Will There Be a Windows 10 (128-bit)

[@Dina_tankar_mina_ord]

30 seconds in and im almost falling asleep. that voice so relaxing.

[@BitigoBlack]

Oh my British isles!

[@whiteislandhorrorshows5438]

lol so funny

[@subrajeetmaharana]

For more relaxation, please get yourself admitted in any Indian University.

[@SeanyKrabs]

@Arber _D gay

[@typingcat]

@@SeanyKrabs Why are you gay?

[@ChrisBradel]

This is the chillest video I've seen in a while. Love it.

[@novakk86]

You can add ASMR to the title of the video.

[@johnnysins3795]

Ikr

[@A3Kr0n]

He's painting happy clouds

[@cal4720]

Novak Kosanović I was about to comment the same thing.

[@diwang4572]

lmao

[@firmman4505]

lol

[@kevindickey6020]

Welcome back. I wish I had found you before I built my first PC. Unfortunately I learned a few things the hard way over half a dozen builds. Your videos are really quite good. I hope you continue with your channel and build it back up. No need to confine them only to PC repairs - you are good at this. You speak in clear, well-thought-out, declarative sentences and your presentation is always well-organized. Now no more two-year absences!

[@EasyPcRepairs]

Thank you Kevin! I do plan on staying around this time and I hope you enjoy the many videos to come!

[@philh5829]

THANK YOU! Soft spoken, sensible explanation by a gentle man, WITHOUT some loud mouth yank rambling on incessantly

[@Duncan94]

Just casually uploads after 2 years hahaha. Welcome back.

[@EasyPcRepairs]

Thank you Duncan... nice to be back making videos again!

[@firmman4505]

ok

[@metalvideos1961]

@Zeed its possible but why would you. by every restart you will loose all your process.

[@jamescrowther1234]

This is an extremely well made video, great presentation quality!

[@EasyPcRepairs]

Thank you James!

[@stevemoza9467]

What a soothing voice. It's comparable with the late Bob Ross soothing godlike voice. Subscribed.

[@JonaWilliamson]

I'd vaguely wondered for a while, why I'd never heard of 128-bit architecture yet. I'm glad this is the video if found to explain it.

[@dutchman163]

Thank you for existing! I just like how you can say such interesting facts by such a soothing voice!

[@sarreqteryx]

we need 128bit CPUs first.

[@Dr_MKUltra]

Sarreq Teryx I remember when AMD came out with x64 everyone thought they were silly at first.

[@MetehanSDegilim]

Xd

[@danaeckel5523]

@@Dr_MKUltra I remember when the 386 came out and people thought that was overkill. I think if the AMD64 didn't come out we would be in a world of hurt.

[@MrJfortun]

It's good to see you posting again!

[@EasyPcRepairs]

Thank you! It's good to be back!

[@deliriumtoohigh3777]

i can meditate with you voice. soo calm

[@yashmore165]

Welcome Back Man And I can't Thankyou Enough 2 years Ago I Build A PC Just Because Of You And Yeah Thanks For the Info In This Video Cool✌️😋

[@EasyPcRepairs]

Thank you! That's great that you built your own computer after watching my videos! It's good to be back on KZbin again!

[@mikhwanese]

I like this man's speed of how he says those words

[@citizenearth1656]

I remember watching your channel showing us how to build a pc years ago. You back for good?

[@EasyPcRepairs]

Yes, I'm back for good. It's been a while but I don't plan on going away this time.

[@citizenearth1656]

@@EasyPcRepairs good 2 hear m8!👍🏾

[@とふこ]

Don't worry, 640GB ram will be enough for everything I wonder why the consoles in the 90s was 64bit like Atari jaguar and nintendo 64

[@LudwigvanBeethoven2]

I enjoyed this a lot. What a calm voice

[@robertscott8213]

Boom and he just pops back after 2 years. 😁

[@len881]

2 years have passed 😄

[@dan0randan713]

It's cool and inspiring, I remember the history of computers from calculators on gears, now they are becoming alive.

[@TheGeezzer]

Good explanation of the different bits and -pieces- bits.

[@renamon303]

inmagine a monster gaming pc 128 bit system windows 20 RTX 9080 8 petabyte intel core 20 900 THz ssd 1 petabyte 1 terabyte ram

[@gastonbouchard9330]

Wow ... VERY soothing.

