see is cloud computing where it might just be possible to have a combined pool of memory which would need it.

    In a few decades I would say it's a possibility but that's about it. Unless someone manages to get quantum computers working soon or something along the lines then we won't have a need for 128 bit untill then.

    Put 2^64 into a calculator and then compare it to our beloved 6.02*10^23. It's only a few orders of magnitude smaller. Unless you can get RAM cells down to the order of atoms in size while also solving the very prevellant problem of quantum tunneling then you're going to need impossibly large chips to accomodate anything which could even come close to needing 128 bit addresses. Even on the atomic scale, you would still end up with something rivaling a house for size and weight.

    Assuming Moore's law hold up nicely (which it has for the most part), it would take us roughly 60 years before the average computer could take advantage of 128 bit computing.

    QED.
     
  13. Indrek

    Indrek Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    2,264
    Messages:
    2,116
    Likes Received:
    114
    Trophy Points:
    81
    You mean Bill Gates? He never said that.
     
  14. jclausius

    jclausius Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    592
    Messages:
    1,647
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    The "bitness" of a CPU generally represents the width of an integer used within a CPU. CPU designs use this integer-width to size internal general purpose registers, databuses, and other data units within the CPU. Also, the integer's size is used to compute memory addresses for RAM. So can address 2^16 = 65536 separate memory addresses (each storing 1 byte), 2^32 = 4294967296 addresses and so on. Note, this is a theoretical size, as most 64-bit CPUs do not yet access 2^64 bytes of memory. For example, AMD64 can only use 2^52 bytes of memory. I cannot find it, but Intel's 64-bit CPUs has a limit as well.


    @Indrek -

    Or did he... :) It's still fun to debate, and is amazing this quote has legs around 30 years later -

    http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1997/01/1484

    http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...te_won_t_go_away_but_did_Gates_really_say_it_
     
  15. leslieann

    leslieann Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    820
    Messages:
    1,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    I know, but it's fun to say.

    Even if we get a 128bit processor, something else in the system won't actually support that much memory.
     

Share This Page