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

[kurttrail]

Pegasus (MVP) wrote:

Have you tried your hand at some programming
lately? Written any GUIs?

Doesn't have anything to do with what was asked. You have a obsession
with strawmen, don't you?

--
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'."

 

[Leythos]

"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

When I moved from 98 to 2000 I moved from 64MB RAM to 128MB RAM, and
then I leaned that I really wanted 256MB for most 2000 installs.

When I moved from 2000 to XP I moved from 128MB to 256MB and then I
learned that I relly needed 512MB to make XP happy.

When I move from XP to Vista I would expect the same cycle - a typical
Vista machine will be sold by most vendors with 512MB RAM, but it will
really need 1GB RAM to make it happy.

Oh, and the 800Mhz CPU or higher, that covers almost ever system sold in
the last three years - as it's hard to find anything under 2.6ghz any
more.

 

[Gary Walker]

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!

To second Gordon's analogy, although not W95, I do
run WME on a 700mhz system with 64mb. And it does
blaze along, at least in comparison to the XP systems
that I visit. However, many of these XP systems are
fresh from retail outlets, loaded with so much crap they
can hardly breathe. Once you get them cleaned up, they
can run briskly also.

Additionally, concerning Gordon's comment regarding
mainframe applications using 640K.... It is true that many
MF applications seem much more concise that do the
PC applications, but I think this may be caused in part
by the absolutely huge constructs that seem to result on
behalf of the PC compilers/linkers.

Also, I may have misinterpreted Gordon's 640K comm-
ent to suggest there existed a 640K limitation in the MF
world, as once existed in the PC environments. But, if
that implication was made, it's incorrect.

Thanks,

Gary

 

[Jone Doe]

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

Actually, with the exception of a troublesome troll, it's fairly quiet at
windowsvista.general at the moment.

 

[Plato]

"Minimum requirements for basic Vista include an 800 GHz or faster CPU
and 512MB of RAM."

http://abadasdcnews.go.com/Tdsereechnology/ZdsDM/stsory?id23r=1923477797

Next time post a MS link.

 

[Bob I]

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

 

[Alpha]

When I moved from 98 to 2000 I moved from 64MB RAM to 128MB RAM, and
then I leaned that I really wanted 256MB for most 2000 installs.

When I moved from 2000 to XP I moved from 128MB to 256MB and then I
learned that I relly needed 512MB to make XP happy.

When I move from XP to Vista I would expect the same cycle - a typical
Vista machine will be sold by most vendors with 512MB RAM, but it will
really need 1GB RAM to make it happy.

Oh, and the 800Mhz CPU or higher, that covers almost ever system sold in
the last three years - as it's hard to find anything under 2.6ghz any
more.

Note that the minimum requirements provide the 'basic experience'----a new
catch phrase entering MS parlance. For the Vista experience, you need a lot
more!!!!

 

[Pegasus \(MVP\)]

Pegasus (MVP) wrote:




Doesn't have anything to do with what was asked. You have a obsession
with strawmen, don't you?

In an ideal world you can afford to write tight code that
takes forever to get to the market. In the real world
you and Gordon will be squeezed out of the market by
your competitors who generate code quickly that requires
a tolerable amount of disk space.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

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

Anyone got an 800 Gigahertz CPU???

No, but then, one isn't required, is it? The news article you pointed
to clearly specified an 800 MHz CPU.

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

 

[Larry Samuels]

For Vista yes--for Aero not necessarily.

Aero scales to different levels dependent on video card capabilities, but
Glass or above have very hefty requirements to run smoothly while
multitasking the video card.

--
Larry Samuels Associate Expert
MS-MVP (2001-2005)
Unofficial FAQ for Windows Server 2003 at
http://pelos.us/SERVER.htm
Expert Zone-

 

[Larry Samuels]

Wait till you see everything that is included <G>

--
Larry Samuels Associate Expert
MS-MVP (2001-2005)
Unofficial FAQ for Windows Server 2003 at
http://pelos.us/SERVER.htm
Expert Zone-

 

[Larry Samuels]

Ever tried using Excel pivot tables in OO? Ever tried using DRM protection
of your docs to keep them from being edited, forwarded, or printed? Ever
tried to recall a message you sent by mistake?

While OO is a very good program for basic functions it comes nowhere near
Office or even Corel WP in features.

Comparing OO with Office in terms of features is like comparing MS Paint
with Corel Painter 9


--
Larry Samuels Associate Expert
MS-MVP (2001-2005)
Unofficial FAQ for Windows Server 2003 at
http://pelos.us/SERVER.htm
Expert Zone-

 

[John Waller]

No, but then, one isn't required, is it? The news article you pointed to

clearly specified an 800 MHz CPU.

It's been updated.

When I viewed it (in Australia on Friday afternoon), it read 800GHz which
was clearly a typo.

That's a downside of posting links to secondary sources.

 

[John Waller]

Note that the minimum requirements provide the 'basic experience'----a new

catch phrase entering MS parlance. For the Vista experience, you need a
lot more!!!!

Agreed although "Minimum Requirements" and "Recommended Requirements" have
been stated on websites and shrinkwrapped boxes for quite a while now.

 

[paulmd]

"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

I was hoping for a few chuckles at the typo, It's gone waaaay too
serious. Forget I mentioned it.

 

[Larry Samuels]

No reason to apologize--it was funny <G>
The thread drift is even funnier!

--
Larry Samuels Associate Expert
MS-MVP (2001-2005)
Unofficial FAQ for Windows Server 2003 at
http://pelos.us/SERVER.htm
Expert Zone-

 

[paulmd]

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.

No it won't. 9x has some bad juju going on above 512mb. Winnt wil be
ok.

OK so

 

[Gordon]

Ever tried using Excel pivot tables in OO?

Why should I? OO has it's own version of pivot tables that do exactly what
Excel pivot tables do, and anyway, intreoperability is not a function of
bloat, is it?

Ever tried using DRM protection
of your docs to keep them from being edited, forwarded, or printed?

Umm that's not an OFFICE function AFAIK, that';s a Server 2003
function......

Ever
tried to recall a message you sent by mistake?

I specifically stated that OO does not have a PIM!

While OO is a very good program for basic functions it comes nowhere near
Office or even Corel WP in features.

Rubbish. OO 2.02 is EASILY the equivalent of Office 2002

Comparing OO with Office in terms of features is like comparing MS Paint
with Corel Painter 9

Again absolute rubbish.

 

[Alpha]

Why should I? OO has it's own version of pivot tables that do exactly what
Excel pivot tables do, and anyway, intreoperability is not a function of
bloat, is it?



Umm that's not an OFFICE function AFAIK, that';s a Server 2003
function......



I specifically stated that OO does not have a PIM!


Rubbish. OO 2.02 is EASILY the equivalent of Office 2002

Absolute rubbish. Try animations in Powerpoint with sound.

They will fail miserably.

 

[Gordon]

Absolute rubbish. Try animations in Powerpoint with sound.

They will fail miserably.

Oh. Eye candy. Who needs that?