Revealed: Vista Hardware Requirements

[FarFarAway]

Windows Vista is going to be hard on our hardware it seems.

Nigel Page (Microsoft Tech Strategist) has revealed some details of what every box is going to need.

Graphics:

Vista now is going to be totally rendored on the GPU. This means that Vista puts a requirement on the GPU of 256mb - and MS expect that vid card memory is going to be shooting up to be able to run Vista.

CPU:

Vista is going to be optimised for Multi-cored CPU's. You don't have to have one: but.....

RAM

2gb is going to be the ideal configuration for 64bit Vista apparently. This is due to the larger chunnks of datagoing through the 64bit software interface. 32bit Vista put 512mb as a minymum, with 1gb being more optimal. Whispers of DDR3 have been heard - but this is strange as Intel haven't even got this on their processor

HDD

NCQ was beginning to look like a buzz-word to all of us with SATA II, but Vista is being optimised to take advantage of it on the S-ATA II standard. This means that HDD manufactorers are going to have to be ramping up their S-ATA II production and that motherboard manufactorers better take this up pretty soon.

Microsoft thinks that these features will provide SCSI-level performance

We'll see won't we...

BUS

AGP is going out the window, with MS saying that they need a "fast, bi-direction bus". That'll be PCI-E then. And so ends the "shall I get PCI-E debate.

Display

The big thang is:

no current TFT monitor out there is going to support high definition playback in Vista

This isn't MS's fault - its the standard that is currently being used for High Definition playback:

To play HD-DVD or Blu-Ray content you need a HDCP compatible monitor. Why? Because these formats use HDCP to encrypt a video signal as it travels along a digital connection to an output device, to prevent people copying it. If you have just standard DVI or even an analogue output, you're going to see HD scaled down to a far-less-than-HD resolution for viewing - which sucks. This isn't really Microsoft's fault - HDCP is something that content makers, in their eternal wisdom, have decided is necessary to stop us all watching pirated movies.

And the monitor companies are gonna be very happy with that one arent' they??

What you'll want:

So you'll need the following (for 64bit):

Dual Core processor or better

Motherboard supporting S-ATA II with NCG

2gb RAM

S-ATA II HDD With NCQ

A Next-gen GPU with at least 256mb Frame Buffer on PCI-E

A brand new not-made-yet Monitor with support for High Def.

Sound good??

Conclusion

Hardware manufactorers are going to be very, very happy.

Microsoft will not sell very many versions of Vista I wouldn't expect: no wonder they're making it so damn cheap.

We'll all have to buy new hardware (again) if we want to run Vista.

High Def standards suck major ass

There's going to be a lot of annoyed people

More Here

 

[JN]

3 words.... Fuck Off MS

If you think that everyone is going to upgrade their machines to that insane spec just to run your shitty os, which is a resprayed version of all your previous OS's then you've got another thing coming

I dont even like all the shitty graphical nonsense that XP provides so i thik i'll be steering clear.

 

[PV5150]

Jesus Christ........that's a hefty upgrade just to run an operating system. Bah, I'll be utilising the 'open source' option a lot more... guaranteed. :banghead: :bootyshak :luvff:

 

[JN]

Jesus Christ........that's a hefty upgrade just to run an operating system. Bah, I'll be utilising the 'open source' option a lot more... guaranteed. :banghead: :bootyshak :luvff:

Agreed.

 

[NickS]

This is why I'm steering clear of upgrades for a year +.

But the way things are looking, I'm prolly just gonna keep XP.

 

[bloodthirst]

are they just saying that or could it be true?

 

[FragTek]

Who in there right fucking mind wants to upgrade their computer just to run a fucking OS???? The OS should be the least hardware taxing software on your whole computer.

Bah, fucking MS. I hope you all die in a plane crash!

 

[limqareb]

all the executives never travel in the same plane half half not joking this what they di d for ibm and well i hope ms fail

 

[JN]

Vista seriously isn't going to catch on. A massive chunk of Microsofts customers are businesses, and there is no way in hell that a business is going to upgrade their laptops and desktops to meet this spec.

