Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bulky System Requirements for Windows Vista

Zonk posted about 9 years ago | from the running-hot dept.

Microsoft 615

unsurreal writes ""A Tech Strategist within Microsoft, Nigel Page, has gone on record to discuss the hardware requirements for Windows Vista, due out next Christmas." The next year is going to be an interesting one as hardware vendors smile towards the shocking new recommended hardware needed for the next generation Windows operating system." From the article: "Graphics: Vista has changed from using the CPU to display bitmaps on the screen to using the GPU to render vectors. This means the entire display model in Vista has changed. To render the screen in the GPU requires an awful lot of memory to do optimally - 256MB is a happy medium, but you'll actually see benefit from more. Microsoft believes that you're going to see the amount of video memory being shipped on cards hurtle up when Vista ships." Coverage available at Tom's Hardware as well, with a semi-transcript at Tech Ed.

cancel ×

615 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Almost admissable proof of monopoly. (5, Interesting)

MrAnnoyanceToYou (654053) | about 9 years ago | (#13522239)

For any other company sysreqs this high with such a small increase in functionality would be suicide.

Blizzard could make an operating system that had lower sysreqs and decent graphics capabilities. And people would love it for saying, "Zug Zug."

Hopefully it's a nail in their home-desktop coffins that suddenly you can't put their OS on a machine that costs 600$, but somehow I doubt it. Xbox 360 for what most people currently use a home PC for, Vista for everything else.

Re:Almost admissable proof of monopoly. (2, Interesting)

CDMA_Demo (841347) | about 9 years ago | (#13522383)


I think people getting ready to do some M$ bashing should look into the past and go over microsoft's releases. When they released NT, windows 95, 98, 2000, xp they always went for the median hardware configuration of the upcoming 6 to 10 years. That is part of the reason you could run windows XP on a 32MB Pentium-II (I've done it, and it chugs along just fine, enough to run a browser for surfing and playing flash games).

From the article: 2GB is the ideal configuration for 64-bit Vista, we're told. Vista 32-bit will work ideally at 1GB, and minimum 512. However, since 64-bit is handling data chunks that are double the size, you'll need double the memory, hence the 2GB. Nigel mentions DDR3 - which is a little odd, since the roadmap for DDR3, on Intel gear at least, doesn't really kick in until 2007. Unlike Linux, windows is not under released constantly for free, so M$ releases snapshots of Windows: in 95, 97, 98, 99, 2000 etc. Such foresight is good in many ways, I mean how many features that Vista has are currently available in Linux distros? Maybe we don't need them, or maybe Linux developers haven't developed such good relations with hardware companies yet.

Now, for the XBox 360 issue, you should know (if you are interested in further scrutiny) that it uses IBM Power PC [xbox.com] chips (similar to those used in Apple G5). Add a couple of perks to that architecture and remove some and it seems that 360 isn't that badly priced at all. I'd like to see the people trashing 360 show similar zeal in ridiculing the PS3 which ironically isn't all that different (except for its cell architecture) and could be priced in the same bracket as the 360.

Please continue wanking...

Re:Almost admissable proof of monopoly. (4, Informative)

Harbinjer (260165) | about 9 years ago | (#13522442)

While the PowerPC chips in the Xbox 360 may be similar in instruction set to the G5, the chips are VERY different. It uses only in-order instruction execution, and not out-of-order, which has been standard(for powerful CPU's) since at least the Pentium Pro(?) era, excepting the Itanium, which has the compiler do the OOO scheduling.

The XBox 360 has 3 very small and rather simple PowerPC cores, and the Cell uses 1 such core, and the 7(?) SPU's along with it.

Re:Almost admissable proof of monopoly. (5, Insightful)

KillShill (877105) | about 9 years ago | (#13522386)

hardly.

have you seen current 600 dollar pcs?

they far outclass the 600 dollar mac mini and those run tiger.

by the time vista ships, 600 bucks will buy you a lot more power than you "need" to run vista.

if you turn off the eye-candy , it'll run as well as xp does today.

you have it wrong, hardware requirements are not a good reason not to get vista. there are much better reasons not to get it, like the massive DRM and financially supporting ms, which is as good reason as any.

Artificially Growing Demand (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13522431)

The scenario is less like a monopoly and more like a desperate ploy to grow demand for hardware manufacturers. The current situation is that Windows XP provides all the functionality that most people need. Further, a 128-megabyte Pentium-III-powered box running at 500 megahertz is all the horsepower that most people need.

When the quality and quantity of supply stabilizes to exactly meet demand, something "terrible" happens. Manufacturers can compete on only 1 "feature": price. The price plummets, and the profit per machine is about $10.00.

Along comes Microsoft with a special deal (for the manufacturers): We will artificially build demand for more and newer hardware into the next operating system, and you manufacturers increase the kickback, per system, to $150 for the coffers of Microsoft.

