Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

Microsoft Details Vista Requirements

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

May 18, 2006, 1:31 PM

With Windows Vista Beta 2 set to make its public debut at WinHEC next week, Microsoft on Thursday finally detailed the hardware specifications required to run the new operating system. The Redmond company also launched a "Get Ready" program to help consumers prepare for the upgrade.

Claiming that Windows Vista is the first operating system to scale based on the capabilities of the computer it's running on, Microsoft has broken down hardware requirements into two categories: Vista Capable PCs and Vista Premium Ready PCs.

"Capable" systems will largely cover current systems running Windows XP, and serve as the bare minimum for upgrading to Windows Vista. PCs that fall under this category must have an 800MHz or faster processor and 512MB of RAM. A DirectX 9 capable video card is also required, and a 20GB hard drive.

But consumers looking to take full advantage of Windows Vista, including its new advanced user interface called Aero, will need more powerful hardware. A 1GHz processor, 40GB hard drive and 1GB of RAM are required at the base level, as well as a modern DirectX 9 graphics card with at least 128MB of video RAM. 256MB of video memory is required for higher resolutions.

These "Premium Ready" PCs must also include a DVD drive, audio output and Internet access. Microsoft recommends that any user currently planning to purchase a new PC make sure it has the Premium Ready designation. Manufacturers such as Dell, Gateway, Lenovo and Toshiba plan to add the Vista Ready branding to their systems.

“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. “With that in mind, Microsoft and OEMs are making it easier to prepare for the arrival of Windows Vista."

Microsoft also rolled out a new "Get Ready" Web site to aid customers interested in running Windows Vista. There, users can download a beta of the Vista Upgrade Advisor that helps determine which edition of Vista is needed and whether any hardware upgrades will be required.

Microsoft plans to enhance the Upgrade Advisor tool with additional functionality before the official launch of Windows Vista in January.

Add a Comment (180 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By allynfranklin

edited Jun 27, 2007 - 11:00 PM

I have found that 512 Mb. of RAM with Vista Home Basic with 512 Mb. RAM is associated with many problems.
A sidebar gadget shows RAM running around 82%
all the time.
I added a 1 Gb. module for a total of 1.5 Gb.
I get usage readings around 45%, no IE7 halting and no "not responding" problems.
Who the h___ or lab. says all we needed was 512 Mb. ?
...probably the same ones who write the IE7 and Vista fix programs!
...a very old hardware man...
Allyn

Score: 0

By gay_chi

edited Sep 12, 2006 - 11:54 AM

we have to think about LINUX ...

WE SUCK MORE

Score: 0

By tommy0987

edited Jul 1, 2006 - 2:27 PM

F*** microsoft, get Mac OS X.

All Macs have those minimum requirements.

Score: 0

By gay_chi

posted Sep 12, 2006 - 12:21 PM

you have to visit my web
www.geocities.com/gay_chi

Score: 0

By Davidvista

edited May 20, 2006 - 5:43 PM

I don't know why Microsoft doesn't just put Vista on the market right now, using beta 1 as the main version. Mac OS x is comming out with lepard (10.5) possibly before vista. Microsoft has waited too long for this upgrade.

Score: 0

By ncharleyhardtail

posted May 22, 2006 - 6:06 PM

Think LINUX!

Score: 0

By gay_chi

posted Sep 12, 2006 - 12:19 PM

i admaire your comment ..
We have to be together
pls send me your e-mail address
to gay_chi@yahoo.com
thank you.............

Score: 0

By Reap_r

edited May 22, 2006 - 11:46 AM

Another year on the upgrade treadmill... Keep running, you will get there. How do you keep hordes of programmers fed and happy. You keep them coding bloated crapware.

I have yet to hear a concise value proposition for upgrading to Vista. It seems most of the reasons floating around are eye candy and toys. There initially was talk of some useful inclusions on the datbase aware filesystem front but didn't they yank that out?

I am sure that some MS parter will put out software that simply must be run on Vista in order to keep their hardware and software channel partners happy and keep that treadmill turning and churning. Cha Ching!

As for me, I will stay with my xp for now I think.

Score: 0

By tipsyboy

posted May 22, 2006 - 9:23 AM

From a user's view who works and fuddles around with computers since 20 years, all this seems a clear deal:

either you upgrade and meet the requirements
or you just leave everything as it is

All depends - in my eyes - on what you really need. From that point of view nobody ever needed any upgrade - except for communications.

Find out what you need and you know if this new OS is for you.

Though . . . there is this slipsteam from the underground of human nature and this suction from the neighbours flying by. You GOTTA have the new stuff. I admit that. Curiosity and enjoyment of play go a long way back in human history.

So, again, there is the call to open the purses and give in to - what?

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 22, 2006 - 10:46 AM

Very Good. Been trying to get this point across for weeks now. Its not necessary to upgrade, and this product won't be out for another year, and EVEN if it does come out, there isn't a rush to use it.

