Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Leaks Details of 128-bit Windows 8
Barence writes "Microsoft is planning to make Windows 8 a 128-bit operating system, according to details leaked from the software giant's Research department. The discovery came to light after Microsoft Research employee Robert Morgan carelessly left details of his work on the social-networking site LinkedIn. His page read: 'Working in high-security department for research and development involving strategic planning for medium and long-term projects. Research & Development projects including 128-bit architecture compatibility with the Windows 8 kernel and Windows 9 project plan. Forming relationships with major partners: Intel, AMD, HP and IBM.' It has since been removed."
Sounds fishy to me. Producing a 128 bit operating system before 64 bit is in wide use just seems like a waste of time. Of course this is microsoft so who knows by the time they have that out we may actually have 128bit chips.
Windows 7 isn't even officially released and already nonsense is leaking about the next release with promises they can't keep.
FIrst let them release WinFS.
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
It refers to a 128 bit filesystem ala ZFS, not the whole OS.
That makes a lot more sense, considering that there are no x86-compatible 128-bit CPUs available or even being publicly discussed. If I'm not mistaken, the 32-bit x86 CPU was around for 20+ years before the 64-bit extensions were added, and several years later we're only beginning to get widespread deployments of a 64-bit Windows. We probably won't see 128-bit Windows widely available until 2025 at least.
None of the linked articles say that the 128 bits is for the filesystem only, but I still believe you're right:
Making the entire os 128-bit would simply waste a _lot_ of memory, for zero real gain. (Rather the opposite: A larger working set always leads to slower code.)
Having 128 bits available for filesystem/storage makes it quite feasible to have globally unique addresses for everything, across huge populations of machines.
This has been done before, afair IBM has used a 128 (or 129!) bit address space for their AS400 platform, where everything is memory mapped.
I.e. there is no visible file system, you just access objects by address (which is really a handle).
I believe Amazon's cloud storage is similar, in that the only way to access a blob of data is via a 128-bit handle.
Terje
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
The is no Robert Morgan that works at Microsoft. Not sure who this guy is but if he does work at MS its not his real name.
Well, we don't know who you are, either, so why should your input on this be paid any attention?
In terms of memory, 64 bits can address 18 exabytes. Even Google isn't going to be using that for a decade or so. Assuming Moore's law continues, it will be about half a century before PCs need that much RAM. Dealing with 128 bit numbers for mathematics is of limited use (if you do want to deal with them, you'll probably have a need for 256 byte and 512 byte numbers as well).
And it's not like there's been much perception of a need for 128 bit CPUs. 64 bit processors have been around since the 1960's with fairly mainstream CPUs sine the early 90s. I don't think this is like RAM. I think there's a limit to how many bits we can use.
No, that was Windows XP... back at the beginning of this decade. Next question.
Any leading tech company can and should have resources dedicated to the bleeding edge of their industry. It takes a long time and a lot of work to figure out how to turn ideas into products. It takes a lot of support from vendors and customers to be able to produce something reliable and profitable. This is difficult to do, even for a company with Microsoft's resources.
I get to work in R&D at my company. The stuff I've been working on for the past two years won't see full production for another two years more. We've started looking into tech that won't even be in a test product for another 5+ years, let alone full production. Products that are still bringing in significant revenue are using tech I started developing almost 10 years ago.
128-bit is a LONG way off. It doesn't mean they shouldn't be working on it.
Maybe because he was thinking logically? There are already 128 bit filesystems out there, ala ZFS. Why? Because with huge servers and clustering you can get some insanely huge numbers when it comes to HDD space. But as I'm sure we all know when it comes to a 128 OS, we are usually talking about addressing, ala 16bit, 32bit, 64bit.
As it is now there isn't even any stock machines being built (that I know of) that can support even 1/100th of the amount of RAM that can be addressed in 64bit, let alone any need in at least a decade or two for 128bit addressing. Lets face it-16 exabytes of memory is a whole damned lot in anybodies definition, and I doubt anybody here can think of any reason that we could possibly affordably build a machine that hits that limit in even 20 years. Filesystems on the other hand? Well we already have drives hitting 2TB, so hitting the 64bit limit there, while it will still take awhile, is doable. And let us not forget that MSFT has always been the kings of "me too!" and don't like other groups having features that they themselves don't have, so I have no doubt that when they saw ZFS is 128bit that they said "we need to have 128bit capable servers too!"