Hello (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13522240)

I am going to create a headline and write a virus for Mac.

Right after I'm done pouring Hot Grits down my pants.

Thank You.

First (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13522242)

First

256mb? (3, Insightful)

chkMINUS (910577) | about 9 years ago | (#13522245)

Yet another reason to use linux.

Hey, let's all take turns bashing Microsoft! (2, Insightful)

i41Overlord (829913) | about 9 years ago | (#13522249)

And then we can say how great Linux is!

Re:Hey, let's all take turns bashing Microsoft! (1, Funny)

eklitzke (873155) | about 9 years ago | (#13522287)

Good idea ;)

Re:Hey, let's all take turns bashing Microsoft! (1)

RapmasterT (787426) | about 9 years ago | (#13522314)

I think I've seen that here before.

Re:Hey, let's all take turns bashing Microsoft! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13522317)

I'm in. You go first.

Re:Hey, let's all take turns bashing Microsoft! (1)

Foofoobar (318279) | about 9 years ago | (#13522374)

Hell, we can say that already :)

Re:Hey, let's all take turns bashing Microsoft! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13522444)

Yeah, Americans need to *WAKE UP* and see how M$ is screwing everybody. Any company that does something as hidious as requiring 256 meg of video memory deserves a place alongside the Third Reich. Death to Bill Gates. I think this will be the final nail is the M$ coffin, and expect everybody will start switching to Linux and OSS over the next few years.

Heard this before (5, Insightful)

_pi-away (308135) | about 9 years ago | (#13522252)

Every new version of windows has beefed up the requirements, and I've always found them usable with less than they say.

Re:Heard this before (5, Insightful)

Jazzer_Techie (800432) | about 9 years ago | (#13522346)

Windows will certainly be usable with less. Most of the GUI "eye-candy" in XP fails to be useful, not to mention less than aesthetically pleasing. The first thing that I do when I reinstall Windows (after patching it all up an installing Firefox) is to set it back to the Windows Classic theme. All of the eye candy inflates the sys reqs. I can't see myself sticking with the new Vista GUI either.

Re:Heard this before (1)

RapmasterT (787426) | about 9 years ago | (#13522362)

Every new version of windows has beefed up the requirements, and I've always found them usable with less than they say.
I've got a funny feeling that when I run Vista in "classic interface" mode it's going to get by with far, far lower requirements.

Maybe I'm missing something, but who exactly is it that is slobbering over variable transparancy windows, and flipping backside notation stuff?

Re:Heard this before (1)

ThyPiGuy (870924) | about 9 years ago | (#13522400)

Maybe I'm missing something, but who exactly is it that is slobbering over variable transparancy windows, and flipping backside notation stuff? OSX users?

Re:Heard this before (2, Interesting)

welkin (214744) | about 9 years ago | (#13522459)

No, not really. Not me anyway...I have managed to get Panther to run on a '99 iBook with a 300 MHz G3 and a measly 164M RAM, by turning off the window minimization "Genie Effect" candy, by setting the Desktop changing feature to change wallpaper every day, as opposed to every five seconds, etc.

One may ask "why use OS X on a machine that was never meant to run it?" This is Slashdot, right?

Re:Heard this before (2, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | about 9 years ago | (#13522379)

Every new version of windows has beefed up the requirements, and I've always found them usable with less than they say.

I recall the first install of Win 95, the packaging said Minimum 8 MB RAM. Yes, if you don't mind paging on those slow old MFM/RLL 20/30 MB drives over your pokey ISA bus. 12 MB was manageable, with patience. 16 MB was tolerable. 24 MB and up was comfortable. This on a 33 MHz 486.

When I bought my first Pentium with 64 MB and Win 98 it was apparent almost from day 1 that 64 MB was just barely enough to run one application at a time. 2 apps and I was paging and anything over that and it was an exercise in masochism.

My 2.6 MHz Athlon started life with WinXP and 256 MB. Which was fine for the limited things I did, though I noticed (thanks to the task manager) that half of it was tied up before I launched any apps. 1.25 GB has made for a decent system. The first graphics card was a 64 MB generic card which cost a measely $37 and I keep it around for when the big deluxe card decides it's going to have a bad patch.

I think as much as I groan about XP that's where I'll stop with regard to Microsoft. I don't want to overburden my new 64 bit CPU just trying to do the basics.

Re:Heard this before (4, Interesting)

cnettel (836611) | about 9 years ago | (#13522427)

In this case, there is even the possibility of turning off Aero and running in a somewhat improved XP. Avalon apps will suffer, but they will still work.

They want the Aero rendering to be considered fast and snappy. And, oh, it will possibly be so, but only on the right hardware. If they put the official requirements too low, it would just be said that the new interface is so full of eyecandy that it can't perform.

