Windows 8 128 bit Rumours Were Fake?

Last month a number of sites, including this one, picked up on rumours that Windows 8 would support 128 bit processors.  The main ‘source’ of the windows 8 128 bit rumours was a Robert Morgan who was a “senior member of Microsoft’s R&D team” who leaked information about Windows 8’s 128 bit capabilities on his LinkedIn profile.

However, it looks now like the information was fake and that Robert Morgan never actually existed:

  • The LinkedIn page has since been removed (cached version)
  • When questioned about Robert Morgan, Microsoft have replied that “Microsoft has no comment regarding Robert Morgan”

i.e. Microsoft have made no attempt to quash or confirm any leaks that have been made, maintaining the official radio silence around Windows 8.  As George has stated on our sister site, the official position from Microsoft is that Windows 8 is under development and that’s all they are prepared to say for now.

That’s not to say that Windows 8 won’t support 128bit processors, but it looks like this particular leak was probably started by sites looking to benefit from the traffic.  It was a nice story, but unfortunately it looks like we are still waiting for the first set of concrete information concerning Windows 8.

Subscribe & Connect

Share This Post: 

Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter for updates:

, , ,

16 Responses to Windows 8 128 bit Rumours Were Fake?

  1. biff November 27, 2009 at 1:31 pm #

    You guys are morons:

  2. Joshua Li December 5, 2009 at 12:38 pm #

    64 bit will already be plenty enough. Maybe in year 2300, then we might need 128 bit computers (16 billion gigabytes is plenty). 64-bit is just barely supported so 128-bit is definately fake.

    • JohnConnorTM January 6, 2010 at 12:33 pm #

      One thing is for sure, you have no clue whatsoever on what your talking about. Your might be right when you say that win 8 will not come in a 128 bit version but 2300? Come on man, Intels i7 processor already has a 128 bit instruction set, see… 128 bit will be common within 5 years.

      And what about the 16 billion gigabytes will be plenty?. You sound like the IBM boss who sold the 4086 cpu to intel claiming that the maximum amount of computers needed globally pr. year would be 4 units.

      • Guest January 13, 2010 at 7:29 am #

        The 128-bit instructions supported by the Core i7 are multimedia extensions for increasing throughput by storing multiple smaller integers or floating point numbers in a 128-bit register. The Core i7 is still a 64-bit processor, since it cannot operate on a single integer larger than 64 bits, and it only supports 64-bit pointers and a 64-bit address space.

        There are no general-purpose processors in current mainstream manufacturing that work on 128-bit integers or use a 128-bit address space. We are nowhere near exhausting the possibilities of 64-bit computing, and are not likely to for at least 20 years.

        So given that there are no 128-bit processors out there, and there aren’t likely to be for a very long time, it’s an absolute certainty that the next version of Windows won’t have support for them.

        • JohnConnorTM January 27, 2010 at 11:14 am #

          Well we can surely argue and speculate to the launch date of the first 128 bit operating system. My guess is that it will come quicker then you think due to fact that we now see the end of Moore’s law. More bits give faster processing power and you could roughly say that a 128 bit processor will be able to move twice as many 32 or 64 bit bytes than a 64 bit CPU.

          So is not only the need for greater storage capacity but also speed witch improves by higher bitness.

          GPU’s already hare 128, 256, 384 and 512 bit processors.

          My guess is therefore that we within the next five years will see the first 128 bit subsystems in operating systems. Then again history favors your estimate, the jump from 32 bit to 64 bit took roughly 10 years as you state, but as I said conditions are different now due to the end of Moore’s law.

          Anyway, we will see a large paradigm shift in the way we will interact with computers and in processor architecture so there will be exciting times for us nerd in the years to come.

          • Azu January 31, 2010 at 4:44 pm #

            No, GPUs have 512 bit bus widths. They don’t have a 512 bit addressing space. And the i7 is a 64 bit CPU. SSE has been around for a long time and also has nothing to do with the addressing space.

            Anyways, the largest storage hard drives available are up to 2 terabytes. Do you honestly think that we are going to have RAM 8 million times larger than that, in the next few years? Or even the next hundred years? Even if Moore’s law didn’t end, and even if we all had, say, 256 gigabytes of RAM right now, and that number doubled every year, it would take 23 years before the current address space was exhausted. In the mean time, tons of memory would be wasted on storing 128 bit pointers.

            In 2011 SSE will become AVX which will support working on 256 bits in one instruction, but that still has nothing to do with CPUs being anything but 64bit CPUs.

          • John Connor™ February 10, 2010 at 12:19 pm #

            When i started programming in 1982 we had 8 bit processors and 1 kb ram. In 1996 i think it was bought my first 1 gigabyte harddisk, at that time that was huge, todays disks are 2048 times larger, in less then 15 years. The end of Moores law, if it is really here does not influence the storage capacity, only the clockspeed of the cpu. So in an other 15 we can expect harddisks peta and exa byte sized disks.

            Again: You sound like the IBM boss who sold the 4086 cpu to intel claiming that the maximum amount of computers needed globally pr. year would be 4 units.