Score: 0

By utomo

posted May 22, 2006 - 1:48 AM

Microsoft need to add features so we can recovery from the worst situations, including when we cannot go into the windows, we still can recovery to the best conditions before that happend, or any date which we already have the point of recovery.

This is a must

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 22, 2006 - 10:48 AM

You mean like to press F8 when windows starts, so you can get a console to go into safe mode? Or you can use the disk to boot from, so you can repair Windows?

Just what are you saying? because both of these features, and recovery have been there since Windows 2000.

Score: 0

By zseml

edited May 20, 2006 - 10:30 PM

I love Microsoft. Vista will be excellent.

Score: 0

By 113David

posted May 20, 2006 - 10:06 AM

You know I just don't get it.... Why would I bother with this upgrade? It offers nothing to me that I would want to spend money on. From what little I've heard of vista... I can add-on shareware programs that do essentially the same type of things (I.E. Yahoo widgets, GUI via Window blinds ect..) The list of shareware/freeware apps goes on and on...

The thought of buying a new OS and having most of my beloved programs not work with it for 6 months or longer isn’t that appealing. As for stability... well I'm just fine with XP... Frankly if it has taken them years to finally roll out a OS with a bunch of "borrowed" ideas from freeware products I'll pass... But that’s just me.

Maybe I'm missing something in vista that I really need... Does it save me gas money??? :)

Score: 0

By Fidelio

posted May 21, 2006 - 1:58 PM

You should try and use it before you give an opinion. One of the main complains with Windows XP is security, and this is something Vista is addressing directly. You give a perfect example with "GUI with WindowsBlinds". I did try it and found it makes my system slower and from time to time, I lose the UI skin and goes back to classic mode. This is something I don't expect for a software I paid for. In Vista, this works very nicely. Also, the fact that even a user with admin priviledges run in a restricted mode unles you purposely agree to run something in admin mode, will cover you from spyware and virus -and this is build-in in the OS- it's part of its architecture, making it more secure.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 22, 2006 - 10:52 AM

not really, I read it, I still see nothing earth shattering. You give me a feature that will excite me to upgrade, and maybe I will change my mind. I agree with that other guy, there is NOTHING with this new OS that is going to justify why I should upgrade.

Windows XP is that the point, in the last year, that games, apps, and utilities are finally stable and everything runs good. Now we have to start all over with service packs, patches, updates, compatibility.. I don't want to do that again for something that offers very little in the way of improvement or revolutionary features.

The GUI with Windows blinds is dependent on the Video settings. I have Windows blinds, and mine NEVER slows my system. In fact, they changed it, to where windows blinds integrates with Windows, its not even a separate service (you won't see a process that is running) its part of themes, so the OS handles this, which is why you need to make sure your video card is comparable.. 256 ram. I have 128 meg ram and mine is good.

Score: 0

By The-One

edited May 20, 2006 - 2:12 PM

Everyone says this about every OS version, I remember those that wouldn't go to 95, 98, 98SE, Millenium (I skipped and went to 2k myself), NT, 2K, and even XP. Fact is, you may not right away, but I give 1 years time, you'll be there (either on your computer or some new laptop).

I am excited by Vista actually. The security updates seem valid and realistic, and I think this will be a great release (on par with win 2k).

Score: 0

By Floodland

posted May 20, 2006 - 3:45 PM

Actually, the companies will push everyone to change the OS, soner or later. Microsoft will break many things on XP on their next Service pack, so you'll PRAY to upgrade to the "new" Windows vista.
Software companies will start programming for Vista, and let XP versions fade out.
That's called market strategy, now we (users) could follow the xmas color lights or think for ourselves and wait for a good product to show up. I guess that, as happenned before, everyone will will get excited by the marketing tricks and follow the nice colored cool crap.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 22, 2006 - 10:58 AM

Dude you are reading too many urban legend sites. Ms doesn't intentionally break anything for you to upgrade. Products themselves may include features which are supported by the current OS, and that may compell you to switch, but don't go spreading bad info about this MS breaks stuff crap, its just not true.

Companies take a LONG time to convert the OS, the typical switch takes 2-3 years. Its only been the last year that games have finally adopted XP and the Direct X fully, some games, STILL are 98/2000 compliant, and they still have not upgrade ALL features to be fully XP ready.

Big Businesses won't switch to a new OS either for 2 years, it takes a lot of money and time to switch people, so companies won't want to be affected by the upgrade.

That's not market strategy what you are talking about, that's paranoia, don't get them confused. Maket Strategy includes making a product appealing to the public, but they don't need to break a previous product to FORCE you to upgrade, that's just stupid. And you are spreading lies to even imply they do that.

And its not merely enhanced graphics that people will notice. Vista will run faster and ultimately be more stable, and optimized for 64-bit. As far as new features, I don't see any myself, but to say Vista will replace XP just to force you to upgrade, is totally incorrect.

