What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
168 Comments
- hotwaterham, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Horse's a$$ isn't an opinion, it's an expression that means straight from the source."
That's "horse's mouth..."
"Wow.... somebody that thinks Windows is awesome.... So much for social darwinism."
Not everyone is preoccupied with hating the mainstream and scoring cool points with the alterna-nerds. - saleens281, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"Any OS that requires 512mb to run semi-properly is a ***** JOKE. Understand this. The whole "RAM is cheap!" argument doesn't hold water, because while your OS is hogging the memory you have, it's also churning your hard drive to dust and wasting your precious memory bandwidth and CPU cycles passing data to processes that you don't need to have running.
***** Christ. Off to Linux I go."
I'll see you back in an hour or so. News flash: Linux requires 512 or more nowadays for any modern GUI, as does OS X. Welcome to 2000. - whisperedlie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Let's get some things straight:
1 - There have been quite a few articles explaining that there will be higher requirements if you wish to run the Aero UI, while giving you the option to run it in a "Classic" theme for systems that don't have the horsepower to handle Aero.
2 - Vista does not require 64 bit processors. That link even says 32-bit OR 64-bit right at the beginning.
3 - Vista is intended for modern systems. That being said, you shouldn't bat an eye at 512MB. Maybe it's rough for you if you just won't give up on your K6/2 from 1999, but as I've already stated Vista is not intended for your computer in the first place. Even cheap ass economy systems typically come with at least 512MB, and even if not it is an inexpensive upgrade (Vista or not, I personally wouldn't buy or build a system with less than 1GB).
It's a drastic step forward for the Windows family, designed to take advantage of today's technology, not your old-ass toaster.
Bottom line, I don't really understand all the bitching and whining we got here. You don't HAVE to upgrade to Vista. - Ramble, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Straight from the horses donkey".
That makes no sense.
Vista hardware guidelines are a little low, I surpassed those quite a while ago. - saleens281, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"That's pretty far from accurate. I have an old p3 500mhz box with 64 Mb of ram, and I'm running Vector Linux on it with Enlightenment16, which is far more modern than any windows GUI. Oh, and it's blazing fast."
Ya, or not. Try KDE or Gnome and let me know how that goes. Something a corporation would actually use, not something you hacked together on your own time. You can just as easily run XP with a different WM and have it run the same if not better than enlightenment, but we aren't talking about that, we're talking about standard distro's:
Ubuntu, Suse, Redhat.
At least try to get apples to oranges instead of your comparison of apples to pine tree's... - esac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@neoform :
"Vista requires a high end graphics card.. wtf, is vista a FPS or something? why the hell should an OS *require* a high end graphics card.. that's just retarded."
Vista does not _require_ a high end graphics card. You can use it just fine without 512 MB of RAM either. But both of these things are required if you want to take full advantage of the new Aero interface (there are quite a few changes to how different aspects of the user interface work depending on if Aero is enabled or not). But you don't need them. You can run Vista to look like XP and get by with 256MB and your built in Intel Graphics Accelerator if you want.
Look at Linux / X.org and the transparency effects that they use. They state many times that you have to have a modern GPU to handle transparencies in X as well. I have tried running my KDE with transparency enabled on a low end GPU and the thing was doggedly slow. So Microsoft isn't the only one that has to do this. - sonofalink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wow guys, way to read. No where on that page does it say anything about those being "Hardware Requirements"... that is the list of the hardware needed to... oh hell, let me quote here
"offer good performance and graphic experience on Windows Vista"
512mb is common sense... you need that to have smooth performance with XP as well.
No digg because submitter didn't RTFA. - hotwaterham, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Vista requires a high end graphics card.. wtf, is vista a FPS or something? why the hell should an OS *require* a high end graphics card.. that's just retarded."
A 64mb graphics card isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, "high-end." - snorkle256, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Requirements? Where? All I saw were guidelines. That's like telling a contractor that your new house has to have wood, yeah its a start but doesn't outline the whole house. No digg for discrepancy between title and reality.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Keep your stupid ***** opinions out of the descriptions.
- spjmm0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1no one said you have to use it! If you don't like it, great use something else. Spend your energy on improving Linux so that any user can use it without having to search for drivers, and figuring things out on their own. MS does not own you.
- master_of_fm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Worst Description Ever
- towsonu2003, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1does it run linux?
- hotwaterham, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"But seeing how I've "degraded" my XP machines to Win2000 or else gone to Ubuntu & Mepis Linux on the 4 others, I have little interest in the wacky world of Big Brother OS's that Redmond is intent on peddling."
