news.yahoo.com — TechWeb compiled the Microsoft's stated requirements for each major Windows release since 1990's Windows 3.0. It also lists the average prices for desktop computer -- monitor included -- and portable PCs have been noted for all releases except Windows 3.0...
May 21, 2006 View in Crawl 4
cquinndMay 21, 2006
A minor note, those are not exponentially higher requirements. It certainly shows a skew on the previous geometric progression, but it is far belowwhat would be expected from an exponential jump IMO. And if you take Moore's "Law" into account over the same period as your graph, the system requirements could have been even higher if they had followed the actual growth of hardware performance.
zootmMay 21, 2006
"The same thing was said about Windows 2000 when it first came out. "Nah, Windows 2000 had a workstation version (Windows 2000 Professional, I think) and a server version (Windows 2000 Advanced Server), so it can be on the "workstation/desktop" list. Server 2003 is just a Server OS.
giloronMay 21, 2006
I have it ruining on an old laptop with a K6-2 366MHz and 160 MB of ram. It's not snappy, but it runs well enough.
superslothMay 21, 2006
millixaw: The latest build of Vista I saw (a March 2006 developers build) the internel version was "6.0". That might have changed, but I doubt it.
gizram84May 22, 2006
i'll never understand why people still use microsoft products....
vintechsysMay 22, 2006
I run a website on a 450mhz with 256 megs of ram. Windows Server 2003! .. Runs great. www.closetpc.com
elmigsMay 22, 2006
@eletromagnetic $800 for PC + $XXXX for de OS... ¡no thanks! I do think Vista would not be an overpriced hunk of plastic, but rather an overpriced hunk of BYTES...Btw when Vista ships out Xgl + compiz will be sein all linux flavors (including linpire), and maybe in the PS3 too.
jim7outMay 5, 2008
who comes up with these requirements anyway?<a class="user" href="http://vend1.vistavideos.info">http://vend1.vistavideos.info</a>