 

[NickS]

Windows ME II *cough*

 

[enVias]

Windows ME II *cough*

You're implying it's going to be another "very good operating system" then Nick?

 

[FragTek]

You're implying it's going to be another "very good operating system" then Nick?

enVias :0wned: nick

 

[Big_g]

im stickin to xp, non of that vista sh*te

 

[bloodthirst]

they wasted there money devolping it

 

[Eguy]

this is so fucked up I can't begin...

 

[balilu]

why does everbody hate vista? i think it's going to be one good os. which will better than all previous oses

 

[FarFarAway]

why does everbody hate vista? i think it's going to be one good os. which will better than all previous oses

We say it cause it has the most ridiculous hardware requirments ever. An OS should get less taxing as it gets newer, not more taxing!

 

[deepfried]

haha, i looked at thos specs and laughed...those specs are almost the same as sav rows super system..which costs...ait for it...........FIVE AND A HALF GRAND....well microsoft can go suck dick for those requirements

xp may be a pile of donkey doings, but vista makes it look good when you consider the specs....

side note: does any laptop atm have thsoe kinda specs? especially considoring laptop screens...

 

[Zyxthior]

An OS should get less taxing as it gets newer, not more taxing!

:eh: I'd disagree...fundamentally you create a new O/S to be more robust in its features and functionality....and those features and functionality come at a price..namely steeper hardware requirements. Granted this is the first time we've seen an O/S with a graphics card requirement...

But we're treating this as if those specs are minimum system requirements...which from what I'm reading on the thread, they aren't. I imagine we'll be able to run Vista on something much less then that...but quite frankly its good to know that as we upgrade (slowly in most of our cases) Vista will natively support those higher end machines. I suspect in most O/S upgrade scenarios Memory will be the biggest factor...I'm thinking back to different machines I owned and how much RAM I've used....its seems you need 4 to 8 times the previous memory amount at the prior O/S....(these aren't minimum system requirements...this is just what I initially used)

Windows 3.1 = 4MB (later moved to 16MB)

Windows 98 = 32MB

Windows XP = 512MB (later moved to 1GB, and now 2GB)

Windows Vista = 2GB....(that's realistic).....

Oh, and "HI, KEMPEZ!" I'm harassing you now on your home turf....WHERE THE HELL WERE YOU LAST NIGHT AT 2AM?!?!? Not in BF2 I saw....

 

[FragTek]

Wirelessly posted (Nextel. Done. |: BlackBerry7520/4.0.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1)

An OS should get less taxing as it gets newer, not more taxing!

:eh: I'd disagree...fundamentally you create a new O/S to be more robust in its features and functionality....and those features and functionality come at a price..namely steeper hardware requirements. Granted this is the first time we've seen an O/S with a graphics card requirement...

But we're treating this as if those specs are minimum system requirements...which from what I'm reading on the thread, they aren't. I imagine we'll be able to run Vista on something much less then that...but quite frankly its good to know that as we upgrade (slowly in most of our cases) Vista will natively support those higher end machines. I suspect in most O/S upgrade scenarios Memory will be the biggest factor...I'm thinking back to different machines I owned and how much RAM I've used....its seems you need 4 to 8 times the previous memory amount at the prior O/S....(these aren't minimum system requirements...this is just what I initially used)

Windows 3.1 = 4MB (later moved to 16MB)

Windows 98 = 32MB

Windows XP = 512MB (later moved to 1GB, and now 2GB)

Windows Vista = 2GB....(that's realistic).....

Oh, and "HI, KEMPEZ!" I'm harassing you now on your home turf....WHERE THE HELL WERE YOU LAST NIGHT AT 2AM?!?!? Not in BF2 I saw....

Ok so I worded it a bit incorrectly but ur a moron if u think those kinds of specs should be needed to run a fucking os... We'll let u have fun dumping thousands in to your computer just to get vista running smoothly while we all sit back, point and laugh.