Reasons why 128bit might flop


Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Messages
168
Reaction score
10
Reasons why 128 might flop.

Because you will to buy a 128 Processor which means a new Motherboard too. A new motherboard means new memory to work with it, then you have to get a new Power Supply Unit to give more power. A new graphics card and deffently a new Hard Drive. which means a new computer built from the ground up.

Most people don't want to buy a new $4000.00 Plus $???? computer every year and Windows 8 now won't support 128bit now and 128bit and windows 8 won't support Floppy drives. let alone Windows 7.

64 bit fufils most needs for Windows 7 (We don't Need Windows 8)

On this note USB 3.0 and SATA III Floped completely because they don't work at there top speeds.
 
Ad

Advertisements

Nibiru2012

Quick Scotty, beam me up!
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
4,955
Reaction score
1,302
On this note USB 3.0 and SATA III Floped completely because they don't work at there top speeds.
USB 3.0 and SATA III have not flopped, they're too new yet. Only a few motherboards are out that will support the new standards. These two products are still very early in their infancy stage.

So to say that they "flopped" is rather disingenuous on your part.


64 bit fufils most needs for Windows 7 (We don't Need Windows 8)
That's another disingenuous statement.

Regarding 128 bit computing... that is way off in the future by several years. It may come with the release of Windows 8, who knows but most definitely with Windows 9.

You wouldn't have to spend $4000 on a new computer either, that's a HIGHLY exaggerated number.

You wouldn't need a new case, monitor, keyboard, mouse or a POWER supply. Just because one is going to 128 bit does not require lots of power. Most people have too large of a power supply for their system needs anyway, some by over 40% extra capacity.

You may or may not need to get a new video card, it wouldn't be mandatory. Also a new hard would be optional too, unless one wanted the SATA III drives.

Yes, at the very least, you would need a new motherboard, CPU and perhaps RAM. Remember DDR2 was out before 64 bit CPUs were available and it is still being used today.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
925
Reaction score
362
Windows 8 will not be 128-bit. It was a hoax. We are at least 6-10 years away from a 128-bit desktop CPU.

Also, how can you say USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gbps flopped when the standards were just finalized for the public? You don't see them on many motherboards because only a few companies are making chips that can be added to motherboards to support the specs, and nobody is adding USB3 and SATA 6Gbps to their chipsets until the end of 2010, or mid-2011.
 
Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Messages
168
Reaction score
10
I have used USB 3.0 and SATA III and they don't work at top speeds.

Even USB 2.0 does't get to 470mbps as it is supposed to.

Ever since XP. XP was the first operating system not to support a floppy drive so that's why none came on a XP computer. but people like me need a floppy drve to use a floppy disk.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
925
Reaction score
362
No transfer spec will ever work at its top speed, because the standards define the theoretical maximum rates. But what those standards also specify is the typical throughput, or what people can expect to see in practice, but nobody ever bothers to read the specification whitepapers to know what they are.

Secondarily, anything you can do with a floppy drive can be done on a USB key.

//EDIT: USB 3.0's throughput spec is ~400MB/s, and SATA 6Gbps throughput spec is about ~560MB/s.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
5,063
Reaction score
1,185
I have used USB 3.0 and SATA III and they don't work at top speeds.
It will be awhile before we see many devices that will transfer at USB 3.0 max transfer rates.

Even USB 2.0 does't get to 470mbps as it is supposed to.
USB 2.0 is a specification not an absolute rate. Different devices will transfer at different rates. USB 3.0 is now a specification because devices was exceeding Max transfer for the USB 2.0 specification rates.

Ever since XP. XP was the first operating system not to support a floppy drive so that's why none came on a XP computer. but people like me need a floppy drve to use a floppy disk.
XP does support a floppy drive. The introduction to USB was why systems was shipped without floppy drives. If you need a floppy drive, purchase one and install it.
 
Last edited:
Ad

Advertisements

Nibiru2012

Quick Scotty, beam me up!
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
4,955
Reaction score
1,302
I have used USB 3.0 and SATA III and they don't work at top speeds.

Even USB 2.0 does't get to 470mbps as it is supposed to.

Ever since XP. XP was the first operating system not to support a floppy drive so that's why none came on a XP computer. but people like me need a floppy drve to use a floppy disk.
The tops speeds for USB and SATA are what's known as "Burst" speed. When they first get going the speeds are high and then drop to sustained rate, as stated.

The only reason most computer makers didn't put a floppy drive in was people weren't using them like they were in the '80s & '90s. Some makers still were putting floppy drives in until around 2005 or 2006. Many were using the CD drives with CD-RW discs or DVD likewise.

Windows XP, Vista and 7 all support floppy drives. I know I have one on my new system!

