RSSVista Minimum Requirements Unrealistic
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published December 8, 2006, 11:57 AM
A white paper published this morning by hardware analysis firm iSuppli, based on its studies of Microsoft Windows Vista running on multiple grades of computer hardware, has concluded that the software publisher's stated minimum requirements for the system -- which include an 800 MHz processor, 512 MB of RAM, and a 35 GB hard drive -- may not be nearly enough.
"Despite Microsoft's claims that Vista can run on such trailing-edge systems," writes Matthew Wilkins, principal analyst for compute platforms research, "iSuppli believes the reality is quite different."
A much more realistic expectation, states the white paper, entitled "Sorting Out the Requirements for Windows Vista" (downloadable through registration), is for consumers to plan for either a 3 GHz single-core CPU or a 2 GHz dual-core CPU for their desktop systems. A 1.5 GHz processor may be suitable for notebooks. Windows XP can get by with much less.
The reason for what many consumers will consider expensive upgrades isn't what you might think at first. While a great deal of extra processing power, especially in the graphics department, is necessary for Vista to run the "full experience" of its Aero operating environment -- including, for instance, the ability to flip application windows around in full 3D rendering -- Wilkins points out that Aero is merely an option, that it isn't really a necessary one, and that it can be turned off.
No, the reason is the one that should be more obvious, were it not obstructed by the superficial ones: It's just Vista, and it needs more processing power just to be Vista.
Besides the CPU, the biggest factor impacting the overall cost of a Vista-capable system will be memory, iSuppli says, not graphics. For system builders and OEMs producing PCs today, the firm's charts make clear, they'll build Windows XP-capable systems with the same CPU as for their Vista-capable systems, so buyers of new computers this holiday season won't find new systems with XP pre-installed that are incapable of running Vista.
Wilkins pointed out some reports may be over-dramatizing the notion that older PCs can't run Vista, saying that while Microsoft's stated requirements may be unrealistically low, even older PCs today meet or beat those specifications.
Memory will drive up component costs, however, and could be principally to blame for price differences that users will see between XP systems that are "Vista-ready" and those that are "Vista-capable" (Microsoft has asserted their differences).
A 2 GB comfort zone for desktop DRAM -- up from the 1 GB zone of realism for XP -- would naturally double suppliers' costs for memory per unit, and thus drive up their total component costs per unit up, iSuppli calculates, by as much as 20%. Factor in the resale margin, and consumers could be paying one-fourth more for a system intended to run Vista.
ISuppli's contentions run completely contrary to those recently made by Acer Senior Vice President James Wong. He claims that Microsoft has been engaged in a campaign to compel users to purchase more expensive computers than they really need, by virtue of the same fact iSuppli's Wilkins believes is inconsequential: The full "Aero" experience will not be appreciated by users whose systems will only run Vista Basic.
Earlier this year, there may have been some evidence to support Wong's claims. At that time, it was reported that Microsoft and graphics card producer ATI were actively developing a campaign based on Microsoft's new Windows System Performance Ranking (WSPR), to divide the consumer PC market into five tiers of performance rather than just two. The middle and upper tiers of this system would have been the more "preferred" levels, and they would have mandated much higher-level performance specifications than hardware analysts such as iSuppli believed were being sold to everyday consumers at that time.
As it turned out, Microsoft adopted quite the opposite approach, perhaps after evaluating public response to news of that policy under consideration.
While iSuppli projects, under ordinary circumstances, consumers may pay 20% plus margins more for Vista-capable PCs than for XP-capable ones, it's December, so these are not ordinary circumstances.
A check of TigerDirect.com this morning revealed HP systems with a 3.06 GHz single-core Pentium 4 524 processor, with integrated video, 160 GB hard drive and 512 MB of DRAM -- well within the tolerance limits for Windows XP -- is selling for $499.99, less a $200 holiday rebate.
Meanwhile, a Systemax system from the same vendor configured with a 3 GHz Pentium 4 531 processor, 160 GB hard drive, and 2 GB of DRAM -- as iSuppli suggested for Windows Vista -- sells for $829.98, and is without a rebate offer. So as retailers such as TigerDirect shed their XP baseline systems, the spread right now (counting rebates) appears not to be 25%, but as much as 64%.
Meh... Does not supprise me at all. XP pwnz. Sure, maby a bit of a hastle all the updates on slow internet... And the constant threat of viruses... But, I ran it on my old Dell with ease!
My old PC was something close to :
96 MB ram
8 GIG HD.(2 of which was occupied with XP...)
XP FTW! Die vista!