Score: 0

By cbhacking

edited May 20, 2006 - 6:06 PM

Way toomany people have been saying this, clearly in ignorance. If you can't getthe beta, at least read about the changes. It's WAY more than eye candy.

Compaq Presario Notebook, P4 2.8, 1156MB RAM, ATI Mobility Radeon 9100 (no Vista WDDM drivers) 128MB VRAM, installed Vista beta2 build 5308 (Feb CTP) on a 10GB partition. *Maybe* half the hardware is supported directly, the rest is legacy XP drivers or doesn't work at all.

In approximate order of imprtance (to me):

1) User Account Protection is the best thing to happen to Windows since 95 at least. SO much better not to run around with Admin rights all the time; Linux taught me that, but I've had to learn tons of song-and-dance to have full capability on a non-admin XP account.

2) Security! Far better firewall, Security Center now checks for anti-malware status (Defender comes included in package), UAP, IE7 Protected Mode... kind of a meta-category, but it had to be mentioned all together.

3) Desktop search is incredibly handy, more so because it's integrated into all of Vista's major programs, but somewhat specialized to each. For example, it will search your e-mail from the Start menu, but in categories with programs coming before e-mail or documents

4) IE7 is fantastic; 5308 has an actually older version than I use in XP (on the rare occasion I boot XP anymore) but it's still very very well done. Protected mode (IE7 and all it's children run with super-low permissions that basically limit it to Temp. Internet Files unless you explicitly give access to the rest of your drive), Phishing filter, QuickTabs, Favorites Center, superior use of screen real-estate, and a pop-up blocker that outperforms Firefox's on at least a few sites are all major improvements, and more come in every release.

5) Speaking of software... About time Windows had its own calendar software, and they did a great job on it. Windows Mail is much nicer to use and has a better interface (and search, of course) than OE. Windows Media Player 11 is incredible; I love its features, its intuitiveness, even its look (and I'm not an eye-candy guy). Yes, i know it's available for XP. Windows Defender built in, and integrated with Microsoft Update (also built in, i.e. not a brower ActiveX anymore) is a great move on MS's part. Sidebar is very handy, especially on a widescreen. Aside from the games (lots of eye-candy, slightly improved capabilities, and they have 3D Chess now!) I haven't tried many other builtins, but there are a LOT. (This will pobably cause lawsuits... *sigh* every other OS is allowed to bundle all they want, but not Windows.)

6) Background things: SuperFetch cuts program startup to the bone once it learns your habits, and helps streamline booting (instead of XP's invisible message saying wait 3 minutes after booting while your other programs load before trying to run anything). Automatic background defrag is brilliant; a great way to use idle cycles and almost nobody runs it as often as they should. File indexing is very important for their quick search tools. Improved networking stack has noticably decreased download times.

7) Interface, especially Start menu and Windows Explorer. The new Explorer is a touch buggy in this beta, but shows all kinds of promise; better viewing and preview options, superior filesysem navigation, integrated search (of course), and the ability to hide the menubar (and bring it back at the touch of a button). Start Menu is faster/easier to use most of the time, never worse than XP (a few things in XP I thought were worse than 2K). Finally, even without Aero Glass, they look better.

This is only a beginning, and I've only been using Vista heavily for ~2 weeks. Try it out before judging.

Score: 0

By 113David

edited May 21, 2006 - 1:12 AM

Well I don't know about ignorance... but you still failed to sell me on it. Frankly if that’s all of the wonderful features I'll pass.

Still didn't save me a dime on gas!

But you did have a nice presentation. Cookies were a little stale... but the nice presentation. :)

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 22, 2006 - 10:59 AM

hahaha..

Free Food, that didn't impress you?

I see your point and I didn't attend the presentation, so I am glad I didn't waste my time..

I don't see anything I need. For things that I would like to have, I would have to spend 500 bucks to improve my system enough to use it.

Score: 0

By cap737

posted May 20, 2006 - 4:39 AM

I can't believe a product like this is going to come out. I remember hearing about it back in the day and the features that were originally suppose to be in Vista sounded too good to be true. After checking out the link to the "Get Ready" site I'm just disappointed with the end result. FIVE versions of Vista?? I can understand Home, Pro and Media Center editions but FIVE??? Personally it seems like such a rip off.

As for the requirements, I guess that's cool if you want to run the basic features of Vista on an older 800Mhz and use it as a file server or web browser. Or you can just stick with 2k or XP for those purposes.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 22, 2006 - 11:01 AM

Why is 5 so hard to understand?

You just mentioned 3. 2 more, a 64-bit version and a server, what's so difficult about that?

You can use Windows 98 for fileserver if you want to go that far and keep the 800 mhz... But the point is its the next upgrade, if you DON'T need it, don't worry about it. They aren't holding a gun to your head to switch.

