>>>>>128-bit OS won't be commonly available for at least 20-30 years, that's my prediction. Too little profit both money wise and performance wise, way too high cost.
>>>>
>>>>20-30 years is a looong period for IT. I used 8 bit computers 25 years ago.
>>>
>>>The difference between 64-bit and 128-bit is far, far bigger than most people may realize. The garbage collection on a 128-bit processor will take most of it's power, that's one of the main reasons why the benefit is not going to make it worthwhile for a lot of years. Another thing is that the yield, meaning how many of the produced processors will actually work, also will be very low, meaning that the price will be astronomical.
>>
>>
>>> The garbage collection on a 128-bit processor will take most of it's power
>>
>>Why would that be ?
>
>I am not a specialist on this field, so please don't shoot me if I have misunderstood something here. As far as I know, the processing power necessary to do the garbage collection, increases exponentially by the number of bits involved. This was heavily discussed here when the first 64-bit Intel processors arrived, and it's also one of the reasons why a 64-bit processor isn't that much faster than a 32-bit processor.

I see no reason why "the processing power necessary to do the garbage increases exponentially by the number of bits involved"

Sure, you can address more memory and have more objects allocated at the same time than on a 32 bit system.
But more address space does not necessarily imply more objects