Vista System Requirements

i think by that time, 2 gb would b common, i hope so.

Before people get too rosy on Vista, people ought to know all about the Trusted Computing crap microsoft is going to include in this piece of software.. Who really wants to purchase an OS which limits user rights, degrades dvd playback quality without proprietary TCPA hardware, and tries to cripple open source development..

And for that reason alone I'll probably be sticking with XP and/or migrating to Unix/Linux.

TCPA / DRM hardware requirements that if you don't comply with degrade sound/video quality are ridiculous.

*points to sig*

Very well said Sabo. Very I buy the next Windows OS I will switch to a Mac. It will follow soon though as far as I know so the only way to avoid this is to not buy any of that crap.

Why would you go from an OS that works with all kinds of different hardware and stipulates you need to used apporved hardware for best quality, to an OS thats locked to whatever hardware they want you to have. It would be like going from having half freedom, to having no freedom at all.

quote:

---

Why would you go from an OS that works with all kinds of different hardware and stipulates you need to used apporved hardware for best quality, to an OS thats locked to whatever hardware they want you to have. It would be like going from having half freedom, to having no freedom at all.

---

Please get a clue before spreading this drivel. The only thing hooked to my Macs that has an Apple logo is my iPod.

I have an iMac G4/800 iLamp that has:
256MB SODIMM from IBM
Apple Keyboard (came with the box)
Microsoft Mouse
Epson Scanner
Epson R1800
Brother MFC-5440cn
Ambicom BT adapter
Palm
Maxtor FW drive

All work perfectly together and this has been the most stable system I've ever owned.

I also have a PB G4/1.67Ghz:
512MB SODIMM from K-Byte/Best Buy
MS mouse
All the above

And the wife has an old iBook G3/800:
512MB SODIMM from Crucial
All the above

As a matter of fact all the stuff I throw at my Macs just works. And works well. Nothing about approved hardware, no OS locking, etc.

Please buy a clue before spreading this BS.

Apart from the fact that the OS only runs on hardware from the OS vendor, you mean?

quote:

---

Apart from the fact that the OS only runs on hardware from the OS vendor, you mean?

---

So? I want to run OSX, so I buy a Mac from Apple. Simple, really. And don't even get started on the "price" thing - Apple's machines are generally full-featured machines not really comparable to the POS low end Dells.

It's just that simple - you want the OS, you get the whole package. And that whole package has reliability that the Wintel world can only dream of. I have no issues with my Apples - upgrade the OS and just keep on rolling.

My wife's iBook is on the factory install of OSX - has been upgraded along the way (IIRC it shipped with 10.2) to Tiger and is still rock solid. How many Wintels can say that?

I work in IT and support Windows day by day. I use a Thinkpad that has had a clean Windows XP install about 6-9 months ago. Guess what? It's starting to have issues and minor glitches. Compare that to my iMac which shipped with 10.1, was upgraded to 10.2, and 10.3 and working fine until the HD died (replaced under AppleCare). You would never upgrade a 98 machine to ME and then XP and expect it to work fine....

It's the same thing as - I want a Corvette. I have no choice but to buy it with a GM engine, even though I may wand the COrvette body with a Ford GT500 engine in it.

Call a spade a spade. The same name-brand parts that go into a Dell, go into a Mac. There isn't any "magic" because it's got an Apple sticker on it. What is known is that Mac does charge a premium overhead for their products, unlike Dell who has to compete in a cut-throat market. This is shown by Apple's large profitability, despite their low desktop market share.I've seen plenty of older Wintel computers chugging away after years of use as well. What's your point?

Well I have a custom built computer using Windows XP Professional with SP2. With my last few dollars I bought Office XP Professional. would it be good enough to run Windows Vista with what my computer has???

1) Soyo SY-P4VGM v1.0 Motherboard

2) Intel Celeron D 2.66GHz 533MHz FSB 256 KB Level 2 Advanced Transfer Cache full speed with Hyper Pipeline Technology

3) 1GB of RAM

4) 320GBs of Hard Drive

5) 1.44MB Floppy Drive

6) Liteon DVD+/-R /+/-RW Drive
DVD+R 16x (21600 KB/sec)
DVD+R DL 4x (5400 KB/sec)
DVD+RW 8x (10800 KB/sec)
DVD-R 16x (21600 KB/sec)
DVD-RW 6x (8100 KB/sec)
DVD-ROM 16x (2100 KB/sec)
CD-R 48x (7200 KB/sec)
CD-RW 24x (3600 KB/sec)
CD-ROM 48x (7200 KB/sec)