Good thing nobody is forcing you (or even asking you) to upgrade to Vista, eh? - hotwaterham, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Now, with Vista, MS is slowing our computers down again so we are forced to buy even more memory and video cards."
Vista (with Aero Glass turned off) runs better on my hardware than XP. If you don't want to run Vista with the eye candy then you're free to turn it off. - Pxtl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1512 mb for an OS.
Damn. I remember the days of my 64, where there were games that ran a full windowed GUI and development environment in under 64k of ram. Anybody remember the Arcade Game Construction Kit? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1
I love it when people say they'll be boycotting vista when in reality they'll be lapping it up like the ghetto dogs that they are.
As for your boycott, I'm sure Microsoft will sorely miss the revenue the receive from your inappropriately obtained OEM copy. - foxhoundadmin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i'm gonna digg this just so it doesn't get removed. i have a feeling a lot of people won't like the description. do try to be more objective next time. ;)
yeah, it's funny how 32-bit amd processors are conspicuosly missing; and from their own website, no less. intel's website says "p4 w/ em64t technology." well, they said p4 before they said em64t, so i guess i can use a plain 'ole 32-bit p4. anyways, note that on microsoft's website they mention that any computer with a "Designed for Windows XP" 32-bit PC systems with Windows XP OS" logo will work with windows vista.
i still think the whole 512mb of ram thing is crazy. note how they say "512MB of system memory OR MORE." they don't say "...minimum." good 'ole PR/HR department. i can live with all the "PC systems with GPUs that do not support WDDM will only be able to provide a Windows XP-comparable desktop graphics experience, with regards to features, stability and performance" crap. i'm fine as long as my computer with integrated graphics can run a windows xp'ish gui. hell, i'd still run a windows xp'ish gui even if i had at least an ati 9500/x300+ or nvidia geforce fx 5200/geforce 6100+ gpu. that new windows vista gui is just gonna slow down your computer. that's probably where the whole "512MB of system memory or more" thing comes from.
who knows? i'll do what i always do: not upgrade until 4 years after the release. why? because that's when microsoft will stop supporting windows xp. shady capitalism. - scottperezfox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1These requirements a bit vague, no? Seems that they are saying "A good computer". Why don't they just say a month and year, for example "PCs built after 2004"
- SupaDawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Try running KDE on linux with all your eye candy on while you have firefox, thunderbird and a couple instances of openoffice running and tell me it runs properly with less than 512.
Welcom to the millenium you cheap bastards. $50CDN for 512mb of DDR400 has made it THE MINIMUM standard for ram in most retailers. I cant even remember the last time any customer (Linux, apple or windows users) requested anything less than 512 when upgrading.
I can build a machine under $800CDN that meats and defeats all of the requirments of windows vista. Doesnt sound very bad to me. - hotwaterham, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Wth regards?
Holy crap! These guys need a grammar checker! I bet they used MS Word to draft this article."
Wth?
Holy crap! This guy needs a simple, free spelling checker like the one right below this comment box! I bet he's a f***ing smeghead! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3i aint joking when i said vista will be the best os ever. hell, xp is stable sleek and good looking, and this is next.
looks great, will be rock hard stable probably moreso than xp, and will have TONS of great new features.
Vista here i come - hotwaterham, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"and B: because I'm pissed that my AMD Athlon XP isn't supported so i would have to buy a new motherboard, ram, and video card to run it, since I am using an AGP card I got for my birthday less than six months ago, and it would be made obsolete if I had to upgrade to a newer board."
Start thinking for yourself, search the mysterious internet, and realize that there are a TON of people running Vista on Athlon XPs. AMD has been phasing out the XP line for a while now and that's why it isn't listed on that page. - Handcannons, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1*************
Vista requires a high end graphics card.. wtf, is vista a FPS or something? why the hell should an OS *require* a high end graphics card.. that's just retarded.
************
Bah. Vista runs just fine on a FX5200, you can get that at Frys for $29 on sale this week. Hardly a top end card or something that will break the bank.
************
Is there anyone else that thinks that Microsoft bumps up the requirements beyond what is really needed just to pressure people to upgrade? Just a thought...