Score: 0
It's funny reading all of this I'm not upgrading, who need Vista, I hate MS... Yeah, Yeah, Yeah... I was running Vista RC1 on a AMD 2500+ with 1 Gig of RAM and an 80 Gig HD, sure it was a bit slow, but it worked just fine... Makes me think back to when XP came out about 4 years ago, I ran it on a 233 AMD with 128 RAM and a 20 Gig HD, sure it was a bit slow, but it worked just fine (Did I repeat myself)...
Most people will upgrade in the long run because they have no choice, they will buy a new computer and what will be on it? Others will upgrade because they have to have the newest and best (Like me).
Linux is not a user friendly option for most of us. And sure Mac's don't crash much, but wait, they sell their own hardware and software so it should work together fine. In the windows world, there are how many millions of PC configurations that windows has to work on? I know I built my own computer, so there is no other JUST LIKE IT. So sure there may be problems, but like big kids, we figure them out and move on...
I run a computer lab at a grade school and I just spent the summer upgrading my 200+ computers to XP as the last tech here left them all with win98 saying the computers were too old. LOL I got XP to run on them all with 300 or 350 PIII's and 192 to 256 of RAM and they all run fine. Mater of fact, they run better then with 98 and they kids crash them far less. If I could force Vista on them, I would! Why should the kids here use Win98 or XP (9 and 4 year old software) when that's not what they will find in the real world?
VISTA ROCKS!!!
Score: 0
I'm running Vista and so far I like it (no aero interface though cause no pixel shader 2.0), however I really don't like the fact that Microsoft is hiding more and more in the system. For example, disk defragmenter doesn't tell you anything now, neither does the gui for network repair. I would really like to see what it is doing behind the scenes.
Score: 0
Agreed. But they're dumbing it down. I suppose most folks don't care about the 'behind the scenes'....so long as it just works.
That said, I'll be buying Raxco PerfectDisk for Vista when it is released because I want it to 'just work better'. ;)
Score: 0
Defrag is a joke.
You don't need it.
I have a desktop with Windows XP and also Windows 2003 Servers that have been running for over 2 years and none have been defragged. They run fast and there is nothing wrong with them. And yes.....they have all the Windows Updates.
Defrag is just something else people make money on that you don't need.
Score: 0
benchmark those puppies.
Then do a full offline and "smart" defrag using PerfectDisk and bench them again.
Then come back and tell me defrag won't benefit a 2-year old PC.
The only way I can see that happening is if the only thing done on those PCs in the the two years was the installation of updates and nothing else.
I'm all for the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" crowd, but keeping a system well-maintained and clean goes a long way to keeping it from needing to be fixed in the first place.
Score: 0
Agreed. It does make a difference running defrag from time to time. many years ago my old DOS defrag util showed every byte but then I only had a 30Mb drive. I'd like a few more options in defrag but the one with Windows is not bad.
Score: 0
Did I wander into the twilight zone? I thought this article was about computer resources necessary to run Vista. I didn't see anything about Microsoft holding a gun to your head and forcing you to purchase their OS.
Since I run Gentoo on my server, I will probably end up with Linspire on most of my computers. Just a matter of personal choice. I don't hate Microsoft or their products.
Score: 0
Microsoft is a business. Their goal is to sell their software. Who cares if they are trying to make people buy expensive computers.. thats what Microsoft has been doing since the 1980s.
Score: 0
i ran a copy of the vista evaluation on 2 different systems:
AMD Anthlon 64 3000+ processor
1G ram
160 HD
GeForce FX5200 series 256mb/128bit
Could hardly run all the eye candies and everything from vista without slowing the pc big time...
then tried the following:
AMD Anthlon 64 3000+ processor
1.5G ram (only have 3 ram slots in my asus motherboard
160 HD
GeForce 6800 series
its now faster, but still slow...
Conclusion:
with any of those 2 pcs, ill stick with windows xp professional SP1.
(dont like sp2 at all...)
May be in a year or so ill update my 2 desktops, as i use one for gaming and 1 for working...
Score: 0
What's an Anthlon?
Really, if you're going to try to write a review, at least try to get the hardware right.
BTW: I don't think anyone in their right minds would expect it to work on the 5200, which is not a DX9 capable card as I recall.
Score: 0
Did you run the RTM versions?
I am running Vista on a Athlon XP 2400+ with 1GB RAM and it runs without any problems. Video card is an ATI x1600 w/ 256MB.
Score: 0
works fine on a 5950, course I have 2 gigs of ram in the system.
Score: 0
I am not going to update for as long as my computer is working. Hopefully it will last for next 5-10 years.