So in conclusion it doesn't need to be said, as it is simply common sense. Even at our current rate of RAM size growth it would probably take a good 30 years before we can manufacture RAM sticks that pack enough density that you could hit the 64bit addressing limit without requireing thousands of sticks. With the explosion of hard drive space on the other hand hitting the 64bit limit in large clusters is certainly possible in the near future. Therefor it makes sense that since MSFT does have several server products, and servers are requiring ever increasing amounts of space, that MSFT would have a team working on 128bit file system support for a later version of Winserver. You really don't need to be Colombo to come to that conclusion, as it just makes sense, whereas a full 128bit OS simply does not and will not make sense for most likely several decades. And while we all know MSFT is slow when it comes to releasing OSes, surely they won't be THAT slow when it comes to Win8 and Win9.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Microsoft Research does a LOT of this type of investigation and research. However, there is a world of difference between researching compatability and 'planning to add'. Whether or not he really works for Microsoft, the claim that he is in R&D makes the claim that Win8 will provide 128 bit support a major stretch. Very misleading headline.
Not too long ago (15-20 years, maybe?) 64-bit processors would have been unheard of on the desktop. I see 64-bit being stretched as we put more high-definition video into our datasets. And then we'll have the next "ultra high def" format that will stretch it even more. And then you have a small (in terms of units shipped), but very profitable business in supercomputing. Protein folding and subatomic research folks would probably jump at the chance to rerun their simulations with a higher resolution.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Filter error: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.
It's a sad day when you can no longer post ASCII art onto a forum. Have we come so far that we've forgotten where we come from?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Shared memory space among lots of computers, using IP (possibly IPv6) as a protocol.
That's probably what they are referring to if they mean 128 bit address space (not datapath).
The senior researcher's profile said he was: "Working in high security department [emphasis mine] for research and development involving strategic planning for medium and longterm projects. Research & Development projects including 128-bit architecture compatibility with the Windows 8 kernel and Windows 9 project plan. Forming relationships with major partners: Intel, AMD, HP and IBM."
My first reaction was that if you can't fix the security problems in the people, you surely can't expect to fix the security problems in the software. But that might be a little hasty.
My guess is that the actual security gaffe here was little or nothing. He mentioned he worked in this department, and that they have future plans that exceed today's capabilities. Meh. So what. If he had posted the details of what he was doing, then it would have been newsworthy. As it is, this barely notable. Any one of us here could probably guess that MS likely has people looking into the progression beyond 64 bit technology.
It is reasonable to believe that at some point in the next several years the hardware companies he mentions will have some plan to start building 128 bit cpus. My guess is that this guy's job is to make sure that MS has input into the design process where it can, and to provide feedback to the MS dev teams so MS can start planning to include compatibility features relatively early on, to hopefully be the OS of choice when this hardware someday becomes available. I'm guessing that Windows 8 probably won't be seen for a long time. The article mentions 2012, but given MS's rush to push out 7 to stem the bleeding caused by Vista they may rely on it for longer than normal, much like they did with XP after the ME debacle. If I were writing an OS that would likely debut in 4 to 8 years, I would probably want a heads up from the hardware vendors about how to write an OS for their next gen proc. Also, if MS were planning a future move to a fully 128-bit OS, they might start by inserting 128-bit code into a 64-bit OS.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
None of the linked articles say that the 128 bits is for the filesystem only, but I still believe you're right:
Making the entire os 128-bit would simply waste a _lot_ of memory, for zero real gain. (Rather the opposite: A larger working set always leads to slower code.)
Having 128 bits available for filesystem/storage makes it quite feasible to have globally unique addresses for everything, across huge populations of machines.
This has been done before, afair IBM has used a 128 (or 129!) bit address space for their AS400 platform, where everything is memory mapped.
I.e. there is no visible file system, you just access objects by address (which is really a handle).
I believe Amazon's cloud storage is similar, in that the only way to access a blob of data is via a 128-bit handle.
Terje
Since Win8 / Win9 won't be out for 5/10 years...
Why am I getting flashbacks to a discussion that people had back in the 8 bit days?
