Macworld: News: Microsoft announces Vista minimum requirements — Not too bad seems to me. Comments?
Hardware requirements for a Vista Capable PC are a modern processor with a speed of at least 800MHz, 512MB of system memory and a graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable.
A Windows Vista Premium Ready PC has a good deal more requirements. It must have at least a 1GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor, 1GB of system memory, 128MB of graphics memory, 40GB of hard drive capacity with 15GB free space, a DVD-ROM drive, audio output capabilities and Internet access capability.
It also needs a graphics processor that runs Windows Aero, which Microsoft defines as a DirectX 9 class graphics processor that supports a Windows Display Driver Model Driver, Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware and 32 bits per pixel.
The graphics processor for Aero also must meet the following requirements for graphics memory: 64MB of graphics memory to support a single monitor less than 1,310,720 pixels; 128MB of graphics memory to support a single monitor at resolutions from 1,310,720 to 2,304,000 pixels; or 256MB of graphics memory to support a single monitor at resolutions higher than 2,304,000 pixels.
So basically Vista will run on most of the computers out there. No big deal. Some uers may need to upgrade their video card with an $80-$90 video card.
Why is this news??? Thats no big deal at all.
[reaches over tweaks on nose]
OIC, this is a perfect chanve to insist that Mac users eat some crow! See you can do everything on windows that you can on a mac, But windows users don’t dont need the latest Intel core duo so they can run iPhoto or whatever… Plus, if they want to, they can run the much superior AMD chips.
[/tweak]
So whats the news here? Windows continues to have very minimal requirements?
Since when did OSX or iPhotp need the latest intel core duo? Every new version of OSX runs faster (because of optimization) on the same hardware. I have never seen a new version of Windows that didn’t run slower than the previous version on the same hardware. Even Win98 is noticably slower than Win95 on an old P100 system I have.
Same stuff runs on Powerpc and Intel, dude. That’s sort of the point.
However, telling a corporation with 3,000 [or 30,000] seats you need a new video card in each is kind of upsetting. Especially to the poor buggers who have to install them and wonder if the new drivers will work with their old 3rd-party software.
These are “minimum” requirements. I would says double on most of the stats if a user wants to run the PC with any kind of decent speed.
I’m running OS X Tiger on my G3 Powerbook and it runs really well. I can’t imagine Vista running very well on the lowest spec machine. I’d love to be wrong but after 10 years of using Windows I know how Microsoft love to make their OSes real resource monsters.
I can’t imagine how an operating system can hog 15GB of disk space and not be a bloated peice of crap.Microsoft’s products seem to grow just so that they can make people who no nothing about computers happy. “Oh I bought a 300GB hard drive with my computer now at least I have something to take use of it and since Winsows Vista takes more space it must be better than the one before it.”
I am predicting this to be the worst operating system from Microsoft for many reasons this is just a tiny one that indicates how bloated the operating system must be.
Great picture of Ballmer. He looks like some evil master imposing his will and power upon the masses. Not very far from the truth, eh…
I see a great hand reaching out of the stars, the hand is your hand And I hear sounds. The sounds of billions of people calling your name. My followers?
Your victims.
Microsoft works closely with every large pc manufacturer and they (The vendors) want the newest, latest and gratest to attract buyers and they want to buyers to by the newest latest and greatest hardware so if the new os requires more hardware then awesome for them.
the bloat makes you uprade to better hardware the betterhardware allows you to upgrade to more bloat but more functionality too and all those pretty effects.
keeping their market going.
as for the so called anit/pro mac hoopla, mac os is not longer mac os it’s a free bsd/linux hibrid which is why it is soooo much better.
I am not a microsoft fan but I am kinda looking foreward to the areo interface. Looks pretty cool. Linux has has those graphical effects for quite some time, it’s nice to finally see them in windows.
No pun or slam infered here but didn’t I see a on the history channel of another leader at a podium with that same exact expression only this guy had a hand palm forward in a salute, rallying a bunch of germans?
I doubt I’ll ever buy it.
I’m sure the 15GB of free space has something to do with the virtual memory and the indexing for the search. Not to mention the temp directories.
As for the rest of it. I saw a good article on another site that said for suers to expect any real performance out of Vista, they should plan on a 2.4Gbz 2GB RAM and a decent video card. Microsoft always puts the “minimum” out there, but then neglects to tell anyone that the minimum is just to run the OS, forget about other applications.
Software developers have gotten lazier and lazier, and the hardware technology keeps them so. Before, every bit and byte was precious and you had to be careful how you used everything. Now programs will take “Extra” even if it’s not used. I’ve seen programs that take a lot of extra memory, sets it aside for the possible future use (so it alreayd has it allocated). How lazy can you get?
I think productivity software developers should have their maxed out dual processing powerhouse machines taken away from them and they should be working on 10 year old computers. If they can make a productivity app run decently on that then it’ll scream on anything current. Game developers and such and still take advantage of the newer technology, but why does my word processor need 3d menus?
Who needs it anyway?
Not too bad, but probably dramatically understated. Minimum is by no means practical. For comparison, let’s look at XP Pro’s listed requirements:
233MHz required, 300MHz recommended
128MB RAM
1.5GB hard drive
I have the dubious honor of working with some old, crappy PCs and can tell you this is totally unrealistic. I would put 700MHz, 256MB RAM, and a 6GB hard drive as the minimum for a decent experience. We have a couple of 533MHz that are serviceable, but it’s really pushing it. Anything lower than that (and we have them!) runs Windows 2000 instead. Anything at the spec quoted is thrown out.
Wow, all my computers will work just fine. Buisness are not going to refuse to upgrade becuase their currenet systems can run Vista just fine but minus some of the eye-candy. Eye-candy isn’t needed in the buisness world, it’s nice but not needed. It is only needed when it is more than eye-candy and actually improves performance… Areo Glass, is just the candy as far as I can tell.
Those may be the minimum requirements. I see, however, few people buying the OS just for itself. Most purchasers will be OEM. The tech savey will be sticking with XP or migrating to Linux. XP has been upgraded and tuned to the point where it runs pretty well. Plus, there is the comfort factor for most users.
Greg (13) – dang! those are the minimum requirements for xp?? My brother has an old Dell laptop, Celeron-500, 128MB of RAM, 6 GB HDD, and xp runs like a slug …. sure, it will technically run, but …. I have a similar system running 2K, which is noticibly faster (It does have a P2-400 instead of the Celeron, but basically the same), and I can slow it down to a crawl with just Firefox (half a dozen tabs open), Winamp, MSN, and a virus scanner …. (Firefox is a major resource hog by the way – check its usage in Task Manager vs. IE if you’d like a shock) Point is, MS basic requirements are crap, double them and you’ll have something that will run comfortably real-world.