Score: 0
The biggest problem is that OSX was doing this 5 years ago with much lower end hardware and still does it on low end hardware. Linux can do this on a 1ghz box with 256 megs of ram as well. The fact that vista needs a gaming machine to use the 3d desktop and 2 gigs of ram just to be usable is what's nuts.
Score: 0
This article kills me... People just WANT to hate Microsoft soooo much... Yeah Microsoft does not do Everything right but name one company that does... This is just another company trying to start up a bunch of potential law suits against Microsoft... I was running XP just fine on a Pentium 2 - 300 with 256 megs of RAM @ the time (2002) to prove a point... Vista runs fine on ANYTHING 2 or 3 yrs old... IF you haven't updated since then then maybe you should seriously think about it... BTW Pretty much all MODERN flavors of Linux will BARELY run (if at all) on anything older than a 2 or 3 yr. old system... Seriously Companies... Microsoft bashing is so F'ing oldschool find a new organization or RIAA if you can't find any others to bash.... JEEZ
Score: 0
Talking about Vista, does that thing still bundle with mspaint as the default editing software for images? Or did they wake to the 21st century?
Not like theres no free alternatives like Paint.net but it really doesnt look good when they include software that was old 10 years ago.
Score: 0
They're probably afraid they'd get sued for anti-competitive practices if they tried updating it.
Score: 0
I work in the IT department where we have about 1200 desktop computers. We will not be running, or even looking at running, Windows Vista.
It doesn't do anything that Windows XP Pro with SP2 cannot already do.
Everything else is downloadable from the Internet.
Windows Vista will be a flop.
Score: 0
Yes, lets totally ignore the fact that 50% of the companies out there (Yes, I pulled that number out of my ass, prove me wrong) will be upgrading their hardware within the next 3 years.
...and they're *not* going to switch to linux.
Care to take a wild guess what OS those PCs will ship with?
The same argument was made for Windows 2000 > Windows XP. Funny how XP seemed to do just fine in the corporate world.
Score: 0
True, a lot of big companies will be waiting on installing vista for a while. My company didn't make the move to xpsp2 untill 3 years ago because they had to make sure that they can still operate their programs under xp. It even too a little longer to migrate to exchange 6 just to make sure all the users would have less trouble with the migration.
I think my company will be sitting for a while on xpsp2 for a while until a lot of the wrinkles are out of vista and then consider moving. I give it a few years or so.
Score: 0
"is for consumers to plan for either a 3 GHz single-core CPU or a 2 GHz dual-core CPU for their desktop"
I disagree; I have an Athlon X64 3000+ 1.8 Ghz machine and it runs Vista just as fast as XP.
Score: 0
who cares about windows vista???
are you kidding?
i WORK with computers and i never USE windows FOR ANY serius purpose.
just one time some suckers need to run asp scripts so i need iis.
But guts seriusly... WHO NEEDS WINDOWS !!!!
Score: 0
You work with DOS I guess? This is 2006 nearly 2007 did you notice that? Have a clue if you turn on your internet connection 99% sure your using a Windows based service ;-) half the world runs on Windows by the time. Wake up wake up Mr. DOS ;-)
Score: 0
Dude, I'm sure that 99% of the hosting sites are NOT running windows software to keep their sites going. Ever thought about Linux, Mac or even OS/2 (ok, that was a long shot but they're still our there!).
And DOS??? What kind of comment were you trying to think of??
Score: 0
Hopefully my precious 900Mhz AMD can handle the "awesomeness" of this latest Microsoft toy.
If the test was done with Microsoft "default" installation, im pretty sure that there was plenty of BS services running in the background or useless features like "flipping", and whatnot, turned on. Hopefully theres some real new features worth the upgrade...
Then again, i bet im able to run XP for "few years" even after "Vista" is released.
Score: 0
lf its slow just deactivate the aero and the other candy, it should run fine after that...too many sooks around here.
Score: 0
rofl you MS haters. obviously people buy the new product because its better and has more potential. maybe there are better OS's out there but why the heck would u pick one that most of the world is incompatible with? you are all b****ing about it but i bet in the next 3 years 90% of the people posting are running vista. remember the last upgrade to xp? could u imagine running one of the previous versions of windows? no, all they do is crash. XP is a great operating system and microsoft finds out about so many problems because of the millions and millions of copies that are sold. stop hating is all im saying. if your going to get on here and fight with each other about this OS go get a girlfriend and step away from the vaseline.
Score: 0
...whatever, dude. My wrist was hurting anyways! XD LOL!!!
Score: 0
I'll give a different Point Of View than the one many of you may have.