7) ATI 9200 SE 128MB PCI Video Card

8) I/O Magic 52x24x52/16x CD-RW @ DVD-ROM COMBO Drive
CD-R 52x (7800 KB/sec)
CD-RW 24x (3600 BK/sec)
CD-ROM 52x (7800 KB/sec)
DVD-ROM 16x (1200 KB/sec)

8) Belkin PCI Hi-Speed 5 Port USB 2.0

9) Leadtek TV2000XP/EXPERT PCI Interface TV/FM Tuner Card

I'd say so...however, I probably would've saved the few dollars spent on a license for Office XP, and gone w/ OpenOffice. With that money, ya could've plunked down for a P4 to that rig.

When my sister Tracy was going to North West College she was able to get me Windows XP Professional for $15 and Office XP Professional at only $15 as well. At only $30 it was a deal to good to let go of and just had to get my hands on. Keep your stick on the ice. That is why I went with Office XP Professional. Why would I want to buy and use OpenOffice???

Because to most of us who pay retail, or even close to it, Open Source & Free > Office XP. With the next-gen of authentication/DRM coming from Microsoft's Vista, I feel no real need to throw them any more of my money. D/Ling OO and sending them the $15 would've been a better use of the funds, from my perspective.

I wouldn't be too worried about windows vista. Xp works too good for anyone to really want to upgrade. Especially with their crazy amount of versions all of which cost too much to justify an OS that recommends 1gb of ram. I mean performance wise, why get an OS that needs so many resources?

Its the new Vista Solitare & Minesweeper. They're totally worth the uprade, and need the 2GB of RAM.

Try again. Apple's Intel chip developer kits are shipping with DRM chips as well, so it appears as though Linux will be the only savior for a non-DRM system.

I definately wouldn't use an OS that limits what I want to do with my media, but I'm fairly confident that any DRM will be quickly overcome just like it has been every other time.

Until the hackers pick it apart and remove the crap.

For Trusted Computing to work the software relies on hardware level encryption between system components using a large encryption cypher.. I'm no expert, but from what I've read this is not something that will be easily bypassed or defeated.. Personally, I wouldn't underestimate and dismiss the threat TC will have on all PC users in the years to come..

Don't bother. The man obviously doesn't have the IQ to understand what's really going on and what's at stake.

I said similar things about windows XP to what I'm saying now about Vista - DON'T USE IT. (unless you want to forward M$'s agenda)

Using Pirated Windows XP is just as bad as using licensed Windows XP. Either way you're giving it market share and convincing devs to move toward it while abandoning support for older software.

If no one moves off of 98/me/2000 you'd better bet your life that's what devs will code for.

yea by the time they get this thing to shelves every computer dell sells will have 2gb of ram sitting in it.....

No... a Dell will come with 512MB, but they will recommend a upgrade to 2 gigs for more money. (Their marketing strategy)

I think those requirements are getting a little out of hand. I can manage 512 on XP very well. Does this mean the new OS well be bloated with to many choices and options running.

"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."

I guess it depends on what they mean by "ideally" and "minimum." It seems like one of the bigger hogging features is the maximum quality graphic interface. So it depends on if they are talking about having the max GUI with a minimum of 512MB, or whether that is on the classic interface.

"However, since 64-bit is handling data chunks that are double the size, you'll need double the memory, hence the 2GB."
WTF? I call bullsh!t on that.
Data is data. It doesn't matter if you process it with a 64-bit CPU or a 32-bit CPU or a 16-bit CPU. The only thing having 64 bits changes is the amount of total memory you can address and the size of the biggest big number you can store as a single unit.

It's BS mostly, but if they WERE really using 64 bit data types for everything(really stupid and unnecessary) then it would take twice the memory.

Yeah. That would just be bad coding.

And this is produced by a company which is famous for the best coding in the business, so no worries there. Yes, of course I am being sarcastic.

What? A 64 bit register for a boolean data type isn't better?

Know any hardware that has 1-bit general registers?

I haven't yet read the linked article, and I know I should FIRST, but I am going to chime in. All the documentation I have received through my Microsoft Gold Partner & White Box channels, they are stating that it's 1GB, not 2GB.