What's really interesting here is what they manage to pull of on laptops, together with ATI and Nvidia. Will the power management for graphics chips make sense, even when 3D mode doesn't equal "battery sucking gaming mode"? The (public) slides from Microsoft even from the very first mentioning of Longhorn's 3D UI stressed this aspect. It will be interesting to see the solution. If a Mactel box will provide a sleek UI with a charge keeping the machine powered for twice as long, that'll be a very real selling point.

Buy NVIDIA and ATI stock (5, Insightful)

Boap (559344) | about 9 years ago | (#13522253)

Looks like it is going to be a booming year for ATI and NVIDIA when Vista is released

Re:Buy NVIDIA and ATI stock (2, Insightful)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | about 9 years ago | (#13522409)

Not to mention anyone selling HDCP monitors:
...no current TFT monitor out there is going to support high definition playback in Vista. You may already have heard rumblings about this, but here it is. To play HD-DVD or Blu-Ray content you need a HDCP compatible monitor.

Re:Buy NVIDIA and ATI stock (1)

Crazy Man on Fire (153457) | about 9 years ago | (#13522437)

Perhaps S3 [slashdot.org] will have a market afterall?

Business: Performance & Lifecycles (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13522258)

It will be interesting to see the take on from business. Vendor lifecycles not withstanding, moving from the newer hardware boxes with NT4 on or W2K to XP has been largely painless from a performance perspective.

seriously (5, Funny)

LiquidMind (150126) | about 9 years ago | (#13522265)

A: "wow, that's a sweet rig, where'd you get that?"
B: "It came with my purchase of Windows Vista."

It's kinda like those people that drive with huge-ass spoilers on their tiny cars. Did the car come with the spoiler or did the spoiler come with the car?

Re:seriously (1)

twilight30 (84644) | about 9 years ago | (#13522312)

C: 'You're still paying for both, so it doesn't matter what each cost ...'.

It would be one thing if MS figured it would be able to stick to these specs for a while (ie several years). But something tells me they ain't thinking like that ...

256MB of video memory? (5, Insightful)

Paralizer (792155) | about 9 years ago | (#13522270)

Give me a break! It's an operating system, what technicial leaps must it render that requires so much memory? I can run Doom3 at 1024x768 at pretty high quality with my 128MB card without a problem, yet to render a few windows and a start bar I need twice that?

Eye-candy doesn't result in functionality Microsoft... shift your attention towards usability.

Re:256MB of video memory? (1)

interiot (50685) | about 9 years ago | (#13522393)

Does anybody have comparisons for OS X machines? They render much of their OS in the GPU, right?

Re:256MB of video memory? (4, Insightful)

Dutchmaan (442553) | about 9 years ago | (#13522394)

> ...and if sales started dropping that's exactly where their attention *would* go..

Right now, the bulk of windows purchasers are the same people who don't know any better and are more impressed with flashy graphics for their home PC than features that 99% of them will never use or never realize they are using.

Windows is the OS of the masses, yes it can be a good OS and in some respects it is, however... the bottom line is that Windows is being designed to appeal to people who buy the system based on what they *see*.

Thank you Captain Obvious... (5, Interesting)

Joe U (443617) | about 9 years ago | (#13522271)

Of course the requirements are going to be bulky by mid 2005 standards. Vista is due in 2006/7 and will reflect the mid to high end computer design for late 2006.

Also, these seem to be optimal, not minimum requirements, and from the article "minimum system requirements for Windows Vista will not be known until summer 2006 at the earliest." So, I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that your average system today will work fine with Vista, but you won't have all the bells and whistles.

Finally, the '512 MByte is "heaps" for a 32-bit system. For a 64-bit system, however, "you're going to want 2 gigs of DDR3 RAM."' is off. If you are happy with 512, you'll be happy with 1GB. If you play lots of games, you most likely have 1GB now and you'll be happy with 2gb. And if you play EverQuest 2, you'll be happy with about 20gb, but it will still skip in places and you can't use the ultra-high resolution.

Re:Thank you Captain Obvious... (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | about 9 years ago | (#13522344)


The article actually says that it's due out next Christmas, though I was also under the impression that it was 2006/7.

Even then, the specifications are obscene. If I can render a GUI with a 800MHz CPU and 128MB RAM total, then how the Hell do they claim a need for 256MB solely for graphics? And a recommended 2GB in general. That's obscene.

Time to play up Linux's potential for running on low-power systems.

Re:Thank you Captain Obvious... (1)

2nd Post! (213333) | about 9 years ago | (#13522353)

The reason this is bull is that Vista, due out in 2006/2007, will be performing similar operations to 2004/2005 Macs. If you put OS X on a Vista class system in 2006/2007, and compared to Vista, who would win?

Re:Thank you Captain Obvious... (0, Troll)

Joe U (443617) | about 9 years ago | (#13522415)

If you put OS X on a Vista class system in 2006/2007, and compared to Vista, who would win?

I'll say Vista.