Score: 0

By mthayer

edited May 19, 2006 - 10:06 PM

The specs are no prolbem for us gamers but alot of average pc wont comply. Thats prety steep!!!!!!!

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 22, 2006 - 11:02 AM

Dude, its NOT a required upgrade! Average PC people won't care or need to upgrade.

Score: 0

By cranbers

posted May 19, 2006 - 9:24 PM

The minimum specs are pretty steep, I imagine there are a whole lot of computers out there that won't be vista capable. So I guess that just leaves the computers dorks and OEM's huh, who else would want this bloated thing, I seriously doubt corporate or government will adopt it anytime in the near future, say 5 years. I mean most haven't even touched XP yet. Who really wants to give MS millions of dollars for all new os's when the hardware won't even be able to run it. I mean how many computers do you know of that have 512mb's ram? 256 is the average im sure. Maybe not for peole posting here, but certainly in the world of corporate/mom and pop users.

Score: 0

By lcash40@yahoo.com

edited May 21, 2006 - 6:26 AM

Hey I agree that some companys are just getting XP just the other day a top 500 company just did a data migration to XP, now as for the hardware upgrades this is kind of high for your jo,blow home computer user, my two computers have two,three hard drives I got plans to go to 512mbs of memory and get a high end video card anyway!

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 19, 2006 - 5:22 PM

*October 25, 2001: Microsoft releases Windows XP (AKA Windows NT 5.1)*

WOW time really flies. Its been THAT long, amazing!

This is probably the longest sustained version of a MS OS, that hasn't been forced into retirement... I think it will last until 2008..

Score: 0

By BklynKid

posted May 19, 2006 - 4:44 PM

I'll wait till the thing is out to upgrade my laptop, right now it could probably run Vista on minimum, but why bother. I want the whole shi-bang with sliding graphics and everything. :p

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 19, 2006 - 5:01 PM

You can have the whole visual shi-bang with sliding graphics, just get Windows blinds..

Score: 0

By SorenMD

posted May 19, 2006 - 5:18 PM

true...

Score: 0

By ZenWarrior

posted May 19, 2006 - 11:53 AM

Remember, Microsoft has lied about the "minimum" requirements for every new operating system. Show me a system running XP with even minimal (and bearable) wait time on only 256 MB of RAM, but that's all Microsoft says you need. (Might it even have stated only 128 MB for XP at one point?)

Whatever Microsoft recommends, remember to double it if you want the performance promised--and will not have you sitting there drumming your fingers while swapping.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 19, 2006 - 12:09 PM

Umm.. I really don't remember MS EVER lying about their minimum specs. I distinctly remember people adding a bunch of crap on their machines, and having background services and programs that ADD to the load of the OS, which makes the additional overhead of the OS greater, and that makes the memory requirements more, and THAT is what bloats the MS OS, not the OS itself.

You can take ANY OS, install it, with minimum requirements, and DON'T install ANY additional software, THOSE are the requirements for the OS, you cannot expect the OS to take on additional burden and still keep the memory load at a minimum.

This would be like expecting a jeep to pull 5000 pouds. Which it can do, but if you have people in the car, the towing capacity of a vehicle INCLUDES the weight and load of the vehicle, not JUST the tow weight.

That's what people forget. you can't realistically expect to pull 5000 pounds or load up your OS with a bunch of crap and still expect to keep the load minimal, that's rediculous.

Score: 0

By Fidelio

posted May 21, 2006 - 2:03 PM

Well... it says "mininum" specs, which is the minimum hardware in which the OS will work... now, if you are adding apps, that's another story.

What you need is not the "minimun" hardware but the "recommended" one. :)

Score: 0

By ZenWarrior

edited May 20, 2006 - 8:23 PM

Hmmm...I should have been more specific about stated requirements as required in the *real* world. You know, that world where Real [Bad] Player adds its start-up junk, as does Quick[some]time, as does Office [Bloated] 2003, ad nauseam. And after that, mom or sister then purposefully adds ten or twelve other apps they find neat-sounding when reading the descriptions, but then never use. Also in that real world, hardly one newly purchased computer these days is delivered to the consumer without the 5000 pounds of bloat about which we certainly agree.

And once again, I remind 99% of those reading these postings that they [actually, "we"] live far from that real world. In that real world, mom, dad, sister, brother, etc. has a zillion useless start-up items running and are entirely clueless about them and their origins, or other running processes.

As everyday proof of what I contend, and because I very often work with others looking over my shoulder, those onlookers **invariably** comment on how much faster or better my computer seems to run than theirs (with no malware or other cooties), and mine even has a slower processor, smaller L2 cache, slower bus speed, etc. And well they should notice a difference when every XP-OS computer I own and use contains no less than 1 GB of RAM--far in excess of Microsoft's "minimum" stated requirements for XP, but what everyone wants when they finally see how well an XP-computer runs when "minimum" or even "recommended" requirements are exceeded. (Seriously, it is mind-boggling how many millions of people have never seen even a mediocre PC running with a full one gig of RAM.)