1GB isn't much in cost. If you buy it retail at a white box retailer you can get it for about $100.00 while 256 is retailing on average for $22 - $29.00. Now, if one wants to be a sucker and pay bloated prices for memory (for a bloated O/S) then they are more than welcome to go to Best Buy or Comp USA or the likes and over pay.

Edit: Ok, just read the article.. I like this guys attitude. Anyway.. what I ultimately see here is that Vista, though it's nice that MS is finally leaping forward to bring us something modern and with some kick - great, but by the time anyone can afford this or the prices come down to a reasonable retail price, the O/S will be outdated and probably in end-of-life.

And to close in this guys words, Hollywood, STFU! heh

I use 512mb on XP as well. I think the "2gb optimal" thing is really not so much for the operating system, but rather the games that will be out at that time. Several of the games that are out today are getting close to that.

Indeed. A lot of newer current games can take advantage of 2GB of ram. My vid card is plenty fast enough for BF2 but if I turn up the details high with only 1GB of ram I still get 80 FPS but it kind of stutters a bit, because it jumps to like 1.3 gigs of ram usage. Whereas on my lower settings it uses just under a gig.

I have it on my Dell Latitude D610 1.7 Pentium M laptop with 1GB and a 40GB drive.

Working ok for the most part, as good as XP.

I've got 2 GB already but if they put that trusted computing shit in there I'll pass.

Ditto!

That's the kicker, the Untrusted Computing BS!

I should be ready for a new desktop CPU by end of next year, so these requirements shouldn't be an issue for me. And my laptop already has a 64 bit AMD CPU, so even that will get by for what I use the laptop for.

This seems more like wild speculation than anything else. This makes absolutely no sense:

quote:

---

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

---

Data is data, whether you operate on it in 64-bit chunks or not. If you are working on a 48MB image in Photoshop, it's still 48MB under a 64 bit architecture. There may be some more wasted memory due to optimizations that align allocated data to 64-bit boundaries and perhaps bigger pointers, but that won't come anywhere close to doubling your data usage.

Until I'm a billionaire.

I think Microsoft held off Longhorn Vista for far too long. Most corporations, consumers, and others have already decided that XP is fault-free enough to not need an upgrade (especially if it has lasted this long). 4~5 years?

I know - for me - I shall not upgrade to Microsoft Vista for at least a year for the sake of bugs, viruses, and trojans ... oh my.

quote:

---

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.

---

So basically, Dell, Gateway, HP, and any other major computer manufactures are going to have to start putting MUCH better graphics cards in their systems? i doubt that will happen, unless they buy up all the old GF2's with 256MB:D

I guess Vista will be the end of non-gamers using 64MB GF4 cards
I just hope the 2GB of ram is not SOLELY for Vista.. that's a bunch for just an OS

Reposted the quote, since that's more what I'm responding to.

I don't want to touch off an Apple vs. MS war, but I found that intriguing. As some may or may not know, in 10.4 Apple started toying with this idea. It is still not enabled by default, but I've manually switched on what Apple calls "Quartz 2D Extreme" which does exactly what MS is proposing with Vista. It is best explained by this excellent write-up on Ars Technica:

»arstechnica.com/reviews/ ··· 4.ars/14 (link to the page that explains Quartz 2D Extreme)

What I find odd is that along with all these extra resources needed for Vista (mainly CPU and memory), that their version of this "push all the eye candy to the GPU" feature does not actual decrease needed resources to some extent. What I find when running with Apple's equivalent enabled is that overall screen response is much zippier, and more importantly memory and cpu resources are taxed less since everything's being pushed off to the video card. In other words, this one Vista feature *should* be lowering some of the requirements, and if it does, what exactly is going to be chewing up all that CPU, memory and drive horsepower? And I wonder if maybe a 256MB video card isn't overkill. My G5 has a mediocre 64MB NVidia, and it's able to use the GPU acceleration just fine.

Regardless, the Vista users are going to get a nice treat from this graphics engine I think. I can tell the difference with the Mac equivalent here. It's cool to see all this eye candy going on and watch the CPU basically idling. Hopefully MS will have a toggle so you can see the difference.

so much for 640k being enough:D

»www.wired.com/news/polit ··· ,00.html

You shouldn't need that much ram or any system resouces just take "Full advantage" of the OS Windows is just bloat ware more and more with every version.

It's just a way for M$ to help out the pc makers and hardware makers. Once support for XP ends, you'll see huge profit margins because of consumer upgrades. I see Linux gaining popularity.

