Official VISTA Requirements Released

[AngelfireUk83]

Microshaft have released the requirements for Windows VISTA dosn't seem so bad I suppose.

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6151549.html

How much will that Ultimate version cost is it basically Professional with a new name?

[hibner]

A Windows Vista Capable PC includes at least:
* A modern processor (at least 800MHz).
* 512 MB of system memory.
* A graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable. (Supports a WDDM Driver, Supports Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware, Supports 32 bits per pixel.)

A Windows Vista Premium Ready PC includes at least:

* 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor.
* 1 GB of system memory.
* A graphics processor that runs Windows Aero.(64 MB of graphics memory to support a single monitor less than 1,310,720 pixels, 128 MB of graphics memory to support a single monitor at resolutions from 1,310,720 to 2,304,000 pixels; 256 MB of graphics memory to support a single monitor at resolutions higher than 2,304,000 pixels)
* 128 MB of graphics memory.
* 40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
* DVD-ROM Drive.
* Audio output capability.
* Internet access capability.


That really isn't that bad, except for the 15gb free space for the premium edition. I really hope that isn't a 15gb OS.

[Adragontattoo]

And more proof that I don't need this overpriced, overhyped, piece of Bloatware. XP, 2k and Ubuntu work fine for what I need.

[AngelfireUk83]

My PC Socket A PC does me perfectly I'm buying a 6800GS for it and I'm done saving up for an AM2 build for end of the year. I'm waiting for AM2 hadrware to take flight first don't want to buy stright away and find it has problems that haven't been addressed.

And I think I might install XP on my new build it depends on how DX10 cards at the time for decent 1 that is. But then you might as well wait for them to take flight as well.

[hibner]

And more proof that I don't need this overpriced, overhyped, piece of Bloatware.
WOW, thats the exact same thing everyone said when XP came out.:beer:

[UnseenMenace]

Although in term of the kind of systems that our members run it not to bad, generally I think it has excessive requirements that will leave a large number of non-enthusiast machines unable to run vista.
Ive always been of the opinion that microsoft minimum requirements are remarkably less than what I consider acceptable.
Microsoft seem to define minimum requirements as a system it will install on and boot while my minimum requirements suggest that I would like to use it as well.

Remember Microsoft state the minimum requirements for XP as being a 233 MHz processor with a 128mb of memory... Who here considers that to be a useable system specification considering the OS ?

If Vista follows the same route of having requirements as fictional as XP then its going to run like a dog with three legs on what they are suggesting

[UnseenMenace]

WOW, thats the exact same thing everyone said when XP came out.:beer:

The difference is that when XP came out, there was a requirement for media connectivity for the expanding digital camera market, and internet connectivity such as IE and Messenger as everyone jumped online.... this time I believe the problem is going to be greater because XP is reasonably stable and as such it will be harder to justify what Vista offers for the normal joe

[UnseenMenace]

Theres an upgrade adviser as well to play with

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/upgradeadvisor/default.mspx

bet my system does not meet the requirements to run the test :D

Apparently this update adviser works by checking your bank details to see if you have a six figure sum available to build the pc required to run vista well.

[SuperDave1685]

Remember Microsoft state the minimum requirements for XP as being a 233 MHz processor with a 128mb of memory... Who here considers that to be a useable system specification considering the OS ?

:raises hand: I do! I had a laptop that was a 233Mhz w/ 64MB RAM that ran Windows XP Pro just fine!! Albeit it was only used for Microsoft Office, Web-caming, internet browsing, and some NES emulating....

[RedDragonXXX]

Not to bad, but 15GB just for an OS :eek:

That's a big jump from XP. Can't wait for DX10 :drool:

[AngelfireUk83]

Theres an upgrade adviser as well to play with.

Yeah I was gonna try it but you need .NET Framework to be installed to use the test.

[Mr.Guvernment]

well, if it is true alot better then what people claimed, and that so called 13 versions of the OS.

It will be nice to see the final versions and what they "truely" offer over XP to really set it apart in the final releases.



Anyone also notice it says a DX9 compatile video card - not DX10 ?

There is good news for those people who started rumours that DX9 would not work on vista and so neither would any dx 9 games.

[UnseenMenace]

There is good news for those people who started rumours that DX9 would not work on vista and so neither would any dx 9 games.

I was always of the belief that legacy support for Vista would be reasonable as this has always been something that microsoft have always attempted to achieve.
Its also the very thing that effectively holds back major improvements in Windows itself.... its tied to a legacy base unsuitable for the intented purpose.

[microfire]

Damm the The Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor beta is currently unavailable.
Not that you would need it, but would be fun to see what score you get.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/upgradeadvisor/default.mspx

[Alpha_One]

I was always of the belief that legacy support for Vista would be reasonable as this has always been something that microsoft have always attempted to achieve.
Its also the very thing that effectively holds back major improvements in Windows itself.... its tied to a legacy base unsuitable for the intented purpose.

I wholeheartedly agree. Many of my Linux/Mac user friends say "why doesn't Windows support this or that..." Even Linux has become "bloated" in this sense, and even moreso than Windows. Don't get me wrong, I like Linux, except I'm too much of a gamer for me to use it regularly (I do use it in the dorm where I usually do my programming assignments, etc.). For example, Kubuntu runs fine on my dorm PC (system#3 in sig), but a quite bit slower than I like. I run Win2k on it too, and it doesn't complain when I get rough whereas Kubuntu will hang on me for two minutes.

My point is, the more features, the more "bloat". The "bloat" is there to make use of the power, there ain't no free lunch you know. Vista or the latest KDE-based distro isn't going to be much of use on an old P2 300 with 96MB of RAM, but NT4 or an old 2.2/2.4-based Linux distro might.

[Mr.Guvernment]

It would be cool is MS could sell say a legacy support version, and a trimmed version.

one that only has the most recent drivers installed in it, or frankly NO drivers except basic video and network card, so you can see and get the latest if not on a cd already

all other drivers the user can load in them selves of what they need, this way no "bloat", smaller install base size :D

[Captain Newbie]

Not to bad, but 15GB just for an OS :eek:

That's a big jump from XP. Can't wait for DX10 :drool:
The word bloatware comes to mind :)

[microfire]

Speaking of bloatware, Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor (4MB) requires you to install .NET Framework

[infinitevalence]

not just .net but .net 2.0!! so even with my version of .net which i require for work i cant load and run their program :(

[Captain Newbie]

Speaking of bloatware, Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor (4MB) requires you to install .NET Framework
Screw 'em.