What is Digg?164 Comments
- theblackgecko, on 10/12/2007, -11/+75By the time Vista comes out, computers will have 10 GHz processors and 32 GB of RAM, so I'm not worried.
- tzmguitarist, on 10/12/2007, -7/+48does anyone remember when windows 2000 came out? it was front-page on just about every tech magazine that they would require you to have at LEAST 600MB free for the Operating System? They were comparing with 3.1 and 95 and how for the first time you would be REQUIRED to have a 1GB hard drive if you wanted to do any sort of normal computing. And... *gasp* you had to have at LEAST 32MB of RAM - 64 was recommended and you REALLY needed 128MB if you wanted to do any sort of real work.
This is growth and it is normal. People still running Windows 95 and 98 don't need to upgrade if they don't want to... they've ignored the past 4 releases by M$ anyhow. - quadvods, on 10/12/2007, -10/+47From source:
Minimum Requirements (Vista-Capable PCs):
* 800 MHz Intel-compatible processor
* 512MB of RAM
* DirectX 9.0-Capable Graphics Processor
* 20GB HD
Recommended Requirements (Premium-Ready PCs):
* 1 GHz Intel-compatible processor
* 1GB RAM
* DirectX 9.0-Capable Graphics Processor, with 128MB graphics memory. (64MB of graphics memory to support a single monitor less than 1,310,720 pixels [no more than 1440x900]; 128MB of graphics memory to support a single monitor at resolutions from 1,310,720 to 2,304,000 pixels [no more than 1920x1200]; 256MB of graphics memory to support a single monitor at resolutions higher than 2,304,000 pixels [more than 1920x1200]).
* 40GB HD with at least 15GB "free space" - aldenhg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34Dude, he put in a winky face. What more do you want?
- merr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27@ilyag The following dialog played out in my head after I read your comment.
Mac User: "F**k Micro$oft and everything they create. hehe... Winblows"
Me: "But, you have MS Office on your Mac."
Mac User: "Yeah, but it's Office:mac, so it's automatically better."
Steve Jobs: "We are making it possible for you to run Windows on our machines."
Mac User: "Damn. I need to get on that *****!"
Before you bury me, know that I use a Mac every day and like it far more than my Dell/Windows machine. I have nothing against Macs, just the mentality of a lot of people that use them. - SDawg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29Here is a link directly to the "MINIMUM" requirements on Microsoft's website. The article left out some of the requirements. This thing is looking more like a resource hog every day.
(Minimum) = http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/systemrequirements.mspx
(Recommended) = http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/capable.mspx - ebob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25Remember that these are only the recommended minimum requirements. As some may recall, Windows XP had the following minimum requirements:
* PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended
*128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
*1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space
*Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor
*CD-ROM or DVD drive
*Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
Now can anyone imagine running Windows XP on a machine with those specs? I installed XP on my uncle's old computer (300 Mhz Pentium II) and it was painfully slow. I wound up setting up the machine for dual boot with Edubuntu (he was planning to let his grandkids use it).
The point that I am trying to make is that I suspect that running Vista on a machine with the recommended specs will probably be much like running XP on a machine with its recommended specs. For a satisfactory experience, more powerful hardware will be required. - xerox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23my 900mhz athlon with 256mb ram in the closet can run vista.... its not that big of a deal. it has beta 1 on it right now.
- SUPERTOY, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22try deleting some pron!
- bonked, on 10/12/2007, -20/+37Wow - look at the obvious bloat... sure most of us on Digg could run it no sweat, but Joe Customer out there is gonna be hard pressed. Hell, in my job it is tough to get most of the clients to upgrade to 512MB as a minimum spec to run our software, glad to see that Microsoft is finally creating some room for other operating systems in the marketplace.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22inkswamp: "Does Vista offer comparable benefits?"
Don't Mac fanboys always complain that Microsoft stole all of Apple's OS innovations and put them into Vista? WTF mate? Make up your minds! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16At last some sense. people need to understand this is not a big deal, its called progression.
- fahrvergnuugen, on 10/12/2007, -22/+36@ furtwan1
That's because Vista - Aero Glass = XP ;) - mikedpirone, on 10/12/2007, -9/+23All he did was copy and paste....thats exactly the specs the article says.
- 1101, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23Damn Small Linux (DSL) will run off 50MB HDD, it barely needs any ram (32 is probably the minimum I've used), it automatically configures hardware on boot in less time then it takes XP to boot (on my computer anyway), best of all it comes with a stack of programs (that aren't *****) built in, and free modules are available from a menu that automatically install.
Vista is pure bloat, XP is damn bloaty too and it annoys the ***** outta me. The whole OS is a giant patch-up of problems. Vista's graphics requirements are too stupid for words to express, who the hell needs it?
failing that who even wants it, what a stupid waste of resources to make things look nice. It just slows everything down to a grind.
I'm looking forward to the prices of these "Vista Premium" compatible PC's. - furtwan1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I can confirm this too.