************
Is that worse than game companies that have "minimum" system requirements that are totally unrealistic and can't really run the game? Would you rather have MS list required specs that a in reality a bit higher than it actually needs or have them list something that will technically run Vista but runs so slowly no one would actually use it? - howdesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Modern OS's have more things running in the background that require more memory. Nothing shocking about the amount of RAM they suggest. OSX has Dashboard and Spotlight to name just two. My PowerBook has 768MB and my MacMini has 1GB and I feel like they're barely keeping up when running more than a couple apps.
- hotwaterham, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Vista's recommended RAM is 512 MB, so I can only assume it will need at least 1 GB before it runs really well."
Sorry, buddy, but you're dead wrong. 512MB is more than enough to run Vista without Aero turned on. In fact, Vista (with the eye candy turned off) runs better and looks better than XP on my hardware...and, with all of the improvements/features in Vista, that's saying a lot.
Vista is going to be a hit just like XP was (and is), and the day it comes out it's going to start showing up inside of every Dell, HP, and every other brand name desktop PC for mass public consumption. Don't kid yourself into thinking that Microsoft has "dropped the ball" here. - hotwaterham, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Perpetual Upgrading is my definition of FUN! Woo-hoo! "Honey, I have to have this new video card if I am going to be able to better secure the network with the latest version of Windows... " Yeah, that's the ticket. God Bless Bill Gates."
Then use something else. Your attempt at humor is lacking and so is the information that you're basing it off of. The 512MB estimate and need for a graphics card (64mb+) is in regards to a Vista system running with the Aero Glass effects turned on. Vista runs better than XP on my knock-about system with 512mb ram, Athlon XP 1800+, and GeForce 2 32mb on-board card. - ahmerhussain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1512 mb for an OS? Hell, I'm running the latest Slackware Lnux with 64 mb of ram...
- ayeaye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You can always use USB Memory stick (aka flash drives) to expand your ram if you feel that your Vista is running too slowly. I have a feeling that 512mb will suffice though.
- Lagged2Death, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0From the article:
"These guidelines are intended to serve as guidance on currently planned system parameters for PCs intended to run on Windows Vista. They are subject to change and do not constitute the minimum hardware requirements for Windows Vista."
The suggested configuration is NOT a minimum requirements spec; they are recommendations for people who want to buy a zillion Vista-ready systems before Vista is released. In fact the article plainly states that right up front:
"...hardware guidelines designed to ensure that the following Windows XP systems shipping in 2005 will offer good performance and graphic experience on Windows Vista..." - mrjoelkamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0lol thats not a very hard to meet req.
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Hmm, I'm surprised no one is bitching that the WDDM is probably DRM built into the video card hardware.
- sowusupb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Which one of the SEVEN will you buy?
I personally have to upgrade my processor, motherboard, and video card.
As I have said before... Microsoft's newest 'crowning achievement' will be the beginning of their end. - dracflamloc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0whisperedlie. wrong, we DO have to upgrade once windows decides not to release updates for xp anymore. And in a business environment, the video cards on all but the engineering machines are almost always ***** intel integrated graphics which will probably choke even in thier classic mode.
- peerk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"btw, I wouldn't even put together an XP system with < 512MB Ram."
For a very long time I was running XP with 256MB. That much is fine for web browsing/word processing. I didn't even notice much of a difference for basic usage when I upgraded to 512MB. - degree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Not everyone is preoccupied with hating the mainstream and scoring cool points with the alterna-nerds."
Hopefully all of their powerbooks explode, destroying the starbucks they are all in and setting their super-flammable black turtle necks on fire. - hotwaterham, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0""Asta la Vista"! No Digg OS X still kick ass from Now & beyond!"
That's a nice opinion you have there. It's a damn shame that it doesn't contribute to this discussion at all.
---
cybrauralninjuh:
You make a few good points inside of that massive post. If you care to be informed about Vista try checking out the Wikipedia page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista ). It's a good place to start. - whisperedlie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0maverick -
you are in no position to know what i get or don't get. you assume that just because i'm not blowing linus torvalds in every post that i'm some ingrate microsoft fanboy without a clue. i'm an avid linux enthusiast as well as a windows developer. i use both daily and i enjoy them both very much, and i'm also frustrated by them both. i use whatever is best for a situation. i'm willing to try any approach (windows, linux, or otherwise) to enrich my knowledge and my experience. maybe some day i'll finally use that piece of software that gets everything right, maybe not. i do know that i definitely never will if i get pointlessly emotional and closeminded about a goddamned software company.
bloat, yeah, probably. you'll have that when you're trying to integrate 20 years worth of various features from different products into a single software initiative (while providing as much backwards compatibility as possible, of course). is it perfect? hell no. GOD no. However, i'm pretty sure you're pulling that 2000% figure out of your ass which is just rediculous. no reason to get that riled up.as for the rest of your comment, i don't understand what you're trying to say. - Andy.D, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Those aren't requirements, those are guidelines.