1. It will run the software I have today.
2. It will run more software that I may buy tomorrow.
3. It will run 64 bit software if I need it.
4. It's going to run rings around OSX.

Re:Thank you Captain Obvious... (0, Troll)

KillShill (877105) | about 9 years ago | (#13522446)

vista would win.

because you can install it on any hardware you choose.

replacing perfectly capable hardware to install another OS just isn't a good idea.

if you have gobs of money, perhaps you'd think about donating some of it to me. then i might consider getting a mac system. right now, i live very comfortably on my fast amd machine.

Re:Thank you Captain Obvious... (0, Offtopic)

PCM2 (4486) | about 9 years ago | (#13522357)

Of course the requirements are going to be bulky by mid 2005 standards. Vista is due in 2006/7 and will reflect the mid to high end computer design for late 2006.
I bought a modest, brand-name PC system this year for about $1,600 and it meets all the requirements mentioned.

Re:Thank you Captain Obvious... (1)

Talrinys (888624) | about 9 years ago | (#13522388)

That's pretty cool, i have to use 40 GB to make that game stop lagging. Seriously though, i don't see this as a very positive thing. Along with games and programs generally we have gone from like 1 GB hard drives to 500 GB hard drives, but we are still using roughly the same programs. I definately will not be upgrading for Vista, i would rather learn Linux and try to stick with it, or go all out Mac, than have to deal with this. It's enough of a pain for each link i click in an email to take 25 seconds to open in Windows with a completely clean system using 300 MB ram constantly. I don't want to have to use 2 GB ram constantly and it still runs even slower.

Re:Thank you Captain Obvious... (1)

kfg (145172) | about 9 years ago | (#13522399)

Vista is due in 2006/7 and will reflect the mid to high end computer design for late 2006.

However, the typical computer is a standard eternity old, and will soon be two standard eternities old, because the typical computer user already has a machine that does what he wants it to do.

This does not speak well for selling quantities of OS upgrades.

KFG

Thanks, Bill! (5, Insightful)

appleLaserWriter (91994) | about 9 years ago | (#13522272)

If a basic Windows box requires 256 MB of video RAM to run, then Macintosh OS X on x86 will definitely be the less expensive PC.

Re:Thanks, Bill! (0)

winkydink (650484) | about 9 years ago | (#13522308)

Which explains why the entry-level Mac Mini was recently bumped from 256Mb to 512Mb. Jobs didn't do that out of the goodness of his heart.

Ooops! (2, Informative)

winkydink (650484) | about 9 years ago | (#13522339)

I missed that all-important adjective "video". Never mind.

Re:Ooops! (1)

jonfromspace (179394) | about 9 years ago | (#13522392)

There needs to be a "+1 - Apology Accepted" mod.

Thanks from me too, Bill... Linus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13522424)

Thank you for doing everything you can to promote the use of Linux. Your cheque is in the mail.

Perfect time to bust out that laptop! (5, Funny)

KingEomer (795285) | about 9 years ago | (#13522273)

We should be able to run this on our new 6.8Ghz 2TB HD 1TB RAM laptops!

Re:Perfect time to bust out that laptop! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13522324)

"Informative" heh.

Re:Perfect time to bust out that laptop! (1)

gwayne (306174) | about 9 years ago | (#13522334)

6.8Ghz 2TB HD 1TB RAM laptops

Those are the minimum specs!

No reason to deviate... (3, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | about 9 years ago | (#13522276)

My company has been on a gradual migration away from Microsoft products. We haven't made any aggressive step as of yet -- our desktops are mostly WinXP. Our servers are Linux and Novell with the occasional utility server running some form of MS Windows or another. We are testing Novell Linux Desktop but we aren't even close to a deployment plan yet.

But the capital expenses associated with this "upgrade" is needless and ridiculous even if we weren't planning to migrate to Linux.

I can see three things happening (4, Interesting)

quickbasicguru (886035) | about 9 years ago | (#13522277)

Three things that I can see happening:
1)GNU/Linux goes mainstream faster
2)Macs go mainstream
3)Both 1+2

Re:I can see three things happening (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13522306)

Or

1) No one buys Vista and everything stays the same
2) MS getting pissed and dropping support for all Windows systems, but Vista
3) People gives MS the finger and everything stays the same

MS driving up HW prices? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13522281)

Is _this_ why hardware vendors like MS so much? MS continually drives up hardware requirements as time progresses, allowing hardware vendors to pack more into PCs and making people pay more for a PC they wouldn't normally need?

I don't know about you, but I really don't like this system of forced upgrades due to "enhancements." If I buy a computer that is 1000$, I expect it to be good for quite a long time. I think computers are at a point now where they can be treated as appliances, lasting for decades. If people just kept on using windows 2000/xp, a current day $500 PC would be good enough until the hardware dies. The problem is, that hardware just doesn't last that long these days. Ah well, maybe it's not a giant conspiracy, but I can see why Dell and such like their partnership with MS.

