











Comments     Threshold


RE: Windows 8 "Risky"
By jebo on 10/25/2010 1:54:31 PM , Rating: 3
I agree that UEFI would ripple the waters. So much so, in fact, that I doubt Microsoft will follow through with the requirement. I bet that requirement gets dumped before release.

RE: Windows 8 "Risky"
By Silver2k7 on 10/25/2010 2:16:52 PM , Rating: 3
UEFI requirement would perhaps be interpreted as risky.. 64-bit not so much, since more or less every CPU these days are 64-bit.

But still UEFI will force 64-bit to become the standard (since there are no 32-bit UEFI), wich right now becomes a neccesity either way, so its a good thing if this happends.

With 4GB memory modules finally starting to fall in price, 8GB could very well be the standard in 2012.. then 32-bit would not be useful any longer, also rember that any larger than 2.2GB harddrive will also need 64-bit.. so 32-bit is limping along on its last legs right about now..

RE: Windows 8 "Risky"
By Silver2k7 on 10/25/2010 2:21:54 PM , Rating: 2
thats larger 2.2TB harddrives that will need 64-bit.

also right now there are workstation video cards with 6GB VRAM.. so I would not be surprised to see 2-3GB gaming cards in 2012.. then you have atleast 10GB of memory RAM+VRAM and have surpassed the 32-bit 4GB limit by far.

Getting rid of the 20years+ old BIOS and replacing it with UEFI wich will also make the computers boot faster, I don't know why anyone would not like that.

RE: Windows 8 "Risky"
By Silver2k7 on 10/25/2010 2:25:17 PM , Rating: 2
ps. you don't need to buy Win8 to get an OS for your UEFI motherboard, it also works with Vista SP1 and Win7. ds.

RE: Windows 8 "Risky"
By FITCamaro on 10/25/2010 3:10:58 PM , Rating: 2
I've already got 10GB of memory + VRAM. :)

RE: Windows 8 "Risky"
By sorry dog on 10/25/2010 8:54:38 PM , Rating: 3
My Honda Civic has 550 whp and can beat a ZR1 on a roll :)

RE: Windows 8 "Risky"
By Silver2k7 on 10/26/2010 4:10:37 AM , Rating: 2
good for you, I just meant that it will likly be the standard in 2012, and there will be no place at all for 32-bit in new systems.. so UEFI isn't really as risky as it might sound by then.

RE: Windows 8 "Risky"
By Lugaidster on 10/27/2010 11:39:19 AM , Rating: 2
You should really try to understand what you are writing before you do.

First, CPU's don't address VRAM directly, so to handle a 6GiB VRAM card, a 64-bit CPU is not needed.

Also, the 2TiB restriction on HDDs is completely unrelated. You can't boot from a partition larger than that because of BIOS and LBA addressing limitations. But to fix that you just need a motherboard controller with 64-bit addressing, a partition table that supports 64-bit addressing and something like UEFI to be able to read that partition table. You can have a non-bootable 3TiB filled with information and it would still be accessible in a 32-bit OS.

Neither problem requires a 64-bit CPU to be solved (directly at least, UEFI might require them but UEFI isn't the only way to solve those issues), otherwise the move would've been made a long time ago.

The only real restriction a 32-bit OS has is in RAM addressing. Programs in a 32-bit OS can't use more than 4GiB even if it has PAE activated. Given that today more and more systems are shipping with at least that kind of memory, the transition makes sense. Specially with more and more demanding apps and games appearing.

Please, don't spread FUD.

RE: Windows 8 "Risky"
By SlyNine on 10/28/2010 5:31:55 PM , Rating: 2
All he was saying was 10GiB of ram will become standard, so there is no need for 32bit CPUs. Also without a 64bit CPU how are you going to run UEFI, which is needed to boot to larger then 2.2TB HDD's

In fact you have suggested that there is a solution to the problem, but then contradicted yourself by saying UEFI is needed. If 64bit CPUs are needed for UEIF, and UEIF is what solves the problem, then 64bit CPUs are still a requirment.