Minimum OS requirements = automobile's expected gas mileage. That is, it always seems to vary, and not ever in the consumer's favor! Has anyone here ever said, "Jeesh, this OS/application/service/etc. runs great on just half of what Microsoft said it would need!"? Nah, didn't think so. {smile}

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 22, 2006 - 11:06 AM

Well this is a primary area, where EDUCATION plays a vital part now doesn't it? If people don't ASK for help, there isn't much we can do, but if someone NEEDS some assistance, that is the time you let them know, they don't need every damn program in the startup group.. or every downloadable program under the sun.

And they need to quit allowing their machines to get infested with spyware and virus. They need to keep up with virus signatures, check it daily, degrag.. all those usual maintenance items.. Its just like a car, there are things that need to be done from time to time, its part of the deal.. If you don't maintain it, I dont' care how much hardware you have, you can bring down a machine with poor maintenance.

Score: 0

By Matrix3000k

posted May 19, 2006 - 3:42 PM

Very well put rijp. You are sooo right on with that. With you discription one thing came to my mind though SPYWARE. I used to do tech support for dell for an out source company and OMG people would call in saying that their computer is slow, and so on. When I would walk them through opening up task manager and looking in the process tab they had too many process running. I remember this one fellow he actually had 344 process running in the back round and he was complaining that his computer took forever to start up and it would take it 5 mins to respond when he would click on something. I was like no wonder your computer is slow. I did a google search on those process and they were all little porn programs that he installed on his computer lol....anyways what you said is absoluty correct.

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted May 20, 2006 - 6:57 PM

344!? That's crazy! I can only wonder how many Threads/Handles he had. His system memory requirements must have been through the roof, leaving nothing for actual programs.

Score: 0

By jbaltz69

posted May 19, 2006 - 12:45 PM

Very nicely put. And yes XP WILL run on 256MB of RAM. Not very well, but it will run.

Score: 0

By deadmonkey

posted May 19, 2006 - 1:16 PM

I have run XP on a system with 350Mhz CPU and 128 MB RAM. While not the faster thing in the world it could handle Office 2000 and browsing the web just fine. This was with themes enabled but all the extra stuff turned off.

Score: 0

By menting

posted May 20, 2006 - 4:25 PM

yeah same here, i had XP on a P2-350 with 128 SDRAM at work. And used it for at least a year too. not too slow actually, unless i was working on excel stuff.

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted May 20, 2006 - 6:55 PM

You guys should nLite those systems if you still have them - get at-boot memory usage down to 40mb so you can actually do stuff!

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted May 19, 2006 - 10:30 AM

guess nobody noticed that they mean a 64-bit 800 mhz cpu.... cause unless something changed they were only going to make vista in 64-bit versions.

Score: 0

By deadmonkey

posted May 19, 2006 - 1:14 PM

The business versions of Vista will come in both 32 and 64 bit. I am not sure if Home is. I see no reason for Home not to come in 64 bit though and as I have heard nothing to say it won't come in 64 bit I would assume it is.

Score: 0

By gerryf

posted May 19, 2006 - 12:53 PM

Running the beta rght now on a good old 32-bit p4

There is a 32-bit and 64-bit version

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 19, 2006 - 12:12 PM

And your point would be?

I don't recall Vista requiring 64-bit, they will have Vista rated components. If its not "designed" for Vista on the package, then it won't work.

Score: 0

By deadmonkey

posted May 19, 2006 - 7:27 AM

So pretty much any PC bought in the past three years will run Vista, albeit possibly without the really fancy graphics. Seems fine to me after all its been 5 years since XP came out you had to expect it to require a pretty big jump power wise.

Score: 0

By Jabe

edited May 19, 2006 - 3:33 AM

I can live with that

Score: 0

By Deathstryker

edited May 18, 2006 - 10:23 PM

512 mb of Vram might not be much to the average person that posts in these topics but you have to remember that the average person with a computer generally has an OEM type computer with integrated crap. It's really going to hit the OEM manufacturers hard, the ones that have integrated intel graphics cards. This means that most OEMs will be sticking with XP for a bit because as it will be cost effecient for them. Most people don't have a reason to change from XP anyway. I don't see the average computer user upgrading their system to buy another OS when XP does things just fine for them. I definitely think that Vista won't sell well in the beginning but will pick up well in a couple of years when everyone has a capable system. It just seems kind've before it's time to me.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 19, 2006 - 12:14 PM

Fine.

The main purpose here is that Vista is the next OS. If you WANT it, then there it is. If you don't, well you don't NEED to run out and buy it.

Score: 0

By keylight

edited May 19, 2006 - 11:22 AM

If someone is going to buy a new machine, are they going to buy one with XP, or are they going to buy one with the shiny new OS that looks good? My guess is that eye candy wins almost every time to the average user.