[@Andrew90046zero]

I would like to add something to this. Technically, many CPUs today are KINDA already 128 bit, but not really, from what I understand. What I mean is that some internal parts of the CPU can be seen as more than 64 bit. For one thing, when the CPU is communicating with the RAM, it does so over what's called a "bus". Which is basically a bunch of wires that run parallel, where each wire holds and sends 1 bit. So a 64-bit Bus is made of 64 (microscopic) wires that send each bit to and from the CPU and RAM. If I'm correct, modern CPUs (2021 as I write this) only have 64-bit "address and data buses" for requesting information from the RAM. So the amount of bytes that can be accessed by the CPU is limited by the "numerical capacity" of a 64-bit bus. For 32-bit buses, the "numerical capacity" is approx. 4 billion, hence the 4GB limit. The capacity for 64-bit buses is *18 quintillion*, which is WAY bigger. And explains what was said in the video about 64-bit computers not having RAM limit issues until the far future. So CPU manufacturers would also need to double the size of the data and address buses in order to access more data. SIDE NOTE: Of course, it could be the case that the address bus could be 64-bit and the data bus could be 128-bit, which would allow you to request 2 pieces of 64-bit data information. But I don't know if this is the case for modern CPU and RAM. But this bit is very nuanced information most people aren't really concerned about, but it is somewhat related to my next point. So this last part of what I wanted to say is really why I am making this long comment. Your CPU may only have 64-bit RAM access right now, but inside the CPU, there are actually many higher-bit operations taking place. Albeit, they are "64-bit based" operations. For very complex operations which require doing multiple similar operations, like physics, rendering, or other geometry-based operations. The CPU can do these similar operations all at the same time, compared to doing one part after the other. So for example, if you had multiple pairs of numbers that needed to be added together (which probably happens all the time in a computer), you would need to do each addition, one after the other, in sequence. But you could save a lot of time by doing all the additions at once, in parallel. Doing this requires memory units inside the CPU called "registers" to be big enough to hold multiple pairs of numbers. Normally, CPUs would have 64-bit registers, but technically, modern CPUs actually have 128-bit, 256-bit, and 512-bit registers which allow you to hold multiple pieces of data so they can all be processed AT ONCE, rather than in sequence. For the purpose of performance. But yet, we are still advertizing our computers as 64-bit. But that is simply because we still can only send data to/from RAM in 64-bit chunks. Also, the 128/256/512 -bit registers I've mentioned are still thought of as basically "groups" of the normal 64-bit registers. So we are still working under that 64-bit numerical limit, but the super-sized registers give us a glimpse of what It's like to have a 128-bit machine, possibly. So for the most part, an operating system's "bit rating" is probably gonna be defined by the bus size that RAM and CPUs support. And by the time we reach true 128-bit systems, the purpose will probably be for having things like 128-bit floats that can hold even bigger numbers with even larger amounts of precision. But considering all this information might make you wonder about what the future of computers might be like. Will computers still be given a single "bit rating" like now? Or will CPUs be advertised with multiple bit ratings for the different aspects of the hardware? Like: "64-bit memory access" and "256/64-bit arithmetic" ( "256/64" means that there are 256-bit registers, but you can only do 64-bit arithmetic with them, so you can do 4 different 64-bit operations at once on those registers). Ok, my comment is done!

[@EasyPcRepairs]

I enjoyed reading your comment. A good read for those of us that are interested in computers. Thanks for your comment!

[@Andrew90046zero]

@@EasyPcRepairs thanks! I got carried away, but I just love computers that much XD

[@ThefourthPistol]

The chillest video i've watch in this 5 month

[@AndyHoke]

Thank you. Very informative, and explained so non-geeks can understand.

[@letmedwight]

2:12 I also heard that 32Bit would technically be able to make significantly much more than 4GB and it was microsoft choose to limit it to 4GB. So who says that Microsoft won't limit 64bit what will not be enough for future things like the 4GB limit thing?

[@user-dc9zo7ek5j]

32 bit as the name implies has only 32 bits (duh) which can be only 1 or 0. If all of the bits are filled they will be 4GB, and if the processor is 32 bits then this is the amount of memory that it can manage. There are tricks to use more than that, but those probably require more effort, and considering the average XP user will hit no more than 2gb of memory, it's perfectly fine to have max 4. And no, microsoft did not say "we will limit 32 bit to 4gb because we want so", but on windows 10 there really are limits, but we're not going to reach them soon.