Microsoft somewhat shoots itself on their feet while making Vista's reqs so high and the OS itself so expensive, because other than in the US and Europe, FEW CAN and EVEN LESS will upgrade their pc's to run Vista's stupid new features. And i'll tell you why i say stupid...:
When you doubt about upgradin BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE MUCH SPARE MONEY AND YOU JUST WOULDNT SPEND WHAT YOU HAVE IN A PC BUT PREFERABLY ON VACATIONS, you go and ask... "what is new in Vista to justify the upgrade?". And for what the answer is, even for security, you find out that the upgrade is not necessary, so you stay with your pirated copy of XP. WHY PIRATED? because in countries where currency is not 1 on 1 with dollars or Euros, prices are multiplied by many times to the point of being UNPAYABLE.
So there it is, i know that earnings for deals with hardware companies might be huge, but losing sales in HALF THE WORLD OR MORE, is a bigger mistake than what earnings could be.
That's why many companies and people in the world still run win98 for example.
- - - - -
Don't tell me to upgrade the OS for less or switch to Linux, i'm discussing this point in particular. I'm from LatinAm, that's why i speak so.
T h A r t i s t
Score: 0
LOL you have alot to learn...I don't even know why I wasted the 10 seconds responding to this post.
Score: 0
to avoid totally stupid answers like Niro's, i'll further explain: i definitely don't care about M$'s feet, but i'm explaining piracy and why a lot of people won't buy Vista.
I've got nothing to learn. I live it everyday, my society lives it Niro, so shut up!
Score: 0
If you can't afford the OS, don't buy the computer.
If you can't afford a computer, go to an Internet café and rent the use of one.
I'm sure poor people everywhere want caviar, BMWs, and designer clothes too.
Sorry. You're poor. Ain't getting them.
I have a fine idea for you. Why not just walk into a local restaurant and demand a fine meal. Bean and rice doesn't suit you.
Same as your argument against using free OSes and software.
Lame, and a fine example of "The world owes me" mentality that will keep you poor and a slave forever.
Score: 0
@ghammer...
your words are loud, clear and very realistic...too bad many dont like it spelled out like this...
thumbs up!!
Score: 0
Ghammer, I almost agree with you. I totally agree with your comment on free OS's. I was testing Kubuntu this morning, great stuff, why does artist think he can't use this?
You lose me on the analogy of BMW's etc. We are talking operating systems. Since when has an OS become a status symbol. Maybe it's just me, a computer engineer, by that just seems stupid. It's only purpose it to allow your applications to run with your hardware, and to allow the user the easily interact with both. Everything else is just fluff, bloatware.
I'll be the first to say I'd rather take my money and spend a weekend at the lake than buy Vista Premimium, or heck I might finally switch to one of those "rice and bean" os's and take a real vacation with the money I didn't spend.
Score: 0
Ghammer.
Your logic is flawed... fatally.
You don't buy computer just because you afford to buy them.
You buy them coz you need them.
When the need is there, buying is only ONE of the options.
As you said, there are other options like renting a comp at a Cafe and so on.
Among these options is a grey area called 'pirating'. Of course, you can have your white-and-black world of honest, morality, copyright and what not, but practically, if you can't sell your product with the right price, its your loss and fault.
Selling Windows for 100 bucks in a country where the average ANNUAL salary is 500 bucks is like begging to be pirated, not withstanding your stupid logic about them not buying computers at all.. Why? coz again, just because the Windows execs can't play fair doesn't mean you have to be fair too. It takes two to play a honest game.
So, if you can buy it, good. But please dont' pontificate. It makes you look ah_so 'am rich, look at me! and you so poor, that you should be wearing clothes at all' show-off jckas.
Score: 0
People like you profit from the poor that's thw whole issue here! Holding a candy for their nose and pulling back the last moment! Placing expensive ads in poor countries and expecting people not getting an interest? Your like hitler trying to create a super human in power and with money. I really do hope the day comes your loosing your job, your house and all other things to your heart. Let's talk on that day again about your current comment!
Score: 0
Let's see, your another one asking to loose everything you own in life, let me put you for a year in country with people living in poverty. I really would love to see you there and talk with you again in one year. Let's say from today things goes bad for you ok?
Score: 0
Been there, done that.
It's an experience you obviously have not been through as it tends to leave one completely and totally non-materialistic.
The exact opposite of the effect you seem to suggest.
Score: 0
Really, ghammer is rich? Where did you get that from? Just because a person does not have an unwarranted sense of entitlement to luxury items does not mean they are rich. Oh no! People are seeing advertisements for things they cannot afford? Call Amnesty International. What does hitler have to do with this? Nice. You're wishing for someone you barely know to suffer one of the worst fates possible simply because they disagree with you about the morality of software piracy.