You can buy a USB floppy drive for about $30 from Newegg. An internal one at ebay is about $10.
 

catilley1092

Win 7/Linux Mint Lover
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
3,507
Reaction score
563
I briefly had a Dell Optiplex 280, it had XP and a floppy drive, although I never used it, or even knew how to. And it's way, way too early to say that USB 3.0 and SATA III is a flop. We started with a very small (1.1, I think) USB, went to 2.0 with success, what makes you think that 3.0 USB won't work? It should be faster. As the OS's moves forward, so should the hardware. How can you down something that hasn't had a chance yet?
 
Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Messages
168
Reaction score
10
In "Computer there's an "root" for the floppy drive ("Icon") and also in the Device manager. and my computer doesn't have one. why is this so.

Did floppy drives go the way the 32 bit processor is going to go? becuase it is old technology and no one uses them anymore. CD's are also going to the grave with them because many netbooks don't have the drives.
 

davehc

Microsoft MVP
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
502
Floppies are still being used. It would be, in most cases, simple for those users to transfer their gear to CD's but sometimes old programs are designed to be installed from the original source - but anything can be achieved.

I think the reason your floppy is showing is because, maybe, you need to disable it from the bios?
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
925
Reaction score
362
It's definitely a BIOS thing. If you turn the A:\ drive on in the BIOS, Windows loads all the relevant drivers and routines to use and display one, even if one isn't installed.
 
Ad

Advertisements

Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Messages
168
Reaction score
10
Windows 8 will not be 128-bit. It was a hoax. We are at least 6-10 years away from a 128-bit desktop CPU.

Also, how can you say USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gbps flopped when the standards were just finalized for the public? You don't see them on many motherboards because only a few companies are making chips that can be added to motherboards to support the specs, and nobody is adding USB3 and SATA 6Gbps to their chipsets until the end of 2010, or mid-2011.
That's rubbish Asus & Gigabit has already included them!!!!! on new P55 Mobo's.
 

catilley1092

Win 7/Linux Mint Lover
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
3,507
Reaction score
563
That's rubbish Asus & Gigabit has already included them!!!!! on new P55 Mobo's.
Thrax is a moderator on here, if you know what that means. To call his posts rubbish is not a smart thing to do.
 

Nibiru2012

Quick Scotty, beam me up!
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
4,955
Reaction score
1,302
That's rubbish Asus & Gigabit has already included them!!!!! on new P55 Mobo's.
You saw, but didn't READ his post:
You don't see them on many motherboards because only a few companies are making chips that can be added to motherboards to support the specs,
 
Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Messages
168
Reaction score
10
Well I'am sorry.

The thing is we have stacks of motherboards out the back. From Asus and Gigabit with USB 3.0 and SATA III specs. He said they won't come out till end of 2010. but we got our first ones late 2009.
 
Ad

Advertisements

Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
925
Reaction score
362
Well I'am sorry.

The thing is we have stacks of motherboards out the back. From Asus and Gigabit with USB 3.0 and SATA III specs. He said they won't come out till end of 2010. but we got our first ones late 2009.
No, I didn't. What I said, was: "nobody is adding USB3 and SATA 6Gbps to their chipsets until the end of 2010."

All the SATA 6Gbps/USB 3.0 motherboards on the market currently use NEC uPD720200 controller for USB 3, and a Marvell 88SE9128 for SATA 6. These I/O specs are not built into the chipset.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Well this would be my first post. Howdy all. (No I am not from the country.)

You have to keep in mind that developers and companies have guys they pay thousands and thousands of dollars to for marketing, development, market research, etc etc. If a 128-bit architecture was developed and released to the general public you will no doubt have in mind some forms of backward compatibility. We are just now moving forward to the 64-bit architecture (I formatted my PC yesterday due to some issues, I am now a proud Win7 Pro 64-bit user) and that took how many years? Yes you will need a new cpu, probably new everything, but VGA, hard disks, optical drives, I believe they will stay the same for the most part (hopefully SSD's are affordable by then). But you won't immediately be shoved into having to upgrade. Look how long WinXP is lasting, it was a fairly solid platform. But with Technology you're looking at the requirement of upgrading fairly quickly. But that doesn't mean my Q6600 w/ 2 gigs of DDR2-800 memory is going to be obsolete. Also remember new hardware and technology costs a lot due to the development and because people are willing to pay a premium for the top of the line equipment.

I doubt most common households will see a 128-bit machine until the next 6-10 years, or even hear of it for that matter. Look at me I knew 64 bit computing existed but not until now did I dare face it.

Maybe it can do my homework or cook me dinner, who knows?
 

catilley1092

Win 7/Linux Mint Lover
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
3,507
Reaction score
563
xplicit503, Welcome to the forums! You do bring up many good points, especially that no one is going to be forced into 128 bit for a long, long time. 64 bit is not fully developed yet, as far as software is concerned. Most likely, it will be 12 to 15 years before it becomes the norm.
 
Ad

Advertisements

Veedaz

~
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
374
Its going to be some time before 64-bit Computing is fully excepted by the general public and a lot longer before 128-bit sees the light of day in the general publics households.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top