Vista runs on XP hardware assuming u dont turn on Aero Glass. - akinder, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17And now cue the masses bitching about how "extreme" the requirements are ( especially the 512MB of Ram ), while on a Firefox story they'll bash anyone talking about the memory leaks saying "Whatever, EVERY computer has at least 512mb of Ram in it now, if you don't you suck".
- ujjwal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10You make the common mistake of assuming that there is just a single digg user who is responsible for both your observations.
- dWhisper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10A DX9 discreet video card is required for support of the AERO Glass graphics interface and 3D browsing.
- furtwan1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14the 15 GB is probably because file indexing is enabled by default... You can turn that off if you're too cheap to pay the extra $15 for larger hard drive space
- suckfone, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17 And by then, you'll need SLIed PPU's just to push its useless eye-candy.
- mpancha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I disagree. OSX *can* run on lower hardware, but just like XP running on minimum specs, it is a horrible experience. My first iBook was the first generation iBook 2001, running 10.0. It was the most piss poor experience ever. My current iBook is a G4 1.2Ghz, w/728 MB RAM, and it runs, it runs decently, but it does not run as speedily as I expect from a computing experience.
I tried Ubuntu Linux on a G3 iMac 333 mhz processor, 160 mB Ram. To turn on that computer from power off up to having a FF windows open to the homepage (google.com) took over 5 minutes.
Antareus is right in his statement about modern OSes and their memory requirements.
as for the zealot comment >> I couldn't read a lot of good comments b/c they were modded down simply for being pro Windows. The zealots really make the digg experience worse and worse each day. I miss the days when digg.com was a site for the tech enthusiast, and not just the fanboy. - Sottozero, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Guys, I know I'll be buried for this, but the only real choices you have other than Vista are other MS operating systems and OSX. And that's where it ends for 99.5% of people, if you want to be honest with yourself.
Don't even try to tell me about Linux on the desktop. It's a total non-starter, and it will be for quite some time, if not forever. If OSX isn't compelling to Joe and Jane Sixpack, Linux will never be. Applications are wonky, the interface sucks (and yes, I've seen the lastest XGL stuff and even the previews of what's to come, and both OSX and Vista just simply destroy it), and it's far too complex for the average user to USE, let alone troubleshoot.
LOTD is great for hobbyists and enthusiasts, but it will never catch on. Again: it. will. never. catch. on.
Bury me now, but five years down the road when Vista owns the market and OSX is the only real choice out there that makes a lick of sense to the standard, average user, you will see. LOTD died in utero, and it's never going to get another chance.
Sorry, but them's the facts. Now for servers, Linux is another story entirely.
Bury away. - tsupersonic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Hardware requirements are very flexible. I've run XP on 300 MHz systems w/ the bare minimum 64MB RAM, but once you put in more RAM, it becomes happier. Vista takes it to a new level with the graphics card requirements. Where XP could be happy with an integerated graphics card, Vista wants a dedicated graphics card to run Aero and I think the latest Intel Integrated graphics, 950 I believe can run Vista too.
This is going to be interesting with laptops because most laptops feature some kind of integrated graphics card. I don't see how dedicated graphics card w/ aero turned off can save battery life. The hardware really has to evolve a step further to make Vista run smooth. I think most hardware vendors will still ship with XP when Vista comes out since most of them have weak graphics card. Even the high end systems you buy from bestbuy have pretty weak dedicated graphics card. I hope they have some way for noteeboks to get better battery life w/ Vista because those are some hardware requirements. - MilitantRabbit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7My desktop will be able to run Vista and seemingly nothing else.
- Lagged2Death, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7It used to be that the OS was mostly a way to run applications, and it was the applications (some of them) that made big system resource demands.
Now the OS itself is by far the most resource-intensive piece of software most desktop PC users run. With enough RAM, even a Pentium I has enough power to run a bloated commercial office suite. But it won't even run the next-generation program loader? Is this really progress? - ziadoz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Linux will never be an alternative to Windows as long as its unfriendly to the user and complicated to use, I don't see those issues being resolved any time soon.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6pozzoe, there's more to Vista than just 'eye candy.'
- ogletree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5MS gets it's OS out on new computers mostly. This will raise the price of Dells cheapest computer. The demand for RAM will go up as well.
- MadOgre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5That's a lot of hardware just for the the OS. I'm one of the guys that think the OS is the foundation you build on... I don't want my OS to razzledazzle me... The OS isn't the killer ap. The Applications that run on the OS is what I want to entertain me and make me feel better about myself. I don't just turn on my system and play with the OS and stare at the wallpaper.
That's what I have a TV for.
Gotta give MS credit though... creating the OS as the killer ap. - Purdy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5How about these original requirements?
Microsoft is expected to recommend that the "average" Longhorn PC feature a dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz; a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM; up to a terabyte of storage; a 1 Gbit, built-in, Ethernet-wired port and an 802.11g wireless link; and a graphics processor that runs three times faster than those on the market today.
