What is Digg?122 Comments
- bairy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32"Like XP "runs" on a 233mhz with 64mb of ram?"
Sure it does. Switch to classic theme, trim out all the extra *****, turn off system restore and other unnecessaries and never load any apps bigger than calculator, it'll run just fine :p - SuperSloth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23Just look at the internal version numbers to understand familial relations.
Windows "environment" (MS DOS overlay, which is why it was so unstable):
Win 3 = 3.0, 3.1, 3.11
Win95 = 4.0.xxxx
Win98 = 4.10.xxxx
WinME = 4.90.xxxx
NT based (native kernel, no DOS):
WinNT 3.51 = 3.51 (there was a 3.1 and a 3.5 as well)
WinNT 4 = 4.0
Win2k = 5.0
WinXP = 5.1
Win2k3/2k3R2/XP 64 = 5.2.xxxx
Vista = 6.0
Yes, MS charges us full price for point releases.
Vista is based off of NT 5.2, so it is still an NT OS. - antdude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22This is what we say at work: Windows Me is part of 9x family (95, 98, 98 SE, and Me). XP is considered NT-OS based family (NT3.51, NT4, 2000, and XP). I think Vista is still part of NT family. Correct me if I am wrong on the Vista part.
- chrono13, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25Like XP "runs" on a 233mhz with 64mb of ram?
I honestly hope that Microsoft has changed how they spec minimum and recommended requirements, otherwise these are rather ominous numbers. - foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23"i propose a mass exodus towards linux... come! i will be your noah!"
Noah? dont you mean Moses? - chrono13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1795 -> 98 -> ME -> the end
NT -> 2000 -> XP -> (Server 2003) -> Vista
From 2000 to XP it is 650mb to 1.5g. A jump to be sure, but not as much as ME to XP (which isn't how it actually happened). - brandizzle, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23"i propose a mass exodus towards linux... come! i will be your noah!"
Alright if someone is on Digg then chances are they already know about Linux and have their reasons for not using it. I use it, but would you stfu already? Nobody likes a fanatic. - imjustabill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15The requirements for Vista aren't exactly astronomical, by today's standards. Other than the gig of ram, pretty much any computer that's shipped in the last year or 2 can run Vista without the eye candy, and a 128 meg dx9 card can be found for a hundred bucks or less.
- mohit007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Has anyone noticed, though minimum requirements are increased substantially, overall prices have fallen considerably.... Considering inflation, prices have fallen to a great extent
- fnot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I'm too lazy to read the figures, put them in a graph!
- phidong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9With all that data, it's a pity that they didn't take advantage of tables. :(
- kodeiko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10The disk requirement is a big jump from ME to XP.
- chrislewis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Digg story: http://www.digg.com/hardware/Build_an_$800_Gaming_PC_2
Direct to article: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1959811,00.asp - pabster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Actually, no. $1250 will buy you a damn nice laptop today.
- SamKellett, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9They forgot Windows 1.0:
~ No dignity
~ A cardboard box to hide it in - ViRaZ, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8You can get a desktop PC that runs Vista for $800?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I think he did mean Noah. He's getting ready for the massive flood of people hitting the Linux message boards asking how the hell to install some random piece of Linux software that they found on SourceForge that was not included in their distribution's pre-approved software repository.
- electromagnetic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I'm really surprised by the price, $801 instead of $1,163 for XP. With 5-6 years inflation it should be around $1,300, $800 is a welcome relief. Supposing they don't pull a Sony it should be around £425, that's kind of a coincidence with the PS3 but I know what my money's going to be going on lol. (Vista not an overpriced hunk of plastic!)
I somehow doubt the minimum spec, I think that's the bare minimum that the system can still stand up on. I'm running a 2.4ghz so I'm not really bothered by a 1ghz, plus I'm expecting to upgrade my system to a 3.2ghz dual long before Vista comes out. I'd suggest other people go this way, it's cheaper than trying to buy a near 4ghz single (about half as much for ones I saw) and the more people who have it the more programs and games will be able to make better use of it. - gcauthon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6LOL, you would spend $150 (approximation) on a new operating system but you're going to draw the line at that 15GB requirement? I guess we all have our own priorities.
- wintermute1974, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7For the first time ever, Microsoft is openly admitting that you will want a more powerful machine than the minimum requirements. That is the whole point of the "premium ready" PC.
From experience, I can tell you that the Windows 2000 minimum requirements are quite accurate. I had a machine identical to this except for twice the RAM, and it worked splendidly.
The Windows XP minimum requirements look dishonestly underestimated though. I bought XP on a machine that was better in all aspects (including processor speed, hard drive space, and RAM). Although the machine booted, it was completely unusable: After pressing the start button, I could watch it being formed, line-by-line and filled area-by-area. (I went back to Win2K at that point.)
That said, the new Windows Vista specs make XP look like a weakling in comparison: Now I need a machine with 1GB RAM and 15GB hard drive just to load Notepad. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It makes you realize that you can get computer components dirt cheap these days
- RatBagu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I think you're thinking of Windows Server 2003. That's a server operating system, and not to be compared to the same list that this person has made.
- anog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Vista runs great on my 5 year old computer.
- 768 Mb of Ram
- 1Ghz Pentium 3 processor
- Geforce Fx5700LE 256mb, AGP 4x
It runs with Aero Glass enabled, and the computers runs great (running build 5381 at the moment). And yes, it does run more than just a calculator - it runs Media Center Edition (i have a TV tuner), Office 2003... And it seems much faster and responsive than XP did.
I know most of you will refuse to believe it, but keep in mind that I wasn't told this by a friend of a friend of a friend of a cousin of a friend - I tried it on my own computer. - DeathfireD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5mmm Wheres windows 2003?