          • Azu February 10, 2010 at 12:39 pm #

            Please read posts before replying to them. I situation I mentioned is if Moores law does NOT end, and if we assume everyone already has 256 gigabytes of RAM today, and that Windows 8 will not be updated or replaced in the next 23 years.

            Also, there is no evidence that Thomas J. Watson made that claim (by the way, the misquote is 5 computers, not 4. So you actually failed at failing there. But in a way that still failed.)

          • Guest March 4, 2010 at 2:19 am #

            Oh, poor john connor, this guy doesn’t have idea what he talking about…
            you guy, don’t hit him so hard

      • Juri April 28, 2010 at 12:53 am #

        The System/370, made by IBM, could be considered the first rudimentary 128-bit computer as it used 128-bit floating point registers. Most modern CPUs feature SIMD instruction sets (SSE, AltiVec etc.) where 128-bit vector registers are used to store several smaller numbers, such as four 32-bit floating-point numbers, and a single instruction can operate on all these values in parallel. These are 128-bit processors in the sense that they have 128-bit registers, but they do not operate on individual numbers that are 128 binary digits in length.

  3. Sanen April 5, 2010 at 4:45 pm #

    The 128-bit computing “news” was basically nonsense. 64-bit DESKTOP processors were out for years before Windows or any other consumer OS caught up. Actually same thing happened with 32-bit processors – the 386 was released in the mid 1980’s and MS didn’t support it fully until Windows 95 – so basically a decade. Even if 128-bit CPUs come into being in the next two decades, MS and other manufactures won’t support it right away. Like other people said, no point in wasting address space until actual memory in use by desktop PC’s starts demanding it.

    If anything, Windows won’t exist anymore and everything will run off a cloud by then. That’s my prediction.

  4. cla1067 April 13, 2010 at 2:33 pm #

    Cloud idea is cool and useful, but insecure… Intel is pushing new processors out pretty damn fast. Sandy bridge would be the next release for intel which would be 256bit (yes designed for 64bit OS, but still).…Saying that… The faster something comes out the faster it will be used. Yes right now many people may not have a use for 128bit OS, but maybe that is just because we don’t have a 128bit OS? We are all trying to develop new technology and use them to there full potential. I am sure a lot of people would have a use for a 128bit OS not to far into the future and if they came out with it then programs could start using it to there advantage. Some things are still not possible with computers and that is because they are not powerful topic, but I cant wait until USB 3.0 takes off, SSD becomes less expensive, and new ways for internet to be faster to personal PCs and Servers (this is a major bottleneck right now that I hope we overcome).

  5. iwillneverreadyourreplieslol April 19, 2010 at 7:46 pm #

    you’re all a buncha fuckin fag nerds arguing online if you ask me… but ya didnt ask. not that i care… whether the capability is there or not does not mean it will or will not be used in the general public. yes i agree it will take a long time to exhaust 64 bit but that’s not to say 128 wont be available before then. and azu what the hell are you so proud of? all you did was out-fail connor by feeling the need to correct him on the number of computers the ceo of ibm stated back in the day… regardless wrong is wrong. guess what? I top you all becasue not only can i understand what the hell you fags are arguing about, i actually get laid on a regular basis without having to pay for it. its called a girlfriend. not a robotic one but real human being of the opposit sex (that means without a wang) try one. they’re great.

  6. Bill May 10, 2010 at 8:42 am #

    I hear Windows 8 is going to support connectionless Internet, and play all current Xbox 360 titles. I’m from Microsoft, srsly.

  7. Jestin Cherian June 9, 2010 at 4:44 am #

    Windows 8 is not by Microsoft …………. LOL

  8. Bengie June 20, 2010 at 2:29 pm #

    #1. a 64bit CPU means it’s general purpose registers support 64bit which means 64bit address space.

    #2. A 128bit CPU would only have the benefit of additional address space and nothing more. Any new “features” could easily be extensions added to current 64bit CPUs

    #3. 128bit registers eat up twice as many transistors as 64bit ones do. So the benefit of addressing more memory would have to add more speed to the system than the lost speed of using more transistors and transferring more data.

    #4. 64bit CPUs can access up to 16,777,216 terrabytes of address space. I have yet to see a single non-clustered system come even close to that.

    #5. If you don’t need to address more memory, then you can add extra 128bit registers *just* for crunching crazy large integers.

    #6. AVX registers that are coming out will be 512bit and later 1024bit. Great for crunching data, but useless for addressing memory.

    #7. 128bit registers use up more space than 64bit. This obviously means that memory pointers will consume twice as much memory. Yes, RAM is cheap, but L1 cache is not. L1 cache also has the lovely problem that the larger it gets, the more latency is added. CPUs read data in on cache lines which are 64bytes for x86. a 64bit pointer consumes 4 bytes and a 128bit would be 8 bytes. 1/8th of a cache line would be consumed by a single pointer. Performance would drop with added cache requests and speed sensitive loops re-written/tested all to access more memory that wouldn’t even be used.

    Remember, 64bit can address several thousand times more address space than the largest data centers have in harddrive space. Well, we’re not sure about Google since they won’t release that info.

Leave a Reply