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1581842,00.asp - RogueX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6dude, just get a cheap video card
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11[quote]That 15GB must be for the virtual memory.[/quote]
It is for all the DRM they are putting in. - dWhisper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Perspective is a funny thing. When XP launched, most systems had 64 to 128, and the OS ran acceptably on 256, since that was a healthy upgrade. 512 is still the most common configuration on shipping systems, and when you're not stressing a system with a half dozen open programs, runs it perfectly.
- jpeckinp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5My Pentium D 830 doesn't qualify. It tells me my CPU is 0.00 ghz :)
- rooke, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I read that article... and am amazed. The person can't imagine running XP on 512MB of RAM? I ran XP on 512 for over a year... with no noticeable issues. If I had my DVR recording in the background, AutoCAD running, and decided to edit a photoshop document, then I noticed slowdown. I upgraded to 1GB of RAM and have to be honest I haven't noticed that much of a difference.
- KingAdrock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Hopefully Beta 2 will be released soon -- I heard the last build was "almost beta2"
- steyr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@ ziadoz
Linux is pretty user-friendly, I think much more than windows simply because there's a lack of self-installing spy-ware.
I know a few people who use Linux in my area, several I recommended it to, and they don't have a problem. These are the basically PC illiterate people, but they run Linux basically fine. I do have to help them occasionally, but I don't know everything about it. Now the people who have windows are the ones constantly in need of repair and cleaning. Many of them know how to disinfect their systems, but the stuff keeps coming back, and they get frustrated. I'd say windows is more complicated because of the mess of spy-ware.
Sure, the command line isn't the most user-friendly thing in the world, but its not overly difficult. It just takes a bit of time to get used to it. I encourage Linux to many people because its easier to keep a PC usable (i.e., without malware).
I do suggest windows for gaming, of course (for now). And I'm no Linux fan-boy, my main PC uses XP, but my file server uses Linux. - MatttK, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7These specs really aren't that high if you're buying a new, retail computer next year.
For those who are complaining about the bloat, you need to realize that Windows is not aimed at you, who sees no requirement for anything beyond the command line.
And I'm pretty sure you can turn off the new interface manually, so it isn't that bad.
The fact is, the average person has a computer that is a lot more powerful than they'll ever need. Microsoft might as well take advantage of that power to give THE AVERAGE USER (i.e. nobody at Digg) a better experience. - jsg7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Like I said, if you'd bothered to read my post "normal users haven't a clue what to do in there, much less how to get there". It isn't user friendly from the perspective of a normal person. It's trivial for geeks or even reasonably advanced users, but that's not exactly the vast majority.
Do you seriously think that if grandma could even figure out how to get into msconfig or services.msc she's have a clue what to do??? - dolson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8o/~ Microsoft, ***** YA! Comin' again to raise the ***** requirements! o/~
- ZoomBoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Technically, you don't even need to meet the min requirements, it just will run a bit slower than usual. For instance, I ran XP on my P3 500mhz with 256MB of old ass RAM and a Voodoo PCI card, yes you read right. And this was just less than 4 months ago, now my new rig is a dream and I can't wait to throw Vista at it.
- raccettura, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wow, I wonder what this will do to the laptop market.
There are still a ton (likely majority) with 64MB Graphics cards (or less). - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3new windows releases use next gen specifications, news at 11
- cptspanky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3i don't see why microsoft doesn't just cut out a bunch of the tools that no one ever uses, and then just puts them up for download on their site. it would cut down a LOT on the size of the OS and make it easier for older computers to handle. if someone wants a tool that badly, they just would have to take a quick trip to microsoft.com and get it.
- Rabid_Llama, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I simply cannot wrap my head around WHY this operating system needs resources like this. A full GIG of memory for the OS? That's a pretty frickin' huge memory space for just the operating system, I can only hope that means "to run big applications on Vista...". 15 GB of harddrive space -- that's just silly, unless it also includes all of the page memory, but even then, that's between 5 and 10 GB of pages on the harddrive, not counting the stuff in actual memory. And the graphics card requirements are completely idiotic. What kind of hacked-up graphics ***** are they using? Is it not done in Direct3D? I mean, you need 64 megs of graphics memory just to push a million and a half pixels? There's plenty of games that run at playable rates at 1600X1200 on a card like that when you turn some details down. But this isn't a fancy-looking 3D game we're talking about here, it's an operating system. What the hell. I can't get over the feeling that Vista will hog any and all resources on a machine.
- pozzoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Ok, I already have the recommended hardware, even more than that... the question is, do I want to waste it in pointless eye candy? No.
15Gigs of Hard Disk!!!!!?????? OMG... at the moment I'm only assigning 20Gigs to my XP partition, that's all I need to install XP and the games I'm playing at the moment! I'll hate it when Microsoft forces me to upgrade. - merr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Johnny Mnemonic should have no problem. I hear that guy can carry nearly 80 gigs of data in his head.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 163 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is