[@CiceroLounge]

Great easy to follow guide on the processing. I never know the memory limitations on my 64bit is 16 exobytes. I suspect the real advantage of a 128 will be in more reliable virtual operating systems being independently run on machines.

[@Dwayneff]

I was watching a video on youtube about 128 bit computing and the amount of numbers calculated is, let's just say unfathomable. The amount of power a 128 bit cpu would use is just, we would never need that much power. That is getting into quantum computing.

[@divinehatred6021]

@@Dwayneff We would never need that much power on a personal computer*

[@ethanbeachem4449]

love the softspoken nice pesonality you just earnd a sub

[@EasyPcRepairs]

Thanks for the sub!

[@Blendedasian]

On each processing cycle, desktop windows already works on 256 bits of data at once thanks to AVX, but since 64-bit came along we haven't much need of working on numbers bigger than 32-bit. As an example linux programs by default pass data around as 32-bit numbers, only using the 64-bit functinality of the CPU for addresses.

[@ruffianeo3418]

A good argument can be made to build 72 bit architectures, given that many (the majority even) of high level programming languages use tag bits on their data instances for various purposes. Be it Haskell, ML or Lisp, tagging is common place. And in those languages, you need to use tricks or pay performance penalties, to actually use 64 bits for your integer numbers instead of - depending on language implementation only 62 or even less bits. This is the main reason, why programs like stockfish (chess engine), which heavily rely on 64 bit data manipulation (bitboards etc.) are written in mid level programming languages like Rust or C++ or even mid-low level programming languages like C. There is no visible trend towards moving to higher level languages (maybe also because of tagging. The mid level languages currently appear to be the sweet spot for the majority of programmers and applications.). But introducing an architecture, which would allow for high level languages to use full 64 bits (and still have some bits remaining for their data tags) could actually get such a trend going. Combine that, with a few new opcodes, which would support those high level language data tagging idioms, and a whole new world could emerge.

[@patdbean]

Also power, having more 64bit cores and powering down the ones you are not using while off loading the high end floating point on to a GPU is the way forward for now.

[@andreiradu1945]

Nice video. Aside from the relevant info, I like the asmr vibe it has.

[@schwalleyf]

Just as an update Apple only runs 64 bit programs in there new OS Catalina. There is a desperate need for full 4k and 8k rendering. This would not be for the average user but for high end programs like photoshop, autocad, and other video intensive programs.

[@pacomacman]

I agree, there is no point in moving to 128bit. All it means is we double memory consumption if all your integers suddenly become 8 bytes. In some ways code runs slower on 64 bit cpus than it did on 32 bit because of this.

[@Dave4000]

128-bit may have its uses in the (near?) future, for example the ZFS file system is 128-bit: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/128-bit_computing

[@EasyPcRepairs]

An interesting read - thanks for the comment!

[@sokpisethlalalanno]

Your void is so ASMR

[@Iamwolf134]

64 bit CPUs are rather bulletproof and cost effective (Considering they can take advantage of so much more RAM than their 32-bit counterparts), so we may not even need 128 bit chips for at least a decade or two. This find is taking well into account the fact that prices for 64-bit hardware have plummeted thanks to their economy of scale.

[@patmelsen]

It’s not really true that a 64-bit CPU can process more calculations at the same time, the reason why the 64-bit CPUs are a bit more efficient is that other changes were made to the design that are unrelated to the width of the bus, but that can’t retroactively be applied to older 32-bit only CPUs. Examples are adding more registers and making them wider. Also, what we call “64-bit” (with the 64 meaning the width of the address bus) is really only 48-bit, it’s simply not possible to have that much RAM in a single computer. The reason not all programs on Windows are 64 bit isn’t that they don’t need more computing power, it’s a mixture of laziness and legacy support. I agree that there won’t be 128-bit chipsets or operating systems because it’s not possible to buy enough RAM that that would be necessary. Also it’s important not to forget the downsides of 64-bit: programs need more memory because all points take up more space. That effect would be doubled with 128-bit computing, but in total it would only lead to maybe a 10% increase in memory consumption depending on the workload.

[@jhoughjr1]

Patrick E actually it is true. A 64 bit machine can perform 8 8 bit ops in one cycle. Bigger chunks per cycle means more throughout.

