If you're about to upgrade to Windows 7 and you're unsure about making the jump from 32bit to 64bit don't be - Microsoft plans to have us on 128bit by Windows 8...

Given the move from 32bit to 64bit (which amongst other things allows far greater RAM to be addressed by a system) has taken so long, the fast jump to 128bit is surprising. Hardware and software support will be required and no doubt the "Forming relationships with major partners: Intel, AMD" part will be crucial to this. Still, Windows 8 isn't expected until 2012 - three years after Windows 7, so there's time to prep yet.

In related news Microsoft has finally taken the sword to its Works productivity software. The suite - which acted like a budget version of Microsoft Office and came preinstalled on many new PCs and laptops - will be replaced by 'Office Starter'. The Starter edition provides stripped down access to ad supported versions of Word and Excel. The likes of Outlook, PowerPoint, etc are missing, but users will be able to upgrade to a full edition from within the software.


More . . .

Various job listings posted online this November have hinted at when Microsoft plans to shift its focus to Windows 8.

Technology site Ars Technica discovered the job listings over on Microsoft's official careers page. Some of the listings have since been edited or removed, but Ars Technica still has the original listings available in full on their site.

So what tidbits of Windows 8 knowledge can we glean from the vacancies listed? We already know from a recent product roadmap that Microsoft's next OS could pack in 128-bit support, and is expected to hit retail some time in 2012. But these fresh vacancies, which include an assortment of positions such as testers, project management personnel, and launch leads, hint that Microsoft is planning to shift its internal focus to Windows 8 as they "head into Fy11". The fiscal year for 2011 begins in July of 2010, which gives Microsoft two years to perfect Windows 8 before it's expected 2012 debut.


More . . .

I have read elsewhere that the initial 128 bit support in Win 8 is for a 128 bit file system architecture. It's for hard drives (and removable drives, backup, etc.), and possibly memory addressing. It would not have been an actual kernel / shell ability. (What runs on the processor would not be 128 bit, but only the hard drive format and addressing.)

I do not think we will see 128 bit PC's for a while. 32-bit processing was around for decades, and is still around. Some companies are staying at 32-bit OS'es for now. 64-bit processing is an advantage if and only if the kernel, the operating system, and the application all use 64-bit programming. If you mix, things slow down as addressing is translated. Things would only be worse with 128-bit processing. One of the problems with Apple's G5 processors was that it was touted as the first mainstream 64-bit processor, but everything was run at 32 bits. This made the G5 a glorified (and really freaking HOT) G4 processor. The PowerPC architecture is even worse about 32-bit / 64-bit translation than Intel's (which was outdone by far by AMD's, which replaced the (t)Itanium 64 architecture on the desktop). OSX on a G5 would not be a truly beautiful thing until the kernel, OS, and apps were all 64-bit, so OSX 10.4 and down were 32-bit to maintain compatibility.

I don't think 128-bit architectures would be possible in the consumer or small business market until the field is truly saturated with 64-bit computing.

Mike