Score: 0
You buy them coz you need the
And you can't run them with a free OS?
When the need is there, buying is only ONE of the options.
No one disputes that it is an option. They dispute whether it is an ethical option.
if you can't sell your product with the right price, its your loss and fault.
That still does not entitle others to use the product without purchasing it.
Selling Windows for 100 bucks in a country where the average ANNUAL salary is 500 bucks is like begging to be pirated
So, should the people involved in its creation be paid less because the copies in poorer regions sell for less?
coz again, just because the Windows execs can't play fair doesn't mean you have to be fair too. It takes two to play a honest game.
Fair? It is business, it is not a game, not some charity, business. Fair has nothing to do with it.
So, if you can buy it, good.
Many that can buy it won't, they'll pirate it because they "can't afford" it after buying their other luxuries. Would I pay for it if I didn't have an msdn provided by my employer? Maybe. Maybe not. But I wouldn't try to fool myself into thinking I was somehow justified or moral because I "can't afford" it. If you are going to be unethical, at least be honest about it.
Score: 0
You can read the minimum, recommended, and supported system requerimients in spanish here: http://guti.bitacoras.co...ntry=entry061208-140021
Score: 0
The iSuppli's review is unreliable, because Windows Vista runs very fast on my 5 years old PC:
Pentium 4 1.7GHz
RAM 768MB
Hard Disk 41GB
Vista is faster than XP
Score: 0
I believe that you have upgraded your system since RAM 768MB is quite uncommon before 5 years and also as I have gone through http://www.tomshardware...._pentium_4_1/index.html I hope that iSuppli's review is reliable the mainreason probably will prevent many users from the existing OS should be the hardware cost. I am working here in Sri Lanka around $500/month job here and even buying a hardware is a nightmare for me.
Score: 0
Hmmmm . . . looks like the old days, when they told you WIN98 could run on a 486DX machine - which was actually painfully slow and you ended up with buying one of the "new" Pentium class machine . . .
Since "Windows" first release, they keep telling you "The new Windows is far better than it has ever been."
Just the lies of sellers. Some things just do not change - ever . . .
So - VERY GOOD ARTICLE - !Thanx for that one!
Score: 0
Vista tks up 2 much power, i want t power 4 applications nt windows, if sumthin goes wrong, like graphics go down or memory u can slip in sum old stuff with xp, with vista on ya comp, wen sumat went down u would need 2 reinstall xp, if i fix a comp 4 some one it is usually by t cheepest way i can do it for thm,
with such hi specs thr is no room 4 error.
But even sayin all tht and tht is t way im feelin right now, ppl ad t same views about win 98 to xp
Score: 0
This is the second time I've seen you post in dumba55 language. Either post in English or stop posting!
Score: 0
- Intel Celeron 2.6GH 256KB L2 Cache CPU
- Gigabyte GA-8I915G Duo Motherboard
- 1GB (2x512MB) PC4200 DDR2 533MHz (Dual Channel) Memory
- Western Digital 160GB ATA + Western Digital 80GB Hard Disk
- XFX nvidia GeForce 7300GT 256MB PCI-X Graphic Card
- LG GSA-H10NBAL 16x16DVD±RW 12x RAM
- C-Media CM9880 High Definition Audio (8 Channels) Sound Card
And my rating is: 3.7 it seems good
Score: 0
I actually managed to run Vista Ultimate RTM on my PS3. The cell processor seems to handle it quite well, but with 10GB taken just for the OS it leaves me with only 10GB... Should have got the 60GB version.
Score: 0
So I guess the PS3 is good for something after all? ;)
Score: 0
now now....it makes a darn good paper weight as well!
Score: 0
P4 2.8 (single core), 1GB PC3200 Memory and an Nvidia 6600GT 128mb Graphics card worked fine on RC2 for me.
Awaiting my AUD$27 Vista Business upgrade (from XP Pro) in February.
Score: 0
a very very very very very powerfull Intel graphics card
Dream on bubba
Score: 0
I got a Toshiba M100 laptop that comes with a very very very very very powerfull Intel graphics card...
Needless to say Vista rates my laptop as only 2.0.
I forcibly enabled Aero and it runs fine. Even runs the media center without any dramas. It doesnt seem to be very demanding to me maybe due to far better memory managment.
All i need now is for the retail release next year so I can use it past the 30 or so days :|
Score: 0
Gents, before you say iSuppli is shooting too high, they also have to assume some overhead for running more than an OS. Imagine someone is actually going to run a couple of office apps along with Vista... I'm sure that's what they're taking into account here.
They also have to assume that it's a standard install, etc. etc.