[@itsGeorgeAgain]

What he means is that you can actually run two 32 bit calculations by using just one 64 bit register. As far as i'm aware, even Nintendo 64 was doing that most of the time.

[@SamOlds2999]

5th like

[@Polyglot_English]

You should consider working as a hypnotist

[@xDR1TeK]

Well I can throw one idea out into the ether. Suppose we follow the same approach Intel implemented in their 486 series, 64 bit bus with a 32 bit cpu. In this case 128bit bus with a 64bit cpu. It would be a viable option if Intel hadn't opted to move the memory control into the cpu like amd did. Hence, the improbability for desktop computer to have a 128 bit bus along a 64 bit cpu. Also another use for a 128 bit bus or higher, to multi-task control operations without crippling the cpu with transfer through I/O controller. But, still not the whole 128 lanes would be actively operating in true 128 data transfer for the same operation. 64 bit serves to be the only wide storage one shot data relay system given that larger data types may only require 2 times load from memory to store in cpu registers for a 16byte long double float operation. Which also could be done with 32bit but with fewer number of fetch times. Considering that these numbers are only encountered few times in the life of the machine, a 128 bit bus or cpu might not offer an advantage or impact in processing times overall.

[@ecdhe]

There are two reasons to upgrade the number of bits in a processor: the ability for the CPU to handle greater integers and the increased theoretical max RAM. The first benefit is however less and less useful. When people jumped from 8-bit computers to 16-bit computers it made plenty of sense: the CPU could natively handle integers up to 65535, instead of 255 previously (yes, 8-bit computers could only natively handle integers between 0 and 255!). However, very few applications have a need to handle integers greater than 32-bit, let alone greater than 64-bit, so the performance gain is minimal at best. One notable exception would be Fractal Extreme, whose 64-bit version is much faster than the 32-bit version. However, most apps won't be any faster when compiled in 64-bit. On the contrary, a program will consume more memory if it's compiled in 64-bit than if it's compiled in 32-bit - resulting in an overall performance loss. So at the end of the day, the #1 reason to move to a 128-bit CPU would be the memory requirement (GPUs are a different story)

[@thomas.thomas]

how does the usage of more memory resulting in a performance loss if there is still enough memory left?

[@ecdhe]

@@thomas.thomas because it means more data to shlep between the RAM and the CPU

[@sourav8051]

watch this at 1.5 speed even still it is understandable.

[@j.harbers]

Still too slow

[@____-fv4bm]

Watch this for the calm, not for the information.

[@xperiahidro5058]

I play it at 2x speed and it still understandable. Now trying to play it at 0,25x

[@skittles7740]

Same

[@arunatripathiarvind4747]

@@xperiahidro5058 0.25 is not. Even understandable because he talks so slow that our brain emptys it's memory and forgets the word he said 10 seconds ago

[@kxdsh]

I'm just wondering if there's 128 bit processors, Linux would probably be ported to it already and I don't really use windows anyway

[@ableman8]

This guy could use a 128 bit talking speed

[@va3cpm]

Dude. You need to narrate a sleep video! very calming voice. Good Night!

[@cartoonboy7473]

Nice explanation sir! Great job. 😊 ♥️ 👍

[@EasyPcRepairs]

Thank you!

[@NoorMohammed-me9lg]

You have an awesome voice like Mr Mobile.

[@EasyPcRepairs]

Thank you!

[@maj746]

Thanks for the information, sir.

[@EasyPcRepairs]

Always welcome!

[@9852323]

We’ll get there someday.

[@ProphetPX]

This guy's voice ALWAYS PUTS ME TO SLEEP .... like every single time i "watch" him ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz lolllll

[@iiSparkzHD]

Very enjoyable and informative watch! Would there be any benefit of the CPU being able to handle more processes then current standard?

[@EasyPcRepairs]

That would help speed things up if they could. As CPUs have progressed, they have become more and more capable of handling multiple processes at the same time. But if they could handle even more - and if programs were designed to take advantage of this - we would see a speed increase on our PCs. Thanks for your comment!

[@andrewlankford9634]

Are there any 128 bit cpu's out there, and would there be enough to entice microsoft to port (or more than likely re-re-write it) to that cpu? How long did it take Intel to get 64 bit right and for the Intel-centric software world to embrace it? What are the chances that there's a big market for laptops with cpu's that take up more than twice as much internal realestate and consume twice as much power? While we're discussing that, when is the earth going to be destroyed by a meteor or nearby gamma ray burst?

