T
Travis King
Does anybody have clues on what the potential requirements might be for
Longhorn?
Longhorn?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
T
Testy
20.0 GHZ processor, 120 Gigs of RAM and a 2000 gigabit harddrive.
Testy
Testy
T
Travis King
Or would you think at least my computer would meet the requirements?
AMD Athlon XP 2400+ 2.2GHz CPU
512MB DDR RAM
128MB video card (AGP 4x) NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti200
200GB of hard disk space
16x DVD ROM drive (48x CD ROM)
32x Lite On CD RW drive
Soundblaster Live! 5.1 sound card
Linksys 10/100 networking card
Asus A7V333 motherboard
AMD Athlon XP 2400+ 2.2GHz CPU
512MB DDR RAM
128MB video card (AGP 4x) NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti200
200GB of hard disk space
16x DVD ROM drive (48x CD ROM)
32x Lite On CD RW drive
Soundblaster Live! 5.1 sound card
Linksys 10/100 networking card
Asus A7V333 motherboard
T
Travis King
lol
Testy said:20.0 GHZ processor, 120 Gigs of RAM and a 2000 gigabit harddrive.
Testy
R
Ron Martell
Travis King said:Or would you think at least my computer would meet the requirements?
AMD Athlon XP 2400+ 2.2GHz CPU
512MB DDR RAM
128MB video card (AGP 4x) NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti200
200GB of hard disk space
16x DVD ROM drive (48x CD ROM)
32x Lite On CD RW drive
Soundblaster Live! 5.1 sound card
Linksys 10/100 networking card
Asus A7V333 motherboard
Using the requirements for the PDC release as a guide and provided
that the hardware manufacturers produce signed Longhorn drivers for
your specific components it should meet the minimum requirements and
perhaps exceed them slightly.
Longhorn is still in the Alpha stage of development and there will
undoubtedly be a lot of changes before it reaches the "ready to
release" state. We are almost certainly at least 18 months away from
that date.
Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
J
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
That information may be here:
http://aumha.org/win5/a/longhorn.htm
I have seen it on a 333mhx with 256mb RAM computer, so your computer
should work nicely.
http://aumha.org/win5/a/longhorn.htm
I have seen it on a 333mhx with 256mb RAM computer, so your computer
should work nicely.
T
Travis King
The actual requirements are outrageous. A 2GHz P4 CPU is about an AMD
Athlon XP 2000+ - 2200+, so they should keep that into consideration. I
think they might be making a big mistake with the OS; changing the whole
platform. They should gradually change the way that it's set up, but not
instantly if they don't want confused people. If they do what it sounds
like they're going to do, it's just like a user using Windows XP since day
one, and then the person tries an Apple for the first time. It will be to
much of a change. Until these hardcore requirements actually become a norm
for computers, this isn't going to work. I noticed that they completely
ignored AMD on the CPU requirements. An AMD 2GHz CPU doesn't run like a
Pentium 4 2GHz CPU; it runs better, and I know that from expierence. A 2GHz
AMD CPU runs like a 2.4GHz P4. The memory? 512MB minimum? Come on, 256MB
is just becoming small... (it's not like 256 has been small for many years)
Lots of motherboards won't support 1GB of RAM. You would have to use two
banks to get 1GB because it's very difficult to find one 1GB module. (think
upgradibility) At least 10GB (and they're talking possibly 25GB+ of hard
disk space!?) The hard disk manufacturers better start rolling out 1TB+
hard drives. I don't have 200GB of hard disk space for an OS alone... I'm
sorry, but if Microsft can't make an OS more for home computers, not dream
machines, I'll stick with XP, which I find great for me. (even if it
becomes unsupported) I know this might sound like I'm talking to MS
themselves, but trust me, I'm just telling you that you better have $1
million saved for a computer to be able to get this OS. (literally) I
guess I'll wait on my upgrading of my computer until closer to 2006 or so.
Athlon XP 2000+ - 2200+, so they should keep that into consideration. I
think they might be making a big mistake with the OS; changing the whole
platform. They should gradually change the way that it's set up, but not
instantly if they don't want confused people. If they do what it sounds
like they're going to do, it's just like a user using Windows XP since day
one, and then the person tries an Apple for the first time. It will be to
much of a change. Until these hardcore requirements actually become a norm
for computers, this isn't going to work. I noticed that they completely
ignored AMD on the CPU requirements. An AMD 2GHz CPU doesn't run like a
Pentium 4 2GHz CPU; it runs better, and I know that from expierence. A 2GHz
AMD CPU runs like a 2.4GHz P4. The memory? 512MB minimum? Come on, 256MB
is just becoming small... (it's not like 256 has been small for many years)
Lots of motherboards won't support 1GB of RAM. You would have to use two
banks to get 1GB because it's very difficult to find one 1GB module. (think
upgradibility) At least 10GB (and they're talking possibly 25GB+ of hard
disk space!?) The hard disk manufacturers better start rolling out 1TB+
hard drives. I don't have 200GB of hard disk space for an OS alone... I'm
sorry, but if Microsft can't make an OS more for home computers, not dream
machines, I'll stick with XP, which I find great for me. (even if it
becomes unsupported) I know this might sound like I'm talking to MS
themselves, but trust me, I'm just telling you that you better have $1
million saved for a computer to be able to get this OS. (literally) I
guess I'll wait on my upgrading of my computer until closer to 2006 or so.
