Ah, I hadn't read their article but Ars Technica did have a good piece on this too
over here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DallasDad
Good grief, they haven't even adapted all the software to 64 bit yet, and they're already talking about making it obsolete? Wow.
|
Honestly, at this point the only real 64bit issues I still hear about are with legacy hardware/software drivers, which shouldn't be a major issue for future systems. That has been my only problem since I've begun using Windows 7 64bit myself... most of the issues seemed to have been resolved in the time Vista was on the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sycthus
128-bit would be interest. However, this loud call for new processors.
But the do need to move past 32-bit now. 7 should be the last 32-bit OS; However, people are very attached to XP, so I think MS should work on a very stable 64-bit OS that can live up to XP's standards if they want to truly move past 32-bit systems.
|
Windows 2008 Server R2 (Windows 7 version for servers) only supports 64bit processors, so one can expect 32bit versions of Windows 8 might not happen. Given Intel is finally phasing their 32bit processors out of the market Microsoft might just aim to remove 32bit versions for Windows 8...
As far as new processors go, you might be surprised.
Nehalem-based CPU's can macrofuse 64-bit instructions together, in effect it can eat a single 128bit instruction in parts of the pipeline in one clock cycle.
As I understand it those SSE instructions one always hear about can actually be 128-bit already. Intel's next generation
Sandy Bridge CPU's are reportedly going to introduce a more advanced version of SSE they are calling "AVX" (Advanced Vector Extensions) which will be 256-bits wide.