[@Kepler_2258]

What would the minimum ram requirement be for a win10 128bit, since win10 64bit needs Atleast 2GB to run

[@divinehatred6021]

I would say 1 terrabyte?

[@Kepler_2258]

@@divinehatred6021 possibly, maybe since its double the x maybe double the ram requirement plus 1000, so maybe 2TB?

[@IzludeTingel]

i read a while back that it isn't physically possible to allocate such addressing spaces, so there will never be 128bit aside a 128bit BUS and other doohickies.. tldr; the physical properties don't allow for it.

[@bazildonbond]

Nice to hear some reasonable truths about actual IT.

[@kris-wj3wj]

I may be completely wrong on this so correct me if I'm wrong.. but the one scenario I can imagine moving to 128 would be the amount of data a cpu could process in the same amount of time as a 64bit. We are getting closer and closer to the point where optimization is everything and raw speed and cores is meaning less and less. So it may not be a memory restriction if we move to 128 bit, it could be due to the amount of data that could be handled in the same time frame. This is 100% a shot in the dark lol. I know computers, but not to the point where I'd know differences like this. I'm curious.

[@EasyPcRepairs]

They've been stuck at around 5GHz speed for processors for many years now. Above this would generally require more extreme cooling for today's CPUs. So for better performance they've added more cores and threads, whilst at the same time, thinning the data paths (22nm CPUs, 14nm CPUs and so on). Another way they've improved performance is to make them more efficient. I'm not sure how much improvement we would see with a 128 bit processor. In fact I get the feeling that even the CPU companies are not sure which way to go next. I guess we'll have to wait and see what they do.

[@prodromosregalides3402]

Some scenarios may arise that will make the use of 128-bit desirable. After all gpus are routinely 128 or 256 bit. It is just that both software and especially hardware are in a transition phase right now. We still think of video editing and moving camera gaming as the most demanding scenarios on a pc. Truth is , these are ancient applications by computer standards. Having an AI running locally on our machines will soon change this viewpoint. This and transitioning from current ICs to a new paradigm with a lifespan at least as long as that of ICs.

[@prodromosregalides3402]

Of course it is true , that current NNs run best at "lower" bits , but these are only a worthy precursor of future AI substrates. We don't exactly know what the requirements of an AI as complex as a human or better will be.

[@jayaramanrajui4974]

Should we wait for 128 bit. which is the best processor that would support 64 bit in windows 7 and present available ram available at present, sir

[@EasyPcRepairs]

I wouldn't wait for 128 bit. It may not come out for many years. Windows 7 will have no support from 14th January 2020 so it's best to upgrade to another operating system such as Windows 10.

[@anasalawaad2734]

Welcome back

[@EasyPcRepairs]

Thank you!

[@PWingert1966]

Here is a question: with Microsoft announcing that Windows 11 will no longer support 32-bit computers does this mean all those 32-bit programs will need to be re-written?

[@EasyPcRepairs]

Windows 11 will still support 32-bit programs. It's only the other way around that can't happen, for example, Windows 10 32-bit operating system can't support 64-bit programs.

[@Gallowtown]

Aparecio en mis recomendaciones y me quede viendolo muy interesante.

[@cvhawkeye6255]

Can't wait for NotePad 128.

[@ProphetPX]

this guy's voice is way too calm.... like i just wanna fall asleep while listening to him -- he's very "ASMR" lol

[@naruto007666]

thanks for the explanation

[@EasyPcRepairs]

No worries

[@maxos79]

What about when using CAD programmes, I was forever reaching the max amount of polygons while trying to get it to render items. Wouldn't a 128bit system allow for a higher amount of RAM, and even allow for a better spec gpu, perhaps being able to handle UHD in 3D , as that would take quite a bit of processing (not meaning processor there) power won't it? Really sorry if anything sounds confrontational , I honestly would like to know, and don't always convey my questions very well

[@EasyPcRepairs]

With a 64bit computer the limit of RAM is extremely high at 16 million terabytes. The RAM on today's computers are limited by other things. For example, a motherboard might have a limit of 64GB and Windows 10 Home has a limit of 128GB. Therefore the limit for that computer's RAM would be 64GB due to the motherboard limit.