If Joe's Computer Warehouse won't sell them a Vista machine, Dell will.

Score: 0

By mthayer

edited May 21, 2006 - 1:33 AM

that's mainly what vista is eye candy. Just a bunch on glits and glamer.

Score: 0

By iced

posted May 19, 2006 - 7:27 AM

I dont think I'm going upgrade. I put x64 on here and I have no problems at all. Vista needing all this extra memory is going make my system slow down because I need the memory for encoding/decoding and games.. unless memory goes down to atleast 1/2 the current price I won't buy memory to get vista.. I think the whole reason for vista is because a LOT of people have no reason to buy a computer at all. Vista is like an expensive over bloated peice of art work or something to admire because it looks cool to use it.. I don't know how to explain it but maybe some rich a** will buy a new system so their desktop looks l33t.. although l33t to others would be linux commands..

Score: 0

By The Man

posted May 19, 2006 - 5:49 PM

i agree
my point too
waste of memory

Score: 0

By spef

posted May 19, 2006 - 5:01 AM

How did you come up with 512 MB of Vram? 256 MB of Vram should be enough for most people and surely for those who buy -as you say- OEM types with integrated crap.
Didn't it ever occur to you that prices of the hardware will drop. My experience by the way is that OEM manufacturers will change immediately after a new Windows OS is released because this is the biggest reason why sales will rise.

Score: 0

By lil2short2see

posted May 18, 2006 - 9:26 PM

this isn't new...it's just new from microsoft

Score: 0

By crashoverride

edited May 19, 2006 - 9:07 AM

...

Score: 0

By The Man

posted May 19, 2006 - 5:53 PM

awwww :-(
don't post if you can't take it!

Score: 0

By crashoverride

edited May 19, 2006 - 7:13 PM

OK..here's a question. All it's going to do is attract scum like you and Niro. So why should I leave it there if all you 2 are going to do is do what you do best .....and that's being a waste of space.

Score: 0

By The Man

posted May 19, 2006 - 7:46 PM

scum?
i don't recall insulting you, A$$hole

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted May 19, 2006 - 8:07 PM

Ok maybe I was a little harsh. I just get tired of people on here getting an attitude.

Score: 0

By Niro

edited May 19, 2006 - 12:40 AM

So...who cares? I love these people that come here and post their computer specs to feel good about themselves. :)

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 19, 2006 - 2:32 PM

I have a 286, 4 meg of RAM, 20 meg hard drive, 512k EGA card, I don't have any problems.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

edited May 19, 2006 - 9:08 AM

...

Score: 0

By Matrix3000k

posted May 19, 2006 - 2:10 AM

thats a funny one but really no one cares about the specs of your computer. We are talking about the specs that Vista requires to run on a computer.

Score: 0

By The Man

posted May 18, 2006 - 8:30 PM

40 GB hard drive?
why?
1 gig ram?
how much ram can xp address right now? around 3 gigs.
now, if Vista needs 1 gig to run smooth, i'll take that to 1.5 - 2 once its loaded with resident programs.
add another gig or 2 to run future games...
that's a little too cramped for my comfort.
does anyone know if they have worked around this deficiency?
i know i'm overestimating a little, but windows IS a memory hog. the computer i use to mess around with uses around 400 - 600 MB of memory idle.
makes me wonder if they're going to take advantage of the 64bit extentions in the newer chips to add memory addressing space.
CRAP! i should patent that idea before they do.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 19, 2006 - 12:16 PM

you can address much higher than that, I can put about 8 gig in a machine, and XP will recognize it..

Score: 0

By The Man

posted May 19, 2006 - 2:05 PM

that's theoretically impossible
a 32bit kernel can only address 4gb of memory
maybe you can explain to me how you got past this limitation

oh, and here's the proof
http://support.microsoft...px?scid=kb;en-us;294418

or, are you referring to xp64?
it can address 16TB, but has many driver limitations

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 19, 2006 - 2:10 PM

Well theorhetical and what a board will support and is recognized by the OS is 2 different things.

We have server with 16 gig of ram, Windows 2000. I am not the maker of the software, but we have many servers configured this way.. so I don't know you tell me.

Score: 0

By The Man

posted May 19, 2006 - 2:29 PM

do the servers have more than one proc.?
that's one way to by-pass the limitation, each 32-bit proc. can adress its own 4GB of memory.
also pagefiles can expand on the physical limits

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 19, 2006 - 2:33 PM

Oh. Well ok fine! Get overly technical on me then, gawd!

Score: 0

By The Man

edited May 19, 2006 - 2:39 PM

lol :-)

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted May 18, 2006 - 8:55 PM

My theory regarding the 40GB HDD is the Vista install will probably be around 4-5GB, and they want you to have enough space to install a few programs.

More than that, however, is HDD speed. Older HDDs are quite slow - and for a Premium Vista configuration, a slow HDD would be the weakest link.