Score: 0
Damn right. Operating systems serve for launching different applications.
My hardware is as follows:
- AMD Athlon 4200 (dual core) overclocked to 2.8 GHz
- 2 gigs of RAM
- NV 7600GT video card
- and a sufficient amount of space on my HDD array
Vista compared to XP behaves in a strange way. Games run smoothly and better if you compared to Windows XP (the activity of HHDs is MUCH lower). On the other hand Photoshop, different RAW file converters used in digital photography, or even DVD Shrink run around 20 -30% slower on Vista, even if there is a lot of free RAM.
Score: 0
disable the extended visual features as well as the unnecessary services and you won't need that much power to run Vista. Pentium 4 524 and 1 gb memory should be enough - appr. 200 euros incl. a quality 775 motherboard. if you are willing to pay 400 euro for vista, you should have additional 200 for your hardware
Score: 0
I don't see where these guys got their minimum requirements from. I can run Vista with full eye candy just fine:
- 1.8ghz proc
- 1.5gb memory
- GeForce 6800 GS 128mb
Vista takes up about 10gb, I recommend leaving at least 5gb more free on the partition you install it on.
I have no doubt that a master tweaker can get Vista running well on Microsoft's min specs if not lower by disabling all eye candy, running in Windows Classic, turning off non-essential services, etc.
Score: 0
Exactly.
Score: 0
of course, considering my XP ran on a 166Mhz 32RAM computer when I was bored and playing around.
Not fine, but it ran at least.
Vista should be fine if you turn off Aero.
Although the memory requirement is quite high in terms of the prices here in Japan. damn I wish they drop the prices for those RAMs and new graphics cards.
I don't want to pay more than $150 for a graphics card, but most ones here are like 250-450... or even more..
Score: 0
Currently running RC 1, on this machine an LG M1 Express Dual (not a Core Duo 2 machine), only mod is an extra 512 667mhz dual channel memory. This only has the native Intel 945 gfx on board. And, much to my surprise is working a treat, all the gfx are functional.
Indeed very surprised, considering I cannot get it to work properly on my Alienware Aurora m9700, which is spec'd to the max.
Purchased this for my sister for Xmas, now am inclined to keep it.
And, yep playing with it before I have to hand it over, then will reinstall the XP Pro it came with.
Score: 0
Heh - the answer is simple! If you read the paper, iSuppli simply *says so*! They provide no math, no performance benchmarking, not so much as a 'it was slow on this system' report. They just say, and I quote:
"Today's typical mainstream desktip and notebook PCs include between 512Mbytes and 1GByte of DRAM. While Microsoft says this is adequate to run Vista, a more realistic memory configuration will be in the range of 1GByte to 2GBytes of DRAM."
...that's all. Then they sail on to the costs of that DRAM. They make similar proclamations-without-evidence for CPU sizing.
Bluntly put, this is just another dude repeating 'because I say so'.
Score: 0
I don't have any complaints with Vista performance. Besides its not always about performance. Vista stability & security is better than XP and if that means eating a few more CPU cycles, than so be it.
Score: 0
I wonder how long that will last.
Score: 0
I've gotten Vista RC1 and RC2 running on a P3 866Mhz, with 256Ram, and a 32Meg Videocard, and it ran just fine. It didnt' complain. So I don't know where all of this is coming from.. But whatever. =)
Score: 0
If that 2 gig is indeed a "comfort zone" then this dramatically changes our plans to migrate to Vista. No desktop in our org has over a gig, and for XP that is overkill, we have headroom, and users have no complaints about performance on 1-3 year old PC's.
3d or not, we have work to get done on these machines.
Score: 0
You don't need 2 gigs for Vista; in fact, to test the theory, I've run it just fine after stripping my rig to only 512MB of RAM (see below). Now, for the x64 version of Vista, it is crippled at 512MB on my rig, but even 1GB works for me.
My rig:
Motherboard: ASRock 939 Dual SATAII
CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+
Hard drives: WD Raptor 74GB + 80GB WD800JB ATA100
DVD: Memorex 16X DL DVD+/- R/RW
RAM: 2GB DDR PC3200 RAM
Video card: Saphire Radeon x700 PRO 128MB GDDR3 PCIx16
Antec TruePower 550Watt PSU
Score: 0
With 512M installed, show us a screenshot of four common apps started (browser, Word, Outlook, IM) in taskmgr's memory screen.
Score: 0
You have less than 100MB of ram for applications with 512MB, it runs fine as long as you only open IE maybe..
Score: 0
Sorry I'm late--if this article was still around I would post it. Perhaps the reason mine works well is due to the Raptor HDD I'm using for storing the pagefile on (as well as the temp folders). It worked fine for me though, it really did.