[@maxos79]

@@EasyPcRepairs in theory could a 128bit system, run 2 different 64 bit operating systems? Oh and thanks for answering my question.

[@EasyPcRepairs]

In theory, yes, it could do that.

[@Kitulous]

@@maxos79 you can run two 64 bit OSes on a 64 bit PC, almost in parallel. Ever heard of virtualization? Modern OSes already have more threads running than your CPU, by an order of magnitude, if not more. Your kernel alone can run up to 250 threads at the same time, and your CPU typically has 4 to 8 to 16 nowadays. So on one thread 10-15 threads are run sequentially. In the same manner you can run two OSes, you will just double the number of running threads.

[@maxos79]

@@Kitulous yes I know that, just curious about potential future uses

[@omrksr]

20000000000 years later

[@hydroviperking]

Will there be a Windows 10 (128-bit) (extreme ASMR)

[@jhoughjr1]

The real question is when will 128 bit CPUs come out. I remember the whole you don’t need 64 bits for anything.

[@wbushnaq]

How many CPU sockets does Windows 10 can work with? the pro version specific.

[@EasyPcRepairs]

Windows 10 Pro can support 2 physical CPUs.

[@wbushnaq]

@@EasyPcRepairs thank you so much! Because my boss said it can work on 64 CPUs

[@Kitulous]

@@wbushnaq maybe he meant 64 cores/threads? Those may be reported as "CPUs" in Windows.

[@michaelrichardson754]

the sega Dreamcast have a 128 bit processor that was 20 years ago

[@neuromancer692]

The Dreamcast used a 32bit processor.

[@wingchen4878]

Clear and useful.

[@EasyPcRepairs]

Thank you!

[@docmaynard1934]

Many users think: "128 bit Why?" The simple answer from an MS Employee is Windows runs on more than just a consumer PC. While MS is often thinking ahead, they also work with system across the planet that are far more complex than a PC.

[@alexsandrosschneidinger5215]

Geht mit 384 Bit Grafik Karte wegen 96 bit teilung

[@Dyl_Apple]

The fact that windows 11 exists now I doubt they would go back and make 10 compatible with 128 but if it came to exist

[@arianathearyan]

By the time we get to 128 bit Windows will be dead like Amstrad

[@kavithaghost134]

128 Bit no need until 3019

[@ahdyn]

You will see space travel and detailed interstellar mapping systems created, before you would require 128-bit processing, as navigation systems for a space ship. could require extremely high data and data progressing at high speeds and this being handed over to a civilian...

[@ill6ixx538]

His Voice is calmer than Bob Ross's

[@pauljacobsen1784]

I think we should make 128 bit computers and also 256 bit just because we can

[@namannguyenvu7565]

128 bit?

[@yw1971]

Not even for Supercomputers, because a cluster of 64 bit CPUs is better than a single 128 bit CPU. And besides the new Quantum computing is beyond any such CPUs.

[@microdesigns2000]

@yw1971 oh yeah, I can picture us now, Windows Quantum, or The Quebuntu distro. There will be claims of negative boot times, that actually reverse time during boot up, lol. Between every keystroke, the motherboard actually powers down because there is nothing to do, or maybe auto-complete does a full word and phrase search in every language in the world on every keystroke, or... Lol. All that on a 3-bit computer.

[@jhoughjr1]

Quantum computing isn’t magic.

[@viper6963]

this guys voice is almost challenging bob ross

[@schwarzesfleisch5809]

128 bits, 64 bits, 32 bits, 16 bits, 8 bits, 4 bits, 2 BITS, 1 BIT, 0.5 BIT, 0.25 BIT

[@ecdhe]

What the video is missing is that 8-bit computers were really 8/16 bit computers that had 16-bit addressing (64 Kb). Same thing for 16-bit computers. Roughly speaking, each generation has increased the maximum memory limit by 256 each decade: 8-bit computers could access to to 64 Kb or RAM, 80286-based computers could access up to 16 Mb of RAM, and 32-bit computers can access up to 4 GB of RAM. However, the switch to 64-bit computers multiplied the maximum RAM by 4 billion (or 256^4). By this calculation, if our memory consumption increase remains constant, switching to 64-bit gave us enough maximum memory limit for 4 decades, which means we have roughly 3 decades left with 64-bit computers.

[@EasyPcRepairs]

Thank you for your detailed comment!

