Vista System Requirements Revealed by MS

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
  • Start date Start date
A

Andre Da Costa [Extended64]

Quote:
As they prepare for the arrival of Windows Vista™, customers shopping for
new PCs or upgrading their hardware now have more comprehensive guidance to
aid them in their decisions. Today, Microsoft Corp. announced the launch of
the Windows Vista “Get Ready” Web site, the worldwide availability of
Windows Vista Capable PCs, the upcoming availability of Premium Ready PCs
and the availability of the Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor beta.
“Customers have many options and choices to make when it comes to buying a
PC today. A wide range of form factors, price points and new technologies
figure into their decisions,” said Mike Sievert, corporate vice president of
Windows® Product Management and Marketing at Microsoft. “With that in mind,
Microsoft and OEMs are making it easier to prepare for the arrival of
Windows Vista. Customers now have the information they need to get a great
Windows XP-based PC today that will deliver rich Windows Vista experiences
tomorrow.”

Read the rest here:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/may06/05-18GetReadyPR.mspx

It seems very fair to me.
 
To sum up the minimum requirements ...

CPU: 800MHz; RAM: 512MB; video: 800x600; HD: 20GB; CD or DVD ROM

So there will be a CD distro, but it can't possibly need 15GB free?
 
I think that's very fair. I was thinking they were going to be into the GHz
for the minimum CPU. Very good.
 
I think that's very fair. I was thinking they were going to be into the GHz
for the minimum CPU. Very good.
Click to expand...

The only issue I see is that it's likely the very minimum requirements. As
in... minimum enough to install, but don't try to run Office 12 once you've
installed it. The general rule of thumb from my experience has always been
to take Microsoft's stated minimums, double them (1.6Ghz processor, 1gb
memory, 1280x1024 video with 128mb video memory, 80gb hard drive and a DVD
drive) and that'll give you a system that will be able to do actual work on.
It'll probably still be sluggish in response, still be swapping to the page
file, but you'll be able to do work.

I'm laying even odds that the performance level is going to be a 3ghz
processor, 2gb of memory, a 160gb SATA drive, and a video card with a minimum
of 256mb of video memory. Then Vista will be at the level that XP is at with
half that requirement. (Not a troll, just a practical observation based on
10+ years of dealing with everything from Windows 95... which required double
what was stated on the box to be able to work well.)
 
Raymond said:
...
The only issue I see is that it's likely the very minimum requirements. As
in... minimum enough to install, but don't try to run Office 12 once you've
installed it. The general rule of thumb from my experience has always been
to take Microsoft's stated minimums, double them (1.6Ghz processor, 1gb
memory, 1280x1024 video with 128mb video memory, 80gb hard drive and a DVD
drive) and that'll give you a system that will be able to do actual work on.
It'll probably still be sluggish in response, still be swapping to the page
file, but you'll be able to do work.

I'm laying even odds that the performance level is going to be a 3ghz
processor, 2gb of memory, a 160gb SATA drive, and a video card with a minimum
of 256mb of video memory. Then Vista will be at the level that XP is at with
half that requirement. (Not a troll, just a practical observation based on
10+ years of dealing with everything from Windows 95... which required double
what was stated on the box to be able to work well.)
Click to expand...

FACK

Roy (with 8 years ... from Win98)
 
I'm laying even odds that the performance level is going to be a 3ghz
processor, 2gb of memory, a 160gb SATA drive, and a video card with a
minimum of 256mb of video memory. Then Vista will be at the level
that XP is at with half that requirement. (Not a troll, just a
practical observation based on 10+ years of dealing with everything
from Windows 95... which required double what was stated on the box to
be able to work well.)
Click to expand...

Ahhhh....the voice of reason.

Sad as it may be.

People used to update their computer to make their programs runs
faster....a little quicker MP3 encoding or video rendering, for your
games to run better.......to do whatever you do on your PC faster.

Each successive OS release from M$ requires you to double your hardware
power just to run the OS and get back to the speed you were before. It's
ridiculous.

Just my 2¢.

Regards,

DanS
 
DanS said:
Ahhhh....the voice of reason.

Sad as it may be.

People used to update their computer to make their programs runs
faster....a little quicker MP3 encoding or video rendering, for your
games to run better.......to do whatever you do on your PC faster.

Each successive OS release from M$ requires you to double your hardware
power just to run the OS and get back to the speed you were before. It's
ridiculous.

Just my 2¢.
Click to expand...


So your 2 cents are to stay with WinXP SP2 (and SP3 in 2007,
hopefully) until 2008 and update your hardware, thus making your
programs run faster - instead of investing your power in glassy
effects;-) - and wait for WinVISTA SP2 (combined with a thorough
hardware upgrade, may be).
Yeah, makes sense;-)

Roy
 
Roy Coorne said:
So your 2 cents are to stay with WinXP SP2 (and SP3 in 2007,
hopefully) until 2008 and update your hardware, thus making your
programs run faster - instead of investing your power in glassy
effects;-) - and wait for WinVISTA SP2 (combined with a thorough
hardware upgrade, may be).
Yeah, makes sense;-)
Click to expand...

Truthfully? It does. And not simply because of what you've written above
(or my own commentary), but from a matter of reality versus marketing.

Here's an example from my current workplace (a place I call
$WeWorkForTheDoD): Recently we've started migrating from Windows 2000 to
Windows XP (Yes... five YEARS after XP came out), and we started getting
complaints about how the systems are now acting sluggish, not responding
quickly, running slow, etc. Nearly every single call came from folks who
were running computers from $RoundRockTexas with a) 512mb of memory, b)
integrated graphics, and c) less than 80gb drives. Our only solutions?
Upgrade or replace with newer systems. Machines that worked fine under Win2k
were starting to choke on WinXP, with the same workload levels.

And the upshot? The hardware requirements for Windows Vista are seriously
understated, for one probable reason: sales numbers. By stating it'll run
on X, they push software out the door, and then they can say with a straight
face (just like with Windows XP), "Those are the minimum requirements. If
you want to truly enjoy the Microsoft Experience, you'll need to upgrade your
system." (No reason for them to say it up front, they don't want to kill
possible sales you know.)

I've seen this now four times (when Win95 came out, Win98 came out, Win2k
came out and WinXP came out) and I'm not holding my breath that the same
thing won't happen again with Win Vista comes out.
 
I currently run WIndows XP x64 on my production PC, with 2 1920x1200
monitors. My graphics card is 256MB NVidia Quadro FX 3400. Is it true
there appears to be no graphics config that will permit dual display at this
resolution? Or am I reading it wrong?
 
Back
Top