Score: 0
my home nlited xp pro install eats about 30mb when booted in virgin install. after adding video drivers, it shoots to about 50mb. granted, the way I have it running trims a LOT of fat. More so than most people would want to get rid of.
It runs almost as fast as windows 98. I plan on trimming a LOT of fat on vista with vlite later down the road as well.
Score: 0
When are people going to stop and pay attention to the definitions of words?
The word REQUIREMENTS does NOT mean RECOMMENDED.
Score: 0
This is no shocker--minimum requirements are just that--the BARE MINIMUM. Also, originally Windows XP was said to only require 64MB of RAM, 1.2GB hard drive space, 266MHz CPU, and SVGA capable display or better. However, once Windows XP SP1 came out, Windows XP setup no longer allowed itself to be installed on a FAT16 partition--only FAT32 or NTFS. It also upped the hard drive requirements to 1.6GB.
When SP2 came out, it technically did not change the requirements, but almost everyone, including Microsoft, agree that it is pretty much "unacceptable performance" unless it is run with at least 128MB of RAM (w/no shared vga memory) and then only combined with a 5400RPM hard drive (usually some 10GB hdds or above only) or faster. It technically installs to a 1.6-1.8GB size, but requires much more space during installation for temporary files, so it needs 2GB of free space.
My point is that Vista will be unacceptable for most at just 512MB unless all startup #$%^ is disabled (basically no OEM's will make 512MB PCs capable since all their garbage loads in the background), and it'd be like running Windows XP w/SP2 off of 128MB of RAM for today's standards. The processor? I have to agree for the most part, except that an 800MHz "Athlon" or Pentium-III "Coppermine" processor will probably work just fine.
Minimum requirements, IMHO, have been stupid ever since multiple cpu and gpu vendors have existed (or basically since the days of Pentium-II vs. K6-2). For one, it requires an 800MHz CPU--so will that Cyrix 866MHz CPU work? Absolutely not! Will an 800MHz Celeron with 512MB of PC100 SDRAM work? You better believe it will not. However, an Athlon 800MHz (Athlon's of this sort are slotted only, so good luck finding any today) with 768MB PC2100 DDR SDRAM and a 40GB WDC-WD800GB ATA100 hard drive and GeForce FX5200: that works just fine (tried it myself). 800MHz Pentium-III with 768MB PC133 SDRAM a 40GB WDC-WD400BB ATA100 hard drive and a PCI ATI Radeon 9200? Nope, not hardley. Intel's 800MHz route is difficult only because of the platform limitations (not processor limitations), but if you can find one of those grossley expensive and rare RDRAM Pentium 3 based chipsets w/ a 800MHZ cpu and an AGP slot, then you might be okay. With only 800MHz, the problem IS NOT the processor, but the platform. To me, the true minimum requirements for running Windows Vista x86 versions should be the following:
For dedicated video card systems:
1. AMD Athlon 800MHz or faster, or 7th generation processor architecture (Athlon T. bird/XP, Pentium 4) or later;
2. 512MB of PC2100 or faster dedicated RAM (note this would mean any 200MHz FSB K7 chipsets would not do, even though you could get a 1.4GHz T. bird Athlon in it! Would prevent many first gen. P4 notebooks as well)
3. A dedicated 64MB or greater DirectX 9.0b or newer dedicated graphics card (directX 9.0b means it needs GeForceFX or later, ATI 9200 or later only. Even GeForce4 video cards do not use 9.0b, so those would not work regardless of speed or video memory!);
4. 20GB Ultra ATA100/36GB SATA150 or faster hard disk drive. (36GB is the smallest SATA hard drive size that would work that's out there, in case you wondered where 36 came from)
If using onboard video:
1. 1.0 GHz AMD Athlon or higher processor, or Pentium 4 1.6GHz or faster CPU (again the architecture is the issue here--no 1.2GHz to 1.4GHz Pentium 4 systems have good enough integrated graphics chipsets to work, so why include them?);
2. 768MB or more of PC2100 DDR SDRAM or faster (see note from dedicated video section);
3. DirectX 9.0b or later capable integrated video solution with at least 96MB of video memory (96MB is how much the original Intel 910 GMA would use with less than 1GB of total RAM);
4. 20GB Ultra ATA100/36GB SATA150 or faster hard disk drive.
There is the "should be" minimum requirements. Note how detailed they are--this would confuse the hell out of average consumers. However, you do see that it is possible to run Vista decently with just an 800MHz processor, but it has to be a very very specific 800MHz system to do so. MS is covering their butts while showing the lowest possible system specs for systems to run Vista, that's all.