Well, maybe there are enough people like me who are fed up with upgrades, and they'll just stay with windows 2000/xp or use linux/*bsd.

Re:MS driving up HW prices? (1)

bratboy (649043) | about 9 years ago | (#13522405)

actually, i see the reverse - although initially, HW prices might go up through a lack of supply, as vendors ramp up to meet the (corporate) demand for new hardware, economies of scale will kick in and these so-called "beefy" requirements will come down in price. ditto for lower-end stuff. which means that people who DON'T use MS products are going to get a great deal on some pretty high-end stuff. which means that non-MS stuff is going to run dramatically faster, since vista will need it just to run in the first place.

Third party replacement (1)

Threni (635302) | about 9 years ago | (#13522282)

Wouldn't be too hard to write code to redirect all the 3d vector nonsense back into standard GDI calls.

Re:Third party replacement (4, Funny)

eobanb (823187) | about 9 years ago | (#13522332)

Wouldn't be too hard to write code to redirect all the 3d vector nonsense back into standard GDI calls.

Hey, great, let me know when you're done.

Re:Third party replacement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13522355)

Sure, it'll be called a slider or checkbox in your control panel graphics settings.

Re:Third party replacement (2, Informative)

Aadain2001 (684036) | about 9 years ago | (#13522401)

Except that they are removing the GDI functionality. All GDI calls will just act as special wrapers back to the vector display calls. MS is not making this OS to be a simple upgrade from XP. They started from scratch and they are compartmentalizing or outright removing a lot of legacy stuff (which is good, it leads to better design overall). The GDI is one such module that has been removed.

Create your own demand (1)

JustASlashDotGuy (905444) | about 9 years ago | (#13522284)

$10 says there's a headline next week that M$ just purchased a video card manufacturer that just happens to produce cards with large amount of memory at a low low price!


I'm still waiting for MS to produce spyware that only their SW is able to kill for some "mysterious" reason, heh.

Re:Create your own demand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13522448)

I'm still waiting for MS to produce spyware that only their SW is able to kill for some "mysterious" reason, heh.
They already do, it's called Windows.

640 GB should be enough for anyone... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 9 years ago | (#13522286)

hardware vendors smile towards the shocking new recommended hardware needed for the next generation Windows operating system."

Tradition. Oh, and remember what ever the minimum Microsoft says, double it.

"Graphics: Vista has changed from using the CPU to display bitmaps on the screen to using the GPU to render vectors. This means the entire display model in Vista has changed. To render the screen in the GPU requires an awful lot of memory to do optimally - 256MB is a happy medium, but you'll actually see benefit from more. Microsoft believes that you're going to see the amount of video memory being shipped on cards hurtle up when Vista ships."

I wonder what this will do to gaming. Seems like an improvement on the surface. But this will probably drive up the base system prices initially. Yes, memory is cheap, but video cards with that much aren't.

I sure hope one feature of Vista is the ability to leave out all kinds of useless crap you'll never need, but it doesn't sound like it's trending that way.

"Why are all the lights around town dimming? Is Enron back in business?"
"No, people are upgrading their PC's to minimum to do absolutely nothing but boot up."

My computer only has 256 RM :( ... (1)

HulkProtector1 (728239) | about 9 years ago | (#13522289)

But it runs KDE quite happily

My computer only has 256 RM :( ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13522371)

But it runs Windows XP quit Happily

Re:My computer only has 256 RM :( ... (1)

Angstroem (692547) | about 9 years ago | (#13522419)

You must have some strange definition of "quite happily"... Since running SuSE9.3 with the (back then) latest KDE, my laptop became dog slow cause its 256MB are always almost filled. Switching off the most unnecessary services (both, KDE and system services) didn't help much, though, but things at least got gradually better.

As a sidenote, SuSE9.3 war the last SuSE for me, although I was using it since old SuSE4.x days. For my own part, I welcome my new Debian overlords.

And Scoble denies: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13522292)

The Scobleizer already denied it, [weblogs.com] claiming that first-hand knowledge and exprerience show Nigel is wrong about Vista

experience* (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13522369)

experience*

Ho-hum (5, Insightful)

Brunellus (875635) | about 9 years ago | (#13522294)

We're covering this as if most users were going to upgrade from XP to Vista, and will be thus compelled to shell out big bucks for new graphics cards, ram, disks, etc for their current computers just to run the new OS.

This is, of course, not the case. Most users who cannot upgrade will march blithely on with the OS they already have. I'm writing from work, where we're still using Windows 2000. The computer next to me is an ancient Pentium 133--and it runs Win95.

Home users will encounter Vista when they decide to buy a brand new computer, and from that perspective, they'll have gotten a shiny new OS with their shiny new hardware. Nobody will see the cost of the OS and the cost of the hardware to run it as separate things.