L
luminos
They have no intention of supporting the archaic type of machine you
describe in the year 2006-7. 1 gig of RAM will be commonplace, and 3 gigHz
CPU also...and they will make considerable demands on the display/video
architecture, since the current one is horribly outdated.
Stick with XP and its upgrade. Longhorn will be a quantum leap. I hope.
describe in the year 2006-7. 1 gig of RAM will be commonplace, and 3 gigHz
CPU also...and they will make considerable demands on the display/video
architecture, since the current one is horribly outdated.
Stick with XP and its upgrade. Longhorn will be a quantum leap. I hope.
T
Travis King
It will be APPROACHING acrchaic in 2006-7, but if you want to talk about
archaic, use the old Compaq 5304 that still is surprisingly working with a
250MHz Cyrix CPU.
As for the 3GHz CPU, when will AMD be able to start making ones that fast?
archaic, use the old Compaq 5304 that still is surprisingly working with a
250MHz Cyrix CPU.
As for the 3GHz CPU, when will AMD be able to start making ones that fast?
C
CWatters
Travis King said:Does anybody have clues on what the potential requirements might be for
Longhorn?
Patience?
F
Furry Cat Herder
Travis King said:It will be APPROACHING acrchaic in 2006-7, but if you want to talk about
archaic, use the old Compaq 5304 that still is surprisingly working with a
250MHz Cyrix CPU.
As for the 3GHz CPU, when will AMD be able to start making ones that fast?
They already do. Don't confuse Intel's ultra-deep pipelines (31 stages in
their
newest processors) with AMD's slower cores and shallower pipelines. Intel
is digging a hole they will never be able to get out of, and the lack of
acceptance
of Itanium has cut off any hope they have of coming out with RISC'yer chips
with shorter pipelines and lower clockrates. I've not reviewed the current
patent awards in microprocessor design lately, but from what I've seen Intel
putting out on the market they are focusing on deeper pipelines and not
better
ways of using what they have already. I recently submitted a patent
application on a technique for improving pipeline scheduling -- something
Intel
would do well to consider.
A 3GHz Intel is a disaster waiting to happen if you stall your pipeline,
which
is why they came out with hyperthreading -- something I suggested doing in a
processor architecture class in 1983 or 1984. The instruction execution
engine is so damned slow because of the potential for stalls that adding the
ability to multi-task inside the processor was their only hope for keeping
the
CPU doing useful stuff. Hyperthreading, while useful, is an admission of
failure.
ANYHOW, come 2006-2007 top-of-the-line processors will be much
closer to 8 or 10 GHz P4 performance and a 3GHz P4 will be something you'd
be embarrassed to tell your friends you are still using. I run dual AMD 2K+
MPs
in my fast household box and assuming I can find a motherboard to support
something significantly faster, come 2006 or so I'll be running 2 or 4 of
whatever AMD has that's near-cutting-edge. Processor upgrades aren't all
that expensive anymore and new boxes are stuck in the sub-$1,000 range for
the rest of history of life on earth.
-- Julie.
T
Travis King
The only problem is both AMD and Intel will probably hit a wall sometime in
the future because you can only cram so many transistors into a CPU without
losing any current. Of course, I could be mistaken or they can basically
have them overclocked that far and have some enormous heatsink/fan and the
fan spins at 1 billion RPM's and beyond. Perhaps they'll some kind of
different materials to make CPUs out of so they don't get so hot or they
won't lose any current. lol.
the future because you can only cram so many transistors into a CPU without
losing any current. Of course, I could be mistaken or they can basically
have them overclocked that far and have some enormous heatsink/fan and the
fan spins at 1 billion RPM's and beyond. Perhaps they'll some kind of
different materials to make CPUs out of so they don't get so hot or they
won't lose any current. lol.
A
Alex Nichol
Travis said:Or would you think at least my computer would meet the requirements?
AMD Athlon XP 2400+ 2.2GHz CPU
512MB DDR RAM
128MB video card (AGP 4x) NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti200
200GB of hard disk space
16x DVD ROM drive (48x CD ROM)
32x Lite On CD RW drive
I'd have thought that would be in range, based on the requirements
suggested for the very early pre-alpha that was discussed at a
conference. Based on past history, where successive versions have
needed a doubling, with a bit more on for the processor to handle new
goodies, I'd say you are probably looking at 1GHz base, 1.5 or more for
reasonable performance, 512MB RAM and 20 GB disk - but that's just *my*
guess
D
David Svensson
Furry Cat Herder said:They already do. Don't confuse Intel's ultra-deep pipelines (31 stages in
their
newest processors) with AMD's slower cores and shallower pipelines. Intel
is digging a hole they will never be able to get out of
They already have got out of it.
Ever heard of Pentium M, Dothan, Banias?
Hyperthreading, while useful, is an admission of failure.
SMT is here to stay.
T
Travis King
I guess you're right. AMD's rated speeds may be rated lower than Intel, but
there's really no performance difference. AMD's also cheaper, so I think
that they are the better deal. Would this be a general rule of thumb to go
by? (though not exact) An Ahtlon XP 3000+ = an Intel P4 3GHz CPU. An
Athlon XP 2800+ = a 2.8GHz P4, and so on...
there's really no performance difference. AMD's also cheaper, so I think
that they are the better deal. Would this be a general rule of thumb to go
by? (though not exact) An Ahtlon XP 3000+ = an Intel P4 3GHz CPU. An
Athlon XP 2800+ = a 2.8GHz P4, and so on...
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.