Vista PC Requirements

[sem4u]

Microsoft has revealed how powerful computers must be to run Vista - the new version of its Windows operating system.
It has given advice on the basic specifications to run the software as well as the higher capabilities needed to get the most out of it.

Also available is a downloadable tool that lets people know if the PC they own now will run the system.

Minimum:

Processor 800MHz
System Memory 512Mb
Graphics card DirectX 9 capable
Graphics Memory - -
Free space on Hard Drive - -

Recommended:

Processor 1 GHz 32 or 64 bit
System Memory 1Gb
Graphics card Runs Windows Aero
Graphics Memory 128Mb
Free space on Hard Drive 15Gb

[news.bbc.co.uk...]

[Visit Thailand]

Was just reading about this and will be downloading the Vista Upgrade Adviser.

All pretty exciting.

Pretty Cool Get Ready for Vista website:
[microsoft.com...]

[skibum]

Hopefully they will still sell computers without Vista.

A gig of RAM just to get the OS to perform as it should?

[bakedjake]

A gig of RAM just to get the OS to perform as it should?

I won't run XP without 1.5 GB minimum. Have 3 GB in my laptop currently. Those requirements don't surprise me.

[jchance]

These requirements seem pretty reasonable to me.

A gig of ram is like $80 bucks now adays. There is really no excuse NOT to have a gig of ram or more.

[Visit Thailand]

It will be interesting to see if all the features work as promised. The back-up facility and speech recognition sounds like it has been improved.

Can't wait to see what the graphics etc look like.

Will you be buying a new laptop or just upgrading? I may use the opportunity to buy a new Dell Laptop next year, but will probably just upgrade first.

[Peng]

Its weired because vista advisor (i think) is buggy because its showing lot of warnings that following drivers would not be available for vista.But its all running very good on xp.

[vincevincevince]

I always wonder where we would be if Microsoft had released windows 3.1 as open source, and it had been taken on and enhanced by the open source community as a minimal windows desktop system.

Considering 3.1 would run happily at 66MHz with 32Mb RAM, it should be lightening fast on a 1GHz processor with 1Gb of RAM, even with modifications and additions (better handling of network connectivity, plug and play, ...). Not only that, the OS was a lot easier to use, develop for and even to understand.

Remember when new processors came out and had to have a Turbo mode to avoid CPU-speed timed games from running too fast?

[sherwoodseo]

I second your view, vince^3. I find it unacceptable that software consumes almost every ounce of increased hardware performance we've seen over the past 10 years.

Back in the day I hated DOS, but I do have a fond remembrance for typing a "dir" command and seeing the directory contents appear in a blink.

I try opening a folder (a folder!) on my 512MB laptop (only 9 months old) and I have time to pick-up a cup of coffee off my desk. Open Word? I could drink it. Reboot? I could brew it!

Someone should create a flash-based computer, something as simple as a PDA code-wise, but with a full screen and keyboard.

[SEOMike]

Sherwoodseo said:

Someone should create a flash-based computer

Here's what I saw on the Vista site. Not what you meant, but an interesting concept.

Windows Vista introduces a new concept in adding memory to a system. Windows ReadyBoost lets users use a removable flash memory device, such as a USB thumb drive, to improve system performance without opening the box.

[microsoft.com...]

After a quick look I found a 2gig USB flash drive for $44. Seems like a cheap way to add memory to the system!

[kaled]

There's only one problem with using flash memory to boost performance, granted it's a minor one but a problem all the same - IT WON'T WORK.

Flash memory is slower than a hard disk. Therefore, logically, it is utterly impossible for it to be used to boost performance.

Kaled.

[g1smd]

... but that memory would be very very slow to access compared to internal memory.

[UserFriendly]

If I didn't need DirectX to play PC games, I would so readily drop Windows altogether.

As fun a way to kill time as Doom 3 was, it's not exactly the pinnacle of gaming excellence, so I can't rely on Linux for entertainment.

Anyone else wish they wouldn't have to fork out big money for what looks like it's going to be a cosmetic brochure upgrade to Vista?

[StupidScript]

There are several Win98SE boxes running smoothly on our network that have 20GB hard drives and 128MB RAM and no addt'l video cards or whatever. They can't even handle 1GB RAM if I bought it! I've got a 486DX/66 with 8MB RAM running an early version of Slackware Linux at home, and my primary box dual boots XP Pro and RH9 with a 40GB hard drive and 650MB RAM.

It's very interesting to note that Linux gets smaller and faster (and more capable of clustering) and Windoze gets more bloated and more resource-hungry. With a development curve like that, this will probably be the last version of Windows that MS will be able to make runnable on a consumer-level box!

I guess it's a matter of priorities: Windows needs to jam as much software into the core as they can to get around licensing and anti-competitive issues (i.e. Media Player, MSIE, etc.) while "the other white meat" can concentrate on security, mobility and efficiency as the rest of its community builds apps.

[webdoctor]

Hopefully they will still sell computers without Vista.

On past MSFT behaviour this is unlikely. As soon as Vista is released, MSFT will start tightening the screws on the PC manufactures to ship Vista instead of XP.

After XP was released, it got harder and harder to buy systems with Windows 2000 installed.

Time your purchases carefully :-)

[Boro]

Flash memory is slower than a hard disk. Therefore, logically, it is utterly impossible for it to be used to boost performance.

By definition, Flash memory should be faster than any HDD... but I suppose that flash card readers are definitely slower.

[kaled]

From memory, the fastest flash memory modules have a claimed top speed of about 15MB per second (but that may not be uptodate). This is many times slower than a hard disk. However, let's assume this speed improves - it will then face a USB bottleneck of about 40MB per second - this is still slower than your hard disk (but disk mechanicals may make speeds more comparable). I believe there is also, currently an issue of limited rewrites to flash memory before it begins to fail.

Flash is intended for non-volatile (i.e. unpowered) applications. The name has nothing whatsoever to do with (comparative) speed.

Kaled.