Re:Ho-hum (1)

Valiss (463641) | about 9 years ago | (#13522439)

Quite honestly, I am still slowly upgrading my hardware ever since I put XP on my comp over a year ago, and it still isn't running a smooth as XP should. And I built this rig not more than two years ago!

I have no desire to get Vista. Why would I? What will it have that XP can not do already for me? Espcially if I'm gonna have to build a new comp altogether. No, I just can't justify that kinda money cause it's new.

What? No Nanotubes? (1)

yourfnmom (733312) | about 9 years ago | (#13522297)


Crap. I was hoping that I'd be forced to upgrade my system to one of those cool new machines built entirely with Carbon Nanotubes. I hear their just around the corner, sorta like Vista.

Released Next Christmas......Right (4, Interesting)

mgpeter (132079) | about 9 years ago | (#13522299)

I am betting on it being released when the DOJ restrictions are lifted - November 2007

MS will never play fair, why should they start now (even though they are required to by law).

huh? (1)

Ravenrage (739755) | about 9 years ago | (#13522301)

wtf "As for system RAM, Page reportedly said, 512 MByte is "heaps" for a 32-bit system. For a 64-bit system, however, "you're going to want 2 gigs of DDR3 RAM." The transcript states that Page explained 64-bit users will need to double their memory because units of memory are naturally double the size. what the hell?

Re:huh? (1)

thoromyr (673646) | about 9 years ago | (#13522389)

Because a 32-bit processor word is 32 bits and a 64-bit processor word is... 64-bits. So if the application uses an int it will take twice the memory as previously.

In truth it is somewhat more complicated than that, but that is roughly what is going on. The jump from 16-bit to 32-bit was significantly good because of the available numeric ranges. But, for many things, 32 bits is plenty. It is less clear what (generic) benefit will result from 64-bit computing. Although -- if it takes 1GB to run your application now with a comfortable OS base of a quarter that with increased memory requirements the 32-bit version will likely quickly hit the limits of what can be addressed in 32 bits.

thoromyr

Re:huh? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 9 years ago | (#13522407)

Yep double the size is an over kill but 64bit programs will eat a lot more ram than the same program written for 32bit? Why?
Every pointer now takes twice the space.

That is one of the nice things about the PPC and Sparc. If you do not need 64bit pointer you can just compile for 32bit. You can run 32 bit code on a 64 64bit AMD/Intel CPU but you get a big performance boost if you recompile to 64 bit since you have a more registers available in 64bit mode.

Re:huh? (1)

pdbogen (596723) | about 9 years ago | (#13522451)

He's probably thinking of word size which, if I'm not mistaken, is, in fact, doubled with 64-bit versus 32-bit. I don't see how this equates to 2GB of DDR3, though...

Hahaha! (5, Interesting)

Dhaos (697924) | about 9 years ago | (#13522302)

What's the deal here? Are they -trying- to shoot themselves in the foot?

Businesses already have almost -no- incentive to switch to Vista. Now, instead of just buying expensive licences, they have to upgrade the graphics cards on their vanilla work PCs??

Has someone at MS gone patently nuts?

Yes, I know you will say "Microsoft will pull support for XP, and thus force everyone to upgrade." Maybe. But I think there will be backlash here.

And if you think that Vista is going to be exclusively for consumers, please tell me how Dell will provide $400 dollar machines with such beefy video cards!! It defies logic!

This is madness! Madness I say!

Re:Hahaha! (1)

amliebsch (724858) | about 9 years ago | (#13522435)

MS has repeatedly explained that if you don't have a dedicated video card, it will simply fall back into a software rendering mode with less bling, similar to what is used in XP.

Re:Hahaha! (1)

interiot (50685) | about 9 years ago | (#13522450)

I don't know, business machines have been coming with sound cards for a long time. These days they're coming with CD writers, DVD drives, etc etc. I'm sure they'll come with optical audio outputs in a few years, for all those 5.1 sound systems people have in their cubes.
And if you think that Vista is going to be exclusively for consumers, please tell me how Dell will provide $400 dollar machines with such beefy video cards!! It defies logic!
Volume, baby, volume.

Token mac comment (1)

Matey-O (518004) | about 9 years ago | (#13522305)

So how is it my poor little iBook can do HW accelerated OS stuff with 32mb?

Why?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13522315)

Besides looking pretty, what is driving these hardware requirements? I will inevitably disable all the eye-candy I can when required to use Vista, so what else in the OS is so important that would make it require 256MB of GPU RAM and 2GB of system RAM?

Just another good reason... (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | about 9 years ago | (#13522320)

Just another good reason to not even consider upgrading at all.

What will it take to get me to Vista?

The Killer App that I need to run, and can't be run on anything else.

And what is that Killer App?

Haven't got a clue. Can't even imagine what more I'll want to do on a computer that I can't already do now.

Good luck, Microsoft.

