Are you ready for 128-bit Windows?

Chances are that if you're a Windows user (and most of you are), you're probably running a good-old 32-bit version of Windows. If you know what edition you're running at all, that is.

32-bit access has been the standard since the Windows for Workgroups era (1992!) -- when Microsoft finally made the big jump from 16-bit programming to what's essentially the standard today. 64-bit Windows operating systems for consumer users have been around in various versions since 2005, but support has been spotty and erratic.

But while Windows XP has a patchy 64-bit version, the 64-bit version of Windows Vista is actually pretty solid (as solid as 32-bit Vista, anyway). All you need to run it is a 64-bit-capable microprocessor, which comprises just about every modern CPU not designed for netbooks. I've used the 64-bit version of Vista fairly extensively and have had only a few very minor hiccups with it -- namely some software that won't run on that version of the OS.

Still, users like me are in the minority. I don't have statistics, but it's clear that 64-bit is a distant minority in a market where 32-bit rules, simply because it has better hardware and software support.

Regardless, Microsoft appears to be pushing ahead to the next big milestone: 128-bit processing, possibly in time for Windows 8 (theoretically planned for release in 2012).

That would be a pretty tall order. 128-bit CPUs don't really exist -- especially not for consumer-level machines -- and no consumer software has ever been written for a 128-bit OS. (How could it?) And then there's the little issue that 64-bit processing has yet to take off in a meaningful way. Would consumers really make the huge jump from 32-bit to 128-bit eventually? That's tough to say, because there are so many obstacles between now and then. (It might also be insanely foolish. As Adrian Kingsley-Hughes notes, "Let's get 64-bit sorted out before we think about 128-bit!")

Nonetheless, Microsoft -- based on sketchy rumor and conjecture, anyway -- appears to be tiptoeing down this road. The evidence is awfully loose, based on LinkedIn profiles and a few job postings, but it doesn't really stretch the bounds of credibility. Microsoft is well-known for thinking big -- really big -- in the initial days of an operating system design, only to pare back features as time wears on and deadlines loom closer. It makes perfect sense to me that Microsoft would be considering a 128-bit OS now, though I have no hope that it will be released with Windows 8 -- and I'm not so sure we'll even see 128-bit with Windows 9, either.

If Microsoft really wants to jump-start bigger-bit editions of its OSes, it's going to have to do what it did way back in the Windows for Workgroups era: Force people to upgrade by pulling the plug on the older model. There's really no reason Microsoft should be supporting two versions of Windows 7 at this point -- but by continuing to do so, it ensures another three years of split support, where software creators have to write two versions of their code -- or have to pick one side to ignore. Make the move to 64-bit for good and maybe we'll actually see 128-bit... come 2015.