Score: 0

By iced

posted May 21, 2006 - 9:41 AM

I hope flash drives come out soon. I'm fed up with I/o speed. Programs keep getting bigger and require more to load and the I/o sucks! I just went to stripping 10,000rpm raptures and it is finally bearable.. I can imagine it slowing down like it was when vista loads on.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted May 18, 2006 - 8:54 PM

Vista's memory management has been revamped. You won't need as much RAM as you say, but 2GB is already a good idea for the latest games, and will stay that way with Vista.

And yes, they have a way to work around the 32-bit deficiency of a 4GB maximum - it's called 64-bit Windows. There will be 64-bit versions of Vista.

As for XP's memory usage - what you see in the task manager isn't an accurate representation of what Windows XP needs. Try running XP on a 256MB system, and see how little RAM it uses. XP just uses what you've got to the greatest advantage: if you have a 1GB system, it will 'reserve' (not use) more system RAM. Vista will work in a similar way, but go further to pre-load commonly used programs into RAM, so they can start quicker. However, when a game is started, all other applications switch to low priority mode, and system resources are maximised for the game.

Score: 0

By The Man

posted May 18, 2006 - 10:30 PM

thx, i know how windows memory management works
it's not windows that's the memory hog (although, some of windows' processes...), it's the 20 programs i have running "that make my life so much better", that eat up all the memory
add that to an even more bloated OS, and i see issues when running newer games

but...time will tell ;-)

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 19, 2006 - 12:18 PM

20 programs running, and if you DON'T tweak the registry to remove unneccessary processes.. yeah that will eat up the memory.

I probably have more crap than you do running in the background, I have 1 gig, but I still manage to keep 550 meg free RAM. I know how to tweak the system to maximize efficiency..

And I do play games.. I have many games I play, I also have things like download managers, yahoo widgets, windows blinds, task clocks, walpaper screen savers, all kinds of stuff constantly running, but 1 gig is PLENTY.

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted May 20, 2006 - 6:52 PM

My system eats up 80mb at boot with all background programs running. After starting Trillian, Firefox, Thunderbird, Speedfan, etc. then I can hit up to 150/1024mb used.

I mostly use my memory for zipping huge files under insane settings with 7-Zip. I wouldn't mind windowblinds, but the Win2k version eats too much CPU for me to warrant getting it.

Score: 0

By The Man

edited May 19, 2006 - 2:24 PM

"but 1 gig is PLENTY. "

yah
OK
maybe for you... :-p
but this is supposed to be a next gen. OS, it needs to be ready for next gen. requirements in programs. winxp has trouble managing programs with large memory requirements or that access many files at once. i think they should fix this issue with Vista, not make it worse with a bloated OS that needs more memory itself.

" I know how to tweak the system to maximize efficiency.."

i do too, but i'm talking about the average joe's computer.

i hope they fix the out-dated registry, that's something apple definitly does better

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 19, 2006 - 2:39 PM

*winxp has trouble managing programs with large memory requirements*

Its not the memory management that's the problem, its the processes running on a single CPU that's where the system gets bogged down...

WinXP has good memory management. I tweak mine using Tweak UI, Fresh UI, and I use a cache manager, plus I remove all the extra stuff from the registry, and turn off certain services, like background indexing and system restore, to keep the system from being taxed. 1 gig works great for me..

Some of the those processes also may be 16-bit, which when they run in a 32-bit thread, that can cause problems. Degrag, keep memory management fine tuned, turn off the paging file, and everything is good.

*i hope they fix the out-dated registry, that's something apple definitly does better*

Better, or there just aren't any apps to expose the weakness? I see people with MACs in the office, they have trouble.. I just can't help them..

The Apple machines have their share of problems, so does Linux, so does Sun. About the only machine I can say that DOESN'T have issues is the AS/400. maybe we should all be running on that.. go back to the "mainframe" evironment, and yes I know the AS/400 isn't a mainframe, but that central processing green screen is very similar.

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted May 20, 2006 - 6:48 PM

Actually, all versions of windows until Vista had issues when performing large memory allocations(Ex: a 2048x2048x32 single array map grid, which would be 128mb in memory).

Score: 0

By The Man

posted May 19, 2006 - 2:59 PM

"I see people with MACs in the office, they have trouble.. I just can't help them.."

lol
i couldn't help them either, i hate Macs, but they do have their good points.

Score: 0

By mbkd

edited May 18, 2006 - 6:13 PM

What everyone's waiting on is not so much the hardware requirements but the price. $99 new and $50 upgrade has been touted. Most folks other than the Windows junkies will stick with XP at least until Vista SP1 and probably beyond that until their next PC upgrade. Last time I stuck with Win 98SE until upgrading to XP. I don't think the upgrade to Vista will bring the same step-change in user experience, looks more like eye candy and bells & whistles which most of us can live without. However if the upgrade was $30 or $40 then it may be worth it.

