MS Announces Vista System requirements, but there's a catch....

  • Thread starter Thread starter paulmd
  • Start date Start date
Trax said:
|>"Minimum requirements for basic Vista include an 800 GHz or faster CPU
|>and 512MB of RAM."
|>
|>http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ZDM/story?id=1977797

Vista upgrade advisor (kinda early one would think)
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/upgradeadvisor/default.mspx

Direct link to file VistaUpgradeAdvisor.msi
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=65926&clcid=0x409

You have to actually install it...
Click to expand...

Check the quote a bit more carefully and you'll find the catch.....

Anyone got an 800 Gigahertz CPU???
 
|>
|>Trax wrote:
|>>
|>> |>"Minimum requirements for basic Vista include an 800 GHz or faster CPU
|>> |>and 512MB of RAM."
|>> |>
|>> |>http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ZDM/story?id=1977797
|>>
|>> Vista upgrade advisor (kinda early one would think)
|>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/upgradeadvisor/default.mspx
|>>
|>> Direct link to file VistaUpgradeAdvisor.msi
|>> http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=65926&clcid=0x409
|>>
|>> You have to actually install it...
|>>
|>
|>Check the quote a bit more carefully and you'll find the catch.....
|>
|>Anyone got an 800 Gigahertz CPU???

Ahh good one, wish I'd of caught it :) miss'd it by a G

<looks around for an out>..... hear Symantec filed a lawsuit against
Microsoft? http://tinyurl.com/lmhmk
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003003687_websymantec18.html
 
"Minimum requirements for basic Vista include an 800 GHz or faster CPU
and 512MB of RAM."

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ZDM/story?id=1977797
Click to expand...

Here is what the Microsoft link says:

Q. What is required to run Windows Vista?
A. If you purchased a PC in the last two years, chances are good that you
can run Windows Vista today. To install and run the core functionality of
Windows Vista, you need:
a.. An 800 MHz processor.
b.. 512 MB of RAM.
c.. A 20 GB hard drive with 15 GB of free space.
It seems the good people from PC Magazine do not know the
difference between MHz and GHz.
 
Check the quote a bit more carefully and you'll find the catch.....
Anyone got an 800 Gigahertz CPU???
Click to expand...

Obviously a typo on the ABC News website.

The Microsoft website says 800MHz, which seems a reasonable requirement for
a barebones Vista experience albeit it won't run Aero (as I understand it).
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/systemrequirements.mspx

Seems that today's entry level 3GHz+ with 1GHz RAM and 100GB+ hard drive
machines should be OK for Vista + Aero.
 
John said:
Obviously a typo on the ABC News website.

The Microsoft website says 800MHz, which seems a reasonable requirement
for a barebones Vista experience albeit it won't run Aero (as I understand
it).
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/systemrequirements.mspx

Seems that today's entry level 3GHz+ with 1GHz RAM and 100GB+ hard drive
machines should be OK for Vista + Aero.
Click to expand...

I wonder why MS concentrates on BLOAT rather than EFFICIENCY?
 
Gordon said:
Nothing - I was commenting on the required disk space.......
Click to expand...

These days the cost of hard disk space is around $1.00 per GByte,
Vista would therefore consume about $20.00 worth of disk space.
DOS required about 5 MBytes which cost around $20.00 back in
1987. Seeing that you are into accounting, do you see a big issue
here?
 
I wonder why MS concentrates on BLOAT rather than EFFICIENCY?

What makes you think they're not focused on efficiency?
 
Davy said:
Wonder how many patches this time.. and how many problems like the Xp
patches created...?

Davy
Click to expand...

I hope somebody has got -msnews.windowsvista.general/basics/newusers,
already set-up to go.
I bet it will be even busier than XP was.

Antioch
 
Pegasus said:
These days the cost of hard disk space is around $1.00 per GByte,
Vista would therefore consume about $20.00 worth of disk space.
DOS required about 5 MBytes which cost around $20.00 back in
1987. Seeing that you are into accounting, do you see a big issue
here?
Click to expand...

That doesn't answer the question, but is rather an evasion of the
question. Please try again.

The answer is to my estimation, is that MS OS's get more and more
bloated due to the fact that they try to make each one compatible with
old technology. Making sure that the Wheel 1.0 still works.

--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."
 
kurttrail said:
The answer is to my estimation, is that MS OS's get more and more
bloated due to the fact that they try to make each one compatible with
old technology. Making sure that the Wheel 1.0 still works.
Click to expand...

But it's not just the OS. As an advanced Excel User and medium level user of
Word, Powerpoint and Access, I find that I can do everything I need with
Open Office 2.02. Open Office 2.02 is 212 MB on disk. Given that Office
2003 has Outlook, WHY is Office 2003 DOUBLE the size of Open Office? It
certainly has VERY little more functionality than OO, part from Outlook,
and you can't tell me that Outlook takes up *200* odd MB?
 
Pegasus (MVP) wrote:

These days the cost of hard disk space is around $1.00 per GByte,
Vista would therefore consume about $20.00 worth of disk space.
DOS required about 5 MBytes which cost around $20.00 back in
1987. Seeing that you are into accounting, do you see a big issue
here?
Click to expand...


Yes. It's nothing to do with the cost of disk space but all to do with
sloppy and inefficient coding! If you run an OS like (say) Windows 95 on a
modern 3 GHz processor with 1GB RAM it will ABSOLUTELY BLAZE along. OK so
W95 wasn't a particularly good OS, but even W2K in many people's eyes is
faster than XP on the same hardware because the code isn't as bloated and
is more efficient. To extrapolate, look at the hugely intricate programs
that ran on mainframes, using only 640k of memory! Just because huge
amounts of memory and disk space are now available does NOT mean the
programmers HAVE to use all the available space!
 
Gordon said:
Pegasus (MVP) wrote:




Nothing - I was commenting on the required disk space.......
Click to expand...

I suspect it's a side effect of including everything the users expect to
find in the Operating system.
 
Gordon said:
Pegasus (MVP) wrote:




Yes. It's nothing to do with the cost of disk space but all to do with
sloppy and inefficient coding! If you run an OS like (say) Windows 95 on a
modern 3 GHz processor with 1GB RAM it will ABSOLUTELY BLAZE along. OK so
W95 wasn't a particularly good OS, but even W2K in many people's eyes is
faster than XP on the same hardware because the code isn't as bloated and
is more efficient. To extrapolate, look at the hugely intricate programs
that ran on mainframes, using only 640k of memory! Just because huge
amounts of memory and disk space are now available does NOT mean the
programmers HAVE to use all the available space!
Click to expand...

Infficient in terms of disk space: Yes. In terms of programming
time: No. You could write all of Windows in assembly code
and create incredibly tight code but it would never see the light
of the day. Have you tried your hand at some programming
lately? Written any GUIs?
 
Back
Top