Re:Just another good reason... (1)

Cid Highwind (9258) | about 9 years ago | (#13522378)

The Killer App that I need to run, and can't be run on anything else. And what is that Killer App?

HD-DVD and Blu-Ray video playback. Both will require the DRM infrastructure in Vista. Oh, and you'll need a monitor that does HDCP encryption (none presently on the market do) as well as a new computer with a beefy video card. Enjoy!

Re:Just another good reason... (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | about 9 years ago | (#13522410)

"Haven't got a clue. Can't even imagine what more I'll want to do on a computer that I can't already do now. "

640K ought to be enough for anybody. -- Bill Gates, 1981

Just for some perspective.

Now I'll get off your lawn.

But vectors are supposed to save memory (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13522322)

Umm... something's here wrong, the whole point of Vector graphics is to save memory, like how flash animations are much more small than GIF animations. Vector graphics is a more of a CPU hog then a memory hog... then again, it's MS, go figure...

Gigantic Leap (3, Informative)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 9 years ago | (#13522328)

Windows XP Professional: 128 megabytes [microsoft.com] of RAM or higher recommended

Windows Vista: 2 Gigabytes of RAM recommended

WTF??

Re:Gigantic Leap (0)

myowntrueself (607117) | about 9 years ago | (#13522404)

"Windows Vista: 2 Gigabytes of RAM recommended"

And thats just for the OS; before you run any applications.

Once you have a full set of 'system tray' applications, you'll need a 64bit architecture just to be able to meet the memory requirements.

vectorized icons need 256MB? (5, Insightful)

mistermark (646060) | about 9 years ago | (#13522329)

Hmmmz, my SGI Indy didn't need 256MB of videomemory to have vectorized icons... somehow I get the feeling Vista isn't the most efficiently programmed software/OS we've seen... ;-)

(and the Indy *did* ship with a journaling filesystem... XFS...)

Re:vectorized icons need 256MB? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 9 years ago | (#13522403)

Hmmmz, my SGI Indy didn't need 256MB of videomemory to have vectorized icons... somehow I get the feeling Vista isn't the most efficiently programmed software/OS we've seen... ;-) (and the Indy *did* ship with a journaling filesystem... XFS...)

Makes you wonder what they're compiling this thing with and what's going into it. Probably doing it in VB.Net and running it onto of the framework.

"i say! that looks as bloated as a government budget!"

Ya, so? (2, Interesting)

T-Ranger (10520) | about 9 years ago | (#13522343)

I could argue that 256mb cards will be a dime a dozen in 15 months, but all I have to say is:

256mb of vram should be enough for anyone.

Talk to me in 10 years and tell me then if you think that thats stupid.

The solution! (1)

Bahumat (213955) | about 9 years ago | (#13522347)

Quick, someone code an ASCII mod for it!

Back in my day... (1)

HulkProtector1 (728239) | about 9 years ago | (#13522350)

We only had 2 kb/s of RAM, we took a BUS to school uphill both ways, and the word VISTA was only used in the pipply-headed geek crowd... oh wait

Vista is insanely slow (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13522351)

So far the beta versions of Vista are painfully slow. I doubt that anyone in his right mind will waste his money on Vista with its insane hardware requirements when he can have a blazing fast Linux machine.

whatever. (1)

idiotism (849327) | about 9 years ago | (#13522361)

wonderful, another reason not to upgrade (as if i was going to). all windows vista is, is a black version of windows xp, with better search options. i can do the visual changes with something like aston or stylexp. the only thing i use my xp machine for right now is video games. all my music and movies are kept on my mac file server, so i can do advanced searches (if i cared to) with spotlight. but OMG, i forgot there are new icons for the folders and the explorer is different looking. just what i need to do, waste $200 buying a prettier version of xp pro. i hope vista is the downfall to MS.

A few things (5, Interesting)

decipher_saint (72686) | about 9 years ago | (#13522365)

I am no Microsoft lover but I have to speak out here. Nigel Page originally said it would "work best" under that rather steep hardware configuration, any OS "should" work best under that configuration.

As of the beta 1, the unoptimized version works kick ass on an 1800XP, 512MB DDR & Radeon 9700. Unless you want to use crap like "Aero Glass" you won't need a high end vid card. Personally speaking, I'm still worried about the DRM monitor requirements and I am also a bit uninterested since so many features (i.e. anything I really cared about as a windork) were dropped from the upcoming release.

There couldn't be a larger piece of disinformation circulating the net right now.

RAM Price (1)

vivek7006 (585218) | about 9 years ago | (#13522375)

I remember the days when my PC used to run win98 with 32MB RAM and later I had shelled out around 100 bucks to upgrade it to 32+64=96MB. WinXP's minimum memory requirement was 128MB and recommendation was 256MB. At that time it felt outrageous.