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted May 20, 2006 - 6:41 PM

For $50 I'd have it instantly. For $150, I'll get it when I need to learn about all the new systemfiles. :)

Score: 0

By fewt

posted May 18, 2006 - 7:29 PM

I'd upgrade in a heartbeat for those prices, wouldn't give Linux another look on the desktop either.

That would be very reasonable ($99/$50).

Score: 0

By spiffyjeff

posted May 18, 2006 - 9:40 PM

I'm d/l the new SuSE 10.1 right now ;)

Score: 0

By fewt

edited May 19, 2006 - 8:44 PM

Bleh, KDE eww.

wait wait, the new SUSE rips out KDE and bolts GNOME on the OS doesn't it?

Hmm, maybe it won't be so bad.

heh

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 18, 2006 - 6:41 PM

Wow that's significantly lower than 2000 and XP, they were both 179 for new, and 109 to upgrade, depending on where you buy them...

I have said it before, and I will say it again..

XP is the *BEST* OS MS has ever had. That's right, I said it, I defend it, go ahead bash me.. It's stable, has plenty of support, doesn't crash, easy to configure (or contorture depending on your rig) and its user friendly.

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted May 20, 2006 - 6:39 PM

I prefer Windows 2000. With a few nuts and bolts, you can manually strap the important "XP" features onto it. It's also more efficient at doing single tasks, which makes it nice for gaming. :D

32bit only though... :-(

Score: 0

By iced

posted May 21, 2006 - 9:42 AM

I used to prefer 2000, but in the end it sucks. It sucks because I'm a software developer and 2000 crashes a lot more than XP when you have memory leaks and bugs in your code which makes it much harder to debug when the OS just dies

Score: 0

By gerryf

posted May 19, 2006 - 1:07 PM

XP is the *BEST* OS MS has ever had.

---What about BOB?

Score: 0

By rijp

edited May 19, 2006 - 5:17 PM

PC Tools (the software by Central Point, not the moose caffeneinated gear head we revere) also had a desktop replacement, that could have been an OS Replacment.

HP had a product called "New Wave", something like that.. another replacment.

I loved OS/2 Warp 4.0. Now THAT was an OS. Very stable, could run on very meager system specs. You want to start talking about OS with a good future, but IBM lacked the cojones to risk on a product, they wussed out.

Score: 0

By rijp

edited May 19, 2006 - 5:04 PM

*---What about BOB?*

That was a movie...

but seriously, BOB : 1995 Microsoft released a software program called "Bob" designed to replace the desktop of Windows 3.1 and 95 with an interface designed mainly for novice users.

It wasn't an OS, per se, a mere program manager enhancement..

A few possible reasons that Bob flopped:

* Bob required a minimum of a 486 with 8 megs of ram, 30 megs of free disk space, and 256 color VGA. Many computers of the day did not meet these minimum requirements.
* It was too "cute" for the average PC users of the day.
* Most people at the time who wanted ease of use would just get a Macintosh.
* Bob was not useful enough to justify its initial sale price of almost $100.
* Windows 95, which was released later that year, had the new Windows Explorer user interface which wiped the floor with Bob.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted May 19, 2006 - 8:45 PM

Hmm

or: Bob was just a stupid idea. LOL

It was as bad as Packard Bell "navigator".

Score: 0

By spiffyjeff

posted May 18, 2006 - 9:43 PM

"XP / XP PRO is the *BEST* OS MS has ever had"

/me agreed, I have no idea who would argue with that one.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted May 18, 2006 - 8:56 PM

Yeah, best OS for sure. But it ain't stable. :P

Score: 0

By The Man

posted May 18, 2006 - 8:07 PM

wow
i agree
until i see something special, other than the eye candy, i see no reason to upgrade from xp either

(although, i think 2000 was the most stable, just not as user friendly)

Score: 0

By wincement

posted May 18, 2006 - 7:17 PM

I agree except I would add "Pro" to that statement. I hate XP Home Edition. =/

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 19, 2006 - 12:20 PM

OK, not to start a war.. but I am glad you agree...

Pro vs Home, there are basically only 2 differences.

Pro will allow you to connect to a AD for a network, and you can have file/folder permissions on NTFS. Other than that , Home is essentially the same as Pro.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted May 18, 2006 - 7:29 PM

XP Home is OK if you don't need MS networking or remote desktop.

Score: 0

By PC Rat

posted May 18, 2006 - 6:46 PM

...

"XP is the *BEST* OS MS has ever had"

...

Absolutely.
...

The Computer Rodent
...

Score: 0

By womfalcs7

posted May 19, 2006 - 11:28 AM

Definitely. I love XP (I've only used Pro)...It's user-friendly, stable, and functional.

I won't upgrade to Vista soon...I'm gonna wait 'till early '08 once I graduate. I hope they get some more stability with the fixes and I can get a good deal on a computer with a optimal hardware to run the OS.

Score: 0