- shawnz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4No reference to http://www.winhistory.de/more/386/xpmini_eng.htm ?
- cquinnd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3OS Choice works both ways, friend.
- bronstad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3simple graph in excel, uploaded as jpg
the memory and hard drive requirements are best viewed on log scale:
http://www.mysharefile.com/v/1575764/win_requirements_052106.jpg.html
and everything is together, i haven't distinguished NT - d3m3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5From XP to Vista is 1.5gb to 15gb. I'd rather have a patch xp than install that new Vista crap. I tested it a couple of times and just laughed, then went back to debian to watch apt-get upgrade.
"Graphics processor that runs Windows Aero" duh. - bob_the_alien, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, I've had XP running on a P2 333 MHz with 128 MB (the 100 MHz fsb version) for quite a while, worked perfect, had to get rid of all the services and dumb down many things, but once I did, it worked fine, considering it was just a little extra computer to run games like Jezzball and Tetris, and the Internet for the kiddies to play with. it wasn't running any big times apps that required any real strength, but things like office xp were on it and worked as well.
- TheAce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I created some simple diagrams showing the differences in mem, cpu and hdd requirements between the different Microsoft OS products listed in the article.
You can check them out here:
http://www.eriksdatadump.blogspot.com/ - Unitarder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's the ram that really slows it down, try to get some cheap old SD ram to fill it up and you'll be fine. I have XP loaded on my old P2 400Mhz with 256 megs of RAM, with a 32mb Geforce MX and it's actually pretty damn quick, even runs Quake 3 great, and CS runs just slow enough to piss you off online. Everything else works just fine. It's still 100% faster than having nothing when the main PC needs some fixing :)
- Jozer99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't see how this is astronomical if we don't fuss about Apple. Back in 2000 or 2001, I remember that the release of the 450 MHz and 500 MHz Apple G4 was almost the same day as Intel announced they had broken the 1GHz barier. Right now, to run Mac OS X 10.4, you need a 500 MHz G3 or G4 to get it running. That means that the system requirements are roughly equivilant. However, a 1GHz PC on eBay will probably run you $60, while a G4 Cube is still $350.
BTW, I ran XP for awhile on a laptop with a 233 MHz P2 with 96MB of RAM. It was fine for browsing the web or using Office, but you couldn't really game on it or anything. I think it is possible Microsoft is boosting the minimum requirements to the point where the minimum means that it runs well, to improve the user experience. - zootm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"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. - chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think Vista is aimed at the early adopters and gamers at the moment. These people have the best machine and will purchase a new graphics card just to play Doom or Half-Life2.
Give it a year or two and every new machine you buy will have Vista and by the third year everything will have it and the hardware to run it. - warder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Given that all for every OS listed there, you really needed a PC 10x faster than the 'recommended' to appreciate it, the Vista ideal PC hasn't yet been created!
XP - 233MHz 64MB RAM recommended - reality, 2.3GHz and 640MB RAM is ok
Vista - 1GHZ 1GB RAM recommended - reality, 10GHz 10GB RAM is ok? - gamer007, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Interesting. It's a bit hard reading like that to compare, I'm gonna use Excel to compile into a table somehow.
Digging it. :) - Splitt3rxx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I noticed for every OS the price of a desktop was considerably cheaper.
- cquinnd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Agret, you have not shopped for a laptop lately, have you?
As pabster says, you can get a decent (built at spec) notebook for close to $1,250 that will do what "most people" need. If you like to push the envelope into performance closer to the average desktop machine, you will be spending more for the optional processor, hard drive and memory that will need to be put in.
I'm targeting around $2,000 for the "Vista capable" laptop I want to buy, but that price brings it
up to a machine that I still expect to feel new and powerful (to me) two years down the line
(and includes accesories like an extra battery and desktop conversion kit). - chrislewis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Some say this will be the last windows.
- Chakz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I have Windows XP running great on a machine with 500 MHz and 88 MB RAM. The trick is getting rid of all the extra *****. nLite can reduce your XP disc from 600 MB to 100 MB. There's so much crap in XP you will never use.
- badave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Judging by this, Microsoft is either a very future looking company, calculating that they want Vista to be around for about 5-8 years again and by that time those computers will all be able to easily run Vista (as all computers now can easily run XP), OR Microsoft is making a big mistake. I'll place my bet on Bill the pony.
Will it be as innovative as it needs to be to compete for a while? Who knows. I keep hoping that a Nintendo-like company will come along an innovate computers like they do to video games (a Wiimote instead of a mouse seems like a cool idea at this point... if the controller works as well as it looks like it does). - jdonner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Explains exactly the problem with Linux; the lack of 10GB of help and wizards.
Regardless this, since when do people worry about 15GB with 300GB hard drives of which 90% are filled with 5GB games and hundreds of GB of illegal videos and mp3s. - yahoofrom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think we will need terabytes of RAM to run Windows 2050.
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1$130 for WindowXP pro. Its being pirated by teenagers living of their allowance from their parents.
- millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Some say this will be the last windows."
Microsoft says Windows Blackcomb/Vienna and Windows Fiji prove you otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackcomb - millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Unfortunately, "regular" PC100/PC133 SD ram is quite expensive these days. It's all after-market prices, and they're outrageous on eBay.
- bronstad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1at the current rate, and if it is reasonable to assume windows will be around in 10 years, we will need about 50 gigs minimum ram in 2016
no problem arduenn - Marlon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Just reading the system requirements brings me back. It's like a geek's yearbook. I remembered the first time I held those 13 floppys, the first time I crashed NT, my first dual boot...sweet memories!
Here's to good times! - Smooph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nice work Ace.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 119 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 