Holy @$$!#$@! crap...2 gigs...I know theres the whole theory that by the time Vista comes out, that this will be typical, but consider the minimum requirements as we progressed thru the Os's. I know at least for me, this is what made each OS feel comfortable. 98 was fine with 64, 2000 with 128, XP with 512. I -guess- 2 gigs doesnt seem that out of the way. But what about those of us who only have two slots for RAM x_x...
I dun wanna chuck my Corsair sticks, they were expensive then, still expensive now o_O;;

And why do u need NCQ? Why dont they just say that SCSI is a viable substitute? I got my 4 gig in the closet ready to go >P.

DRM in Windows Media gives you a big performance hit. I'd imagine everything MS wants to cram into the OS is going to tax both the CPU and memory. So you'll need more firepower to do what you're doing now with all the new restrictions placed on it. Plus the inevitable new fluffy eye candy will take up memory and computer resources.

We barely see computers from retailers with 256 megs of ram and a 3 ghz proc.

The optimum system would costs upwards of 2,500 dollars.

Once people realize that Vista runs slower on the pc they choose they'll likely just ask the builder to put XP on it.

Builders may not even offer it on the low end systems and that would make Vista seem like a premium on higher end computers.

Works out great for Linux IMO.

well around $1,300+ gives u a not that obsolete system

well it's about time windows will use it

...in the intervening period between now and Windows (hasta la) Vista's release.

I am currently hating Apple because of their recent upping of system requirements for iTunes. They upped their system requirements, I say "up yours." (Both my iBook and my Blue-and-white G3 minitower are officially unsupported by iTunes now. ) However:

1.) Apple is moving to Intel architecture, and Tiger will be ready for the move. Hell, people are using less-than-legal copies on white-box PCs now, and official Apple developers are running on especially configured P4 white boxen. Likely chip in the new MacIntels will be Pentium M Yonah.

2.) Apple has already said it will support Intel's hardware virtualization technologies. It won't give official support for Windows on MacIntel, but it won't prevent it either.

3.) Say what you will about Mac OS X, but so far its security profile has been much healthier than anything Microsoft has to offer. Running even an insecure version of Windows in the protective cocoon of a Mac OS X virtual machine will be the best way to maintain Windows compatibility without security compromise. Windows 2000 forever is a definite possibility with such a setup.

4.) Apple's take on DRM has been more rational and less restrictive than most. Sure, iTunes DRM is annoying and a completely unencumbered system would be far better, but the xxAAs would not have allowed iTunes to exist without FairPlay. It is likely that Apple's version of HD content play will be far less invasive and easier to work with than the DRM for HD content in (hasta la) Vista.

I hate Apple today, but I hate them less than Microsoft. Sure, an en-masse switch to Debian GNU/Linux would be glorious, but that is not bloody likely. So I suspect that there will be a tidal wave of Switch-ers come the release of the MacIntels. Think Different indeed.

Odd. I'd think something as simple as playing/recording MP3s wouldn't have scaling hardware requirements, as the procedures to do so stay the same. Sounds like iTunes has fallen under the same bloatware philosophies of Windows.I dunno. I've seen bug/exploit reports from both camps, yet Apple stays safe currently large-in-part due to its minority. Zealots, say what you will, but until we see Apple at any kind of significant market share of desktops, there is no incentive for ad/spy/malware innovators to target them. Why put forth the effort to target 3-5% of your audience, when you can devote just as much time and effort in targeting 95%?Again, time will tell. Development versions of the next-gen Intel OS X are shipping w/ the same hardware DRM, so Apple's not clear of going the way of Trusted Computing either just yet. As it stands now, Linux seems to be the most viable option for a limits-free computer in the near future, due to open source. Even if someone implemented hardware DRM support, it could just as easily be removed, and DRM-free distros would hit the 'net lickety quick.

Hmmm.... well lets see:
V -- viruses
I -- infestations
S -- spyware
T -- trojans
A -- adware

Guess you now have a good idea why you need 2 GB of RAM and a very fast machine....

For those that want the "Special" extra cost add ons there is VISTA M.

M -- malware included

LOL

Scary isn't it.

It's bloated with useless sh*t for people who don't know how to use a PC. It's n00b friendly.

at lest with my computer i got sata drive's

and 2GB of PC4800

hard drives: 500GB +160GB and 80GB
and i have a PCi-E card
all i will have to do is upgrade my cpu to an dual core