When will we start seeing 128-bit operating systems?

When will we start seeing 128-bit operating systems?

Maybe after we get 64 bit processors

user, I don't think you know what that means.

I have 8 gigabytes of ram and 1 terabyte of memory, how come my os is only 64 bits?

once we start colonising other solar systems probably

How can we have TB of disk if our processors only have 64 bits?

How can our processors only have 64 bits when they have billions of transistors?

>consoles had 128-bit systems 15 years ago
>PCs only switched to 64 bits in the past 10 years

>I have 8 gigabytes of ram and 1 terabyte of memory

Not OP, but do you mind explaining this to me?

Check your Graphics Card, they are well beyond 128bit

>being autistic over verbiage

We have this thread regularly. First go look up and understand why you need a separate "OS" for "32 bit" and "64 bit" x86 processors. Hint: It has to do with AMD64 and i386 compatibility, and not memory address or register size.

...

CPU 'bits' refer to both addressable memory space and register size.
Modern CPUs have 64 bit registers (and far larger, thanks to XMM)
They are only able to address 53? Bits of physical memory
That is like 216 tb of ram you can have right now, once we start reaching that, it would be worth developing to 58 or 64 bits of addressable memory, but it's just wasted r&d currently

Wikipedia says 48bits is standard right now with 56 being the next step.

That's right, had my numbers mixed up
Either way, the ideas the same

I guess technically, this is acceptable because we're moving to ssds and sd cards and such.

yeah that's cool what wikipedia says but that's not true
next step is 52bit, 52-bit physical addresses and 57-bit virtual addresses to be specific

5 level page tables are already being merged into linux mainline for new intel chips for said spec. Thing is systems are already shipping with 64TB of ram, the 128GB limit we reached with 4 levels we got in 2005 just isn't enough anymore.

128TB limit that is rather

128 PiB of virtual address space and 4 PiB of physical address space with 5 levels should last us another decade or so I'd hope

When the mainstream of computing finds themselves often needing to solve problems working with numbers greater than 18,446,744,073,709,551,616

In other words, never, that's just numbers-jerking from people too retarded to know how computers work beyond running video games.

This. It's also almost totally irrelevant for the average end user. The dawn of 64 bit ARM just served to highlight this as almost all manufacturers admitted that it had been reduced to a marketing number on par with megapixels.

but there are now phones with more than 4gb memory, right

Yes but that's not the main reason to use a 64 bit CPU. I highly recommend reading up on this before just parroting the usual "It's about da RAM" statement that seems to be so popular here.

so what is the main reason
and where do you recommend reading

See Yes, being able to work with bigger numbers more easily is much more important than being able to address more than 4GB of memory without a workaround. You'll understand once you start reading up on it.

As always, Wikipedia would be a good place to start.

Good question, will Quantum make a difference in this market ?

> 128bit, 2024 maybe?

>Yes, being able to work with bigger numbers more easily is much more important than being able to address more than 4GB of memory without a workaround.

You could do that already on 32 Bit on non retarded architectures, Hell even on x86 you would in 2-3 cycles.

64 bits *is* about pointer referencing in 64 bit space. AMD64 is about that and expanding the number of general registers and making a sane standard for 64 bit words

When we have a need for 128-bit processors.

The Dreamcast's SH4 is a 32-bit processor and the PlayStation 2's Emotion Engine is 64-bit.

We don't need them.
128bit operations might be interesting, but we won't need the address space yet and we probably won't in a long time.

There's a reason the high-end jumped to 64-bit processors as soon as they became available in the early '90s (earlier for supercomputers) despite rarely ever sporting even maximum memory capacities exceeding the 4 GB addressing limit, those 2-3 cycles add up when you're performing a lot of operations on large values, and there are a hell of a lot of applications for those kinds systems that work with values larger than 4,294,967,295. Billions of load/stores to slow as fuck memory and disk is never a good thing if it can be avoided.

You can't entirely disregard memory addressing as an advantage, but to say that was the main and only driving factor for the adoption of 64-bit processors is ludicrous.

When OP stops being a faggot

Bill gates said we would never need more than 640k. I think he meant bits and was misquoted

What I thought, our's had 64 bit memory addressing and such, but weren't really 64 bit, heard when we get true 64bit they will be quite a bit faster. (heard you will basically have to rewrite every piece of software which is why it isn't catching on)

x86-64 processors have 64bit registers they just don't have the capability to address 64bits of memory yet. 64bits of addressable RAM is so incredibly fuckhuge that hardware capable of addressing that much is basically inconceivable right now. Setting that aside, right now the limit isn't the CPU itself it's the motherboard and RAM. I do not believe there is any existing hardware that can exceed the current limit so there's no risk of ever hitting the limit. Software is written with the assumption that there is 64bits of addressable memory even though they cannot make it anywhere close to the limit.