[@ecdhe]

@@drinkoldcoke There were, but their CPU (most of the time the MOS 6502 or the Zilog Z80) could address up to 64 Kb of RAM (even if the computer was not always equipped with that amount of RAM). Some of these 8-bit machines had 128 Kb of RAM, but that was through some hack (the CPU still couldn't access all 128 Kb directly)

[@ecdhe]

@@drinkoldcoke I had an Atari 2600 and an Atari 800 XL. The 8-bit Atari was an awesome machine, but 8-bit assembly was just a major pain in the neck (you had to use 2 registers when using numbers that need to go past 255). And yes, they optimized like crazy on those machines (they were down to the point where they would remove 12 bytes from the sound code to use in the animation code). But to be fair, it's much harder to optimize to this level given the complexity of today's hardware and software.

[@ecdhe]

@@drinkoldcoke The C64 had better graphics than the Atari 8-bit series. On 8-bit, I have fond memories of M.U.L.E, Seven Cities of Gold or Fort Apocalypse. On 16-bit systems (I had an Atari ST and then a second-hand Amiga 500), that would be Ultima III, Defender of the Crown or Deja Vu.

[@ecdhe]

@@drinkoldcoke Back when Electronic Arts wasn't a rotten company ;-)

[@namaanda5349]

What I learned from this video : So that is the difference of windows versions... I see.

[@niceguy1891]

128 bits 🧘🏿

[@eranbroide3003]

The cost of a 128 bit computer would he outrageously expensive. It would only be used by servers and scientific researchers like NASA until it become more widely available and cheaper.

[@schwalleyf]

all manufactures have gone today to 64 bit. The latest macOS will run only 64 bit. The big programs like Photoshop, Corel Painter, Auto cad, and many others. All the mobile phones only run 64 bit programs. Look again There will be a128 bit sooner than you think.

[@craiganderson6306]

Just do 2x2x2 etc until you have 128 2s multiplied, that would be your answer. If they made a 65bit system, it would be double the power of 64bit.

[@Kitulous]

Thanks, you just taught us exponentiation. 2x2x2 128 times is 2^128, and by the rule of powers, 2^128 = (2^64)² (not to be confused with 2^64^2, which is 2^4096). So the 128 number can hold the square of the biggest number representable in a 64 bit number, which seems unreasonable and unneeded, which it is. But many would benefit from native quad precision floating-point number support (double the precision of double precision floating-point numbers).

[@PWingert1966]

We have half the answer. There will be a Windows-11 operating system that requires most hardware to be scrapped and replaced because none of it can meet the windows 11arbitrary requirements. As far as 128-bit Microsoft and Intel are saving the little doozy for windows 12in 2050!! 😁

[@Pqj613]

So slow and soft. Too polite.

[@jimjam4real]

Bob Ross Explains

[@berkeleymorrison]

i love your voice BABAM OL

[@Matthewgb204]

Now that I know about windows 2tb cap I’m ditching them

[@Kitulous]

As if you needed more than 2 TB😂it could serve as a Ramdisk for me and it's still not gonna be nowhere near the limit for my use case. But yours, apparently, begs to be different. Do you run servers?

[@Matthewgb204]

Kitulous Gamedev Channel no and that’s not the only reason but this was the last straw I don’t need more than 2 TB right now but I’m definitely going to need more than 2 TB in the next 4 years so yeah

[@jaygames1980]

We just don't need it yet, because we don't use that much memory yet

[@DBLCreations]

Man, crazy to think that 32-bit only supports 4GB of system memory and when you double that to 64-bit you have 16.000,000TB. I wonder how many 128-bit would support. I know one thing though, i won't see 128-bit CPU's in the home computer space in my lifetime... 😂

[@gilian2587]

16 EB... huh... I very much doubt that digital computers will ever be capable of offloading this much data into RAM. Not even the largest server networks at google consume anywhere close THAT much RAM.

[@kelptalks4167]

This shit is asmr

[@VitalayManin]

64Bit CPU 2^77.000.000 35 Часов 128Bit CPU 16^154.000.000.000 3 Секунды 256Bit IMBA GRAHAM'S NUMBER 20 МИНУТ

[@tonicrvnts]

Yeah, I don't think there's going to be any 128 bit computers in the near future because making smaller and faster processors is near impossible due to quantum tunneling 🙄