Oh, and if we're talking Vista x64 version, the requirements are much different, but I won't waste any more time coming up with those :)
Where do I get this information? Well--personal experience mostly, combined with experimentation with my PCs and one notebook that I've tried (Latitude D600--much different from a C600 because the intg. video is not DirectX 9.0b capable and is also very crippling to the overal memory speed).
Score: 0
iSupply is full of garbage. If they think an extra stick of 512 RAM is going to increase the cost by "as much as 20%" then they are on crack. We buy them wholesale for $35.00.
Score: 0
iSupply thinks only about OEM systems, and unfortunately, getting an HP with 1GB of RAM vs. 512MB of RAM preinstalled can mean a 20% price premium!
For smart people who actually can build their own unit or install RAM themselves, you are absolutely correct.
Score: 0
Clock speed is completely irrelevant. What's really important is the actual type of processor that's being used. An Intel Pentium 4 or Pentium D processor is going to be considerably slower (and barely tolerable in some cases) than a single core AMD Athlon 64 or a dual core Intel Core 2 processor for example.
Score: 0
And where do you get this info? I am running vista just fine in my lab at work with several pentium d and p4 machines.
Score: 0
He is right. The chipset is the big thing, but unfortunately, most PC manufacturers don't tell you about the motherboard, nor would they dare explain processor architectures. This is why shopnbc can screw so many consumers by bragging about their 3.6GHz processor PCs that are crappier than my 2.13GHz AMD processor system (they are Pentium 4 Prescott D0 stepping cpus and my 2.13GHz cpu is an Athlon 64 4400+ X2).
EDIT: I see your hidden truth in the lie now: He is 100% dead wrong that Pentium 4 or Pentium D processors are 'barely tolerable', although you can see what is intolerable in my very long and detailed comment regarding minimum specification shortcommings above--
Needless to say, Pentium 4 Williamette processors are close to being 'barely tolerable', but that is about it--and not because the processors themselves are bad (though compared to newer cores they certainly stink :) but because of the chipset/northbridge specifications...
Score: 0
I am running Vista on a 512 MB of RAM and it is running just fine. I was surprised that aero even worked OK. I have only been able to play around with a few things so far and have spent very little time with it, but the little that I have done works ok on 512. I am using the RTM version though and I have heard there is a performance difference between RTM and the Beta versions.
Score: 0
Yeah and you could run Windows XP at the "minimum" of 128MB but it wouldn't operate too well either.
Score: 0
even only 64 mb ram works for XP, I set-up my friends Pc like that. A bit slow, but works without errors.
Score: 0
512 MB of RAM makes Vista cry. To run Vista like it needs to, the system needs a minimum of 1 GB. I beta tested Vista on systems with 512 MB of RAM and they all ran like dogmeat. Throw in 1 GB, runs fine, 2 GB, eats it for lunch!
Score: 0
My AMD Athlon XP 2800+ processor runs Vista just fine. iSuppli's requirements are a bit too high.
Score: 0
It's really the RAM and disk space that fall short in the mins. I've installed Vista on a PIII-800 and it works, but with 1 GB RAM and a 40GB disk. Not pretty, but it "works" at least. I wouldn't use it for business or home though. My wife's Dell C-610 Latitude laptop has a 1.2 GHz proc, 40 GB drive and 1 GB RAM and runs Vista Ultimate (w/o Aero) very well. Runs most apps and does most things (file mgt, navigating, etc.) faster than XP SP2 does.
Score: 0
That's probably because higher memory requirements usually means using more tables and whatnot: you've got the whole thing in memory, so the processor doesn't have to work it out on the fly.
Score: 0
I have tested these "minimum" requirements several times in our corporate lab. The stated minimums are not sufficient.
Score: 0
"corporate lab" -- immediate credibility? lol.
Lab Picture:
http://www.philadelphiaw...g_11299_tjihaiti2_1.jpg
Score: 0
you got that picture off of google lol
Score: 0
No one "needs" to upgrade to Vista, anyone still on old hardware is well served by XP. Any new PC that ships with recent hardware and Vista will be just fine.
Vista is the upgrade that no one "needs" thus, since it's purely optional, only people willing to upgrade their hardware will get it.
The whole minimum hardware issue is a ridiculous waste of time argument made up by people who either love to bash microsoft no matter what it does, or people who OBVIOUSLY don't have enough real work to do. It's pathetic.
Score: 0
Good point (good pic also-lol). Not saying I'm an official benchmark. Only one testimonial.
Score: 0
...or for those who work for companies where the boss says "go test it and tell me if it will work on our oldest crap or not"
Score: 0