>80s: 8-bit systems (home computers like Commodore, Atari, Spectrum etc. or consoles like the NES) are most popular
>90s: 16-bit DOS/Win9x is most popular
>00s: 32-bit WinXP is most popular
>10s: 64-bit Win7 and later is most popular

Theoretically next decade?

>Bill gates said we would never need more than 640k
He said he never said this.

So... 2020? After Windows 7 expires? After we can't use this "128-bit processor" with a real operating system?

It doesn't matter what year 128-bit CPUs come out, Windows 7 will remain x86(_64) only.

he said "640k should be enough for anybody."

>You can't entirely disregard memory addressing as an advantage, but to say that was the main and only driving factor for the adoption of 64-bit processors is ludicrous.
It's the main driving factor for the adoption of 64-bit processors in the consumer market.

that does not imply that the condition of 640k being enough for anybody will continue in to the future. When he said it it was likely accurate.

For what fucking purpose was the Nintendo64 64bit?

>2011
>not using slackware

I seriously wish you wouldn't do this.

True. I just thought of an immediate response about the present.

That's sort of true. Memory addresses are 64bits, but in the current processors the middle bits aren't hooked up. So you have the high and low bits which allows you to address the stack and the heap but not the middle ones since you could never hope for the two to meet currently.

The CPU could theoretically do math involving 64bit numbers. The games were pretty much all written in 32bit though so the 64bit thing was basically bullshit except in the strictest sense.

kinda odd that they wasted engineering on the half assed mostly marketing 64bit shit when all that was pretty much also possible with a pure 32bit system.

That's not how quantum computing would work. It's not just a replacement for our current transistors, it's a whole new paradigm.

a 128 bit operating system would probably use 16 byte memory addresses and would be hell for packing, programs would require much more ram and probably be much slower

It is theoretically possible but there is no need for it currently and there will likely not be a need for a very long time.

Sure, it played a part. AMD64 was appealing to a lot of non-consumer users though, especially with traditional workstation vendors fading away.
It was an SGI project based on cheap embedded versions of their own 64-bit chips

32bit code was actually the most practical way to use the hardware even. 64bit numbers occupy more cache which is a performance penalty plus they occupy more ROM space which for the N64 was quite scarce

Even if 128-bit register CPUs become widely used next decade, it won't be consumer/end-user devices, but rather cloud computing farms/datacenters. The four decades listed by were mostly focused on personal computing, but that is going away as we speak. So you might be right that most if not all your computing and data processing will be performed by 128-bit CPUs soon, it just won't be (Your) CPUs.

But he literally said he never said this and that it was a just a popular myth/urban legend/made-up misquote/whatever.

What do you wish? That he wouldn't use Slackware? Or that he wouldn't NOT use (i.e. WOULD use) Slackware?

Seriously? Primarily for marketing/meme purposes ("our 64-bit console does what 32-bit PS1 don't" etc.).

"Nintendo 32" just doesn't have the same ring to it

>literally
Stop. No one thinks you are being figurative.

storage != memory

fagboy, my card is 512 bits

Over 2070

Reminder that address space is a resource. You don't need to have more than 4 GB of physical memory to take advantage of a 64 bit operating system.

Someone unironically might, though.

With a 32-bit os, are only haves of the native registers of a 64-bit CPU used? Is there a way to use full 64-bit registers, but a 32-bit address space, so all pointers won't grow huge for no reason if 4GiB is enough?

The "top" of the address space was always used for mapping thing like ROM, I/O ports, etc. Some chipsets (like on the Thinkpad T60 for example) reserved the whole top gigabyte, so no physical memory above 3072MiB was ever usable there).

>haves
*halves

but i'll be dead by then reeeeeeeeeeeee

>tfw 2070 won't arrive in your lifetime

>PCs only switched to 64 bits in the past 10 years

Sun, IBM, and SGI been using 64-bit CPUs since the 90s.

>x32 abi

Yes.

reading this thread made me realize most of Sup Forums is totally tech illiterate beyond buying plastic headphones from china.

>47 people have posted
>implying most of Sup Forums is itt

You responded "yes" to which question exactly?

kys cucks, my gpu is 4096-bit