The article claims that because Vista will require 1-2GB of RAM, it will drive the memory prices up. I don't think that was the case in the past and as far as I remember memory prices came down steadily after windows-XP was released. I doubt that WindowsVista will cause inflation in the RAM price

Windows 2000 forever! (5, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | about 9 years ago | (#13522385)

About half of corporate America is still running Windows 2000. And, after Vista comes out, probably half of corporate America will still be running Windows 2000, less further migration to Linux.

There just isn't enough new in Longhorn/Vista to justify the buy. Where's the return on investment here? Why buy a new computer for everybody in your call center? Hello?

There's nothing wrong with rendering the entire user interface in the GPU. Softimage was doing that under NT 4 in 1997, using OpenGL. It was clunky back then, but it's worked fine for years. Multiple windows tend to run slowly in OpenGL on Windows, but that's because of a common bug that allows only one window to update per refresh. Buffer swapping needs to be better worked out for the multiple window case. But all of this requires relatively minor improvements.

I for one... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13522406)

welcome our new vector-based overlords.

You Are All Forgetting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13522420)

You are all forgetting that Vista will allow you to turn off the new vector graphics rendering crap-- just as you can turn off the horrible stock Windows XP theme in favor of the classic Windows 2000 theme. Besides, I'm sure a UI that wants 512MB of VRAM will be a usability nightmare.

HDCP the new enemy (5, Interesting)

RentonSentinel (906700) | about 9 years ago | (#13522426)

If they think they can strong arm me into purchasing some DRM monitor they are absolutely off their rocker.

Now slashdotters, it is our mission to raise the awareness on these HDCP monitors. They are the new Palladium, the new NGSCB, the new (circuit city) divx.

I am feeling the red mist of rage!

Macintosh will be the viable "store bought" rig to recommend friends and relatives purchase. And for use, we will need to get Linux working with HD-DVD and Blu-ray in short order!

But users want HDCP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13522458)

Check out this quote in the original article at www.apcstart.com: "The hardware vendors all know about it but aren't yet making monitors with it built in, so now it's up to you [the users] to say, "where's my HDCP?""

A Fist Full of Errors! (5, Interesting)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | about 9 years ago | (#13522445)

Microsoft believes that you're going to see the amount of video memory being shipped on cards hurtle up when Vista ships.

Hurl chunks is more like it when I see the bill.

However, since 64-bit is handling data chunks that are double the size, you'll need double the memory, hence the 2GB.

You've got to be kidding with this statement. Does this person even understand the difference between 32-bit and 64-bit processors? I don't think so.

NCQ allows for out of order completions - that is, if Vista needs tasks 1,2,3,4 and 5 done, it can do them in the order 2,5,3,4,1

Excuse me, but Vista isn't the one doing the reordering of hard drive accesses. NCQ is done in the controller and drive itself.

NCQ is supported on SATA2 drives

And selected SATA-1 drives.

AGP is 'not optimal' for Vista. Because of the fact that graphics cards may have to utilise main system memory for some rendering tasks, a fast, bi-direction bus is needed - that's PCI express.

Will there be an AGP system left that can meet the rest of the Vista requirements? And I thought AGP had an option to use system memory in the specification as well.

no current TFT monitor out there is going to support high definition playback in Vista.

What if they release Vista, and nobody bought? If the consumers finally said We've had enough of this sh|t?

This isn't really Microsoft's fault - HDCP is something that content makers, in their eternal wisdom, have decided is necessary to stop us all watching pirated movies.

Oh yes it is Microsoft's fault. Without Microsoft enabling this the whole concept would be DOA. And Trusted Computing isn't even mentioned.

Tell me again, please. What is the compelling reason to upgrade to Vista?

Efficiency? (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | about 9 years ago | (#13522454)

You know, I thought newer versions of Operating Systems would be "faster" than the previous because they took more years to develop and optimize...

so then why the all-increasing specs? Is this all just bells and whistles that we could as well do without (98lite, anyone?) I mean, I could understand "1024x768 memory card required", but vector graphics? Gimme a break.

Definitely I think Microsoft has lost ground. Haven't they got anything DECENT to offer?

Are they crazy? (1)

Enrique1218 (603187) | about 9 years ago | (#13522455)

For the love, a 256 MB video card? 1GB of RAM, SATA, PCI Express. Not even Apple would pull that stunt. They have been doing accelerated desktop graphics for years and their recommended requirements top out at about 64 MB. Moreover, most of the computers sold today don't have video cards with their own dedicated memory. They have Intel chipsets which use shared memory. What would they be thinking? I don't believe this not even of Microsoft.

Somewhat offtopic, but... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13522461)

I was on linux.com today, and noticed an advertisement for windows server system. The link (from linux.com):
http://www.microsoft.com/canada/getthefacts/defaul t.mspx [microsoft.com]

Please, everybody go out and get the unadultered truth today. Abandon this "*nix" thing and buy microsoft today. I urge you to quit the foolishness of free software as quickly as possible. Let's be rid of source-code sharing forever.

Thank you.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?