- hotwaterham, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"How much will Vista slow down before final release?"
Vista will be "feature complete" as of the next release and by then we'll know for sure.
"Better get your WDDM ready graphics cards and motherboards ready boys."
Only if you're interested in running Aero Glass and the other extra eye candy...my 32mb on-board GeForce 2 from 4 years ago works perfectly with the eye candy turned off.
"Want to see most of vista today, it's first 2 service packs? OSX 10.4.3... Enjoy..."
This is the single most idiotic and misinformed post in this entire thread. Vista is 'nothing' like OS X. Do some research instead of spewing lame Apple-centric ***** all over this thread. - tsupersonic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hmm, I love how most of you commented about the requirements even though you don't have Vista now. Relax guys, it's a recommendation, we'll see when it comes out. I'm afraid the computer I'm typing on won't be able to handle Vista (Celeron M 1.5GHz, 1 GB RAM), but I have other computers that will. It doesn't mean I'll be upgrading my system(s) when it comes out, I'll wait a while and see how Vista is and then decide to upgrade. The system I'm on was a gift and I got it with 256MB, which is pathetic for XP unless you're just browsing web, emailing, word processing, etc... I upgraded to 2X512MB and the performance upgrade is sweet, XP runs so much smoother, just hope if Vista is good, it will run on the laptop.
- FuManchu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0RE:
"Horse's ass"
---I don't know what horses have to do with it! The requirement says "512MB RAM" and the ram we got out in the barn bites like nobody's business! So we're OK there.
"Modern processor"
Yep!, We got us a Hamilton Beach that slices, dices, and even juliennes fries as thin as you want. Looks like me 'n the missus is all set! - Elxx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Vista (with Aero Glass turned off) runs better on my hardware than XP."
Mmm, that sounds nice. I stand corrected then. - Sirocco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wow... how many ***** idiots do we have around here? Just because RAM is cheap doesn't mean your OS has an excuse for sucking it up and thrashing your precious CPU resources. Bandwidth, people... a lightweight and efficient OS has significantly less latency, and will allow you to run the services *you want* without bogging down due to excess memory and pagefile usage.
Vista requires a nifty video card because it pushes the brunt of the GUI's rendering onto the video card instead of forcing your CPU to deal with it. This is, actually, a pretty good idea. Ever notice how your PC games have nice responsive GUIs, whereas XP chunks along when you turn all the details on? However... this shouldn't require a video card with more than 32mb of RAM, nor should it have any reason to force DirectX 9 compatibility. Rendering a window with hardware accel blending, etc is easily accomplished on very old video cards running stuff as far back as DirectX 5. - flyindutchman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0what's with all the bitchin?
There are two types of people who will buy vista, those who buy it and install on their current machine, and those that will buy a new computer with it bundled.
Those who buy it as an upgrade will obviously be "into it" enough to have the hardware required. Those who buy a new machine that comes with it will be obviously getting a machine that supports it.
One more thing read before making comments. There are links to lists of specific hardware. - BlazinX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0blah blah blah.. if your pc can't handle Vista stick with XP or whatever you currently have. :rolleyes:
- hotwaterham, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"who needs an OS that would need an dual core processor."
Stop spreading your bull**** and learn to read....this is from the page you linked:
"As a general guideline, just about any mid-range and better processor shipping from Intel or AMD is a good fit for basic functionality in Windows Vista. The lower end of the current processor range will work, but those processors wont provide the optimal experience for most users and definitely wont provide the best experience for high-end gaming or video editing." - dick-richardson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Try running KDE on linux with all your eye candy on while you have firefox, thunderbird and a couple instances of openoffice running and tell me it runs properly with less than 512."
Brilliant...considering that you just listed 3 memory intensive apps and the specs on microsoft's site are for the OS ONLY. - spjmm0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I'm not trying to argue with you here, but I've noticed that over the past few years I've had to spend about as much time looking for drivers for windows as I do in Linux, that is finally starting to get better..."
I am just saying if you do not use windows products and do not intend to why waste the energy flaming them.
just as a side note not specific to anyone: a free bag of crap is still a bag of crap... - diggnationdevon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Vista looks nice, people can't talk crap anymore.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 168 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is