"Making the entire os 32-bit would simply waste a _lot_ of memory, for zero real gain. (Rather the opposite: A larger working set always leads to slower code.) ... Having 32 bits available for filesystem/storage makes it quite feasible to have globally unique addresses for everything, across huge populations of machines."
I never heard this discussion, but you know it happened. Probably almost verbatim.
I'm still confused.
What's the point of having 128 bit compatibility? 128 bit CPUs don't even exist yet. Heck most of us are still just using 32, and haven't even visited the 64 generation yet.
Maybe because it's easier to include now the ability to extend compatibility to 128-bit processors instead of trying to bolt it on later? Who knows, maybe Microsoft really did learn something from their experience with Windows security.
Well, 16 Exabytes of RAM (ok, just 8 if you use signed relative jumps) ought to be enough for a quite long time. Long enough to develop another OS, that is for sure.
Rethinking email
int128_t?
It blows my mind how few people use stdint.h when it makes a lot more sense to use that these days.
You just got troll'd!
You realize that we are at the end of 2009 right? And that Windows 7 is just now being released? MS might just be considering that in 2020 we might still be running Windows 8. I know that only looking 1Q into the future is hip for businesses, but maybe MS is looking farther ahead than that. We are still living with issues created by PC limitations from the 16-bit era. Probably a bunch from the 8-bit era that I am not aware of. I see no problem with planning ahead so that they can get the transition done sooner rather than later, or just make the transition smoother than previous bit size transitions.
"Having a memory â" RAM or disk â" above 2^64, however, is not achievable in even in theory..."
Why?
Just 5 mins ago I'd bought 32Gb or RAM for $240. So 2^48 of RAM is just about $2 millions. A lot of money, but certainly within the realm of possibility. In 10 years (two iterations of Windows) $2 millions will buy you 2^53 of RAM. And that is also uncomfortably close to the upper limit of 2^64.
If you look at hard drives, 4Tb (2^42) of space is about $500 now. In 10 years that'll be 4Tb for $15, so 2^64 storage will be possible.
So, there ARE reasons to start developing 128-bit architectures.
Having a memory — RAM or disk — above 2^64, however, is not achievable in even in theory... 2^64 is only 100 times less, for example, than the estimated number of sand-grains on Earth
So? There are more efficient encodings than one byte per sand-grain, you know.
As it turns out, 2^64 is much smaller than Avogadro's Number, the number of molecules in a mole of a chemical compound. If you could find a way to encode information in a 3D hunk of silicon, such that you needed slightly more than 1000 atoms to store each byte, 2^64 bytes of storage would amount to a bit less than one ounce of bulk silicon, occupying less than one cubic inch.
I FULLY expect to see secondary storage approaching this density within the next few decades, and I fully expect that there will be good reasons to support it in a flat address space.
A grain of sand is pretty big. If a single bit was the size of a grain of sand, then by conservative estimates, 4 GB of memory would weigh about 40 kilos.
Do you understand the SIZE of the numbers we're talking about here?
2^128 == 3.4e38
Number of atoms on Earth is ~1.33e50
Suppose we're true bad-asses, and we create a RAM that can store 8 bits PER ATOM. Wow. We would need 3.4e38 atoms to store a 128-bit address space. Considering that as a fraction of Earth's mass, this RAM will have a mass of about 15 trillion kilograms.
I don't know about you but I am not sure where the fuck I would store a stick of RAM that weighs 15 trillion kilograms.
I know it's cute and everything to hearken back to the "Nobody would ever need more than 640k" days but get a brain and run the numbers, ok?
The original 8086 processor could address 1 megabyte of memory (20 bits) with a 16 bit processor. It used two registers (one shifted left by four bits) to address memory.
Have you ever programmed in that model?
Having pointers split into segment:offset pairs meant that you couldn't (easily) have a single array span more than 64kB. Any program that needed to access arrays above that had to split its arrays into arrays of arrays, each of which was smaller. Fun, fun, fun.
A 64 bit processor could trivially access a 128-bit address space by using the same segment:offset method.
I'll let you do the programming, this time. I'll stick to the flat memory model of today's architectures, if that's all right with you.
No, you address bytes, not bits. So 2^64 = 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes, not bits.
Pfft. 640bit isn't even close to enough for multiverse internet routing.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking