----------------------------------- codemage Fri May 19, 2006 7:37 am Vista hardware specs reasonable ----------------------------------- No big surprise for reasonable thinkers out there, but a slap in the face for everyone whining that Vista, the new version of MS Windows, would require a monster rig to function. My computer hardware is (on average) 3 years old, all middling or budget-priced items, and easily meets or beats all of the recommended requirements. :o MINIMUM --------------------------- Processor - Modern processor (at least 800 MHz) System Memory - 512 MB GPU - DirectX 9 Capable (WDDM Driver Support recommended) RECOMMENDED --------------------------- Processor - 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor2 System Memory - 1 GB GPU - 64MB DirectX 9-class w/ pixel shader 2 HD - 40 GB with at least 15 GB free DVD-ROM drive ----------------------------------- wtd Fri May 19, 2006 8:47 am ----------------------------------- Keep in mind that the minimum specs require you turn off... well... pretty much everything that's new. The recommended specs are really the minimum specs, and may be an absolute minimum, rather than a "practical minimum." ----------------------------------- md Fri May 19, 2006 12:55 pm ----------------------------------- The recomended specs are actually a bit unreasonable given what most manufacturers have been selling. The majority of people out there will not be able to run vista without a major hardware upgrade. The recomended is actually the minimum needed to run Aero (and it needs 128mb of video ram minimum, and in some cases 256). The advertised minimum is just to run windows with as little as possible. These requirements are definitely steep considering that you can run much the same interface on a 64mb video card and 512mb of ram on linux; while actually using you computer. ----------------------------------- Andy Sat May 20, 2006 12:16 pm ----------------------------------- when i still worked at ati, i had the chance to play with vista for quite a while. Aero is pretty cool, but like cornflakes said, you do need 256 mb to have it activate automatically, with 128, you need to do a register hack. with what i've seen, it's just winxp with overloaded security features and a prettier gui. i did some testings on vista machines, even a 3.6 ghz HT boots up really slow. the only machine that booted up relatively fast was the X2 3800+, 1 gig ram, and sata 2 hdd, paired with x1900 of course :wink: ----------------------------------- wtd Sat May 20, 2006 1:09 pm ----------------------------------- I'm sure the specs will seem more reasonable when Vista comes out three years from now. ;) ----------------------------------- Andy Sat May 20, 2006 1:34 pm ----------------------------------- haha yeah when everyone is running quad core opterons with 8 gigs of ECC ram ----------------------------------- bugzpodder Sun May 21, 2006 1:46 pm ----------------------------------- I mean, eye candy in vista isn't that important compared to stability and security right? who cares if you can't see the 3D shade under the menu bar... I already turned off all the eye candies in XP off, in favour of faster performance. ----------------------------------- rizzix Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm ----------------------------------- if you're looking for stability and security you shouldn't be using windows :P ----------------------------------- MihaiG Sun May 21, 2006 8:01 pm Re: Vista hardware specs reasonable ----------------------------------- --------------------------- Processor - Modern processor (at least 800 MHz) --------------------------- i like that part.. i could barely get win xp ruinning on my old p3 with optimization down....well it was running but barely.....what kind of computer that runs a 800mhz cpu has 512mb:-) mine has 64mbs....windows just wants people to buy their software regardless wether it will perform well. ----------------------------------- shorthair Sun May 21, 2006 10:09 pm ----------------------------------- its true guys. El Comendante said it. windows wants us to buy the software. Microsoft officially announced that they are no longer in control of the OS, it has grown a mind of its own. and is constantly cutting features it does not like. Beware of windows, its out there and its waiting for you. ----------------------------------- md Sun May 21, 2006 10:10 pm Re: Vista hardware specs reasonable ----------------------------------- --------------------------- Processor - Modern processor (at least 800 MHz) --------------------------- i like that part.. i could barely get win xp ruinning on my old p3 with optimization down....well it was running but barely.....what kind of computer that runs a 800mhz cpu has 512mb:-) mine has 64mbs....windows just wants people to buy their software regardless wether it will perform well. I'm curious as to your "optimizations" because you really can't optimize windows XP... and I'll have you know that my server is a dual P2 @ 400MHz and it has 1gb of ram. ----------------------------------- Blade Sun May 21, 2006 11:39 pm ----------------------------------- to get a p3 with 64mb ram you must've bought a really cheap one. my parents bought a p2 450 with 128mb in 1996 you can optimize windows xp by turning off all the eye candy like what was said above, and disabling services that are rarely used. ----------------------------------- [Gandalf] Mon May 22, 2006 12:02 am ----------------------------------- Just to add to the above comments, I have a P3 @ 500MHz with 384MB of RAM, and it runs Windows XP fine, though not speedily. Still, if I was looking for eye candy in my OS I'd go with Xubuntu, not Windows Vista. ----------------------------------- md Mon May 22, 2006 2:59 pm ----------------------------------- you can optimize windows xp by turning off all the eye candy like what was said above, and disabling services that are rarely used. That's not optimizing; that's disabling things you don't use. Optimizing would be running xp with all those things on; only faster. ----------------------------------- codemage Tue May 23, 2006 8:17 am ----------------------------------- XP is very optimizable in the literal sense then, if not the CS definition. The setup becomes much more efficient if the settings are customized properly to the user's needs and hardware. Even though my hardware supports all of the eye candy in XP, my preference is for performance - so it's all disabled. I've seen the visual razzle-dazzle that Vista promises. I'm impressed. My hardware supports it. I'll be disabling it as well. ----------------------------------- Blade Sat May 27, 2006 1:25 pm ----------------------------------- That's not optimizing; that's disabling things you don't use. Optimizing would be running xp with all those things on; only faster. To customize software or hardware so that it will serve the user to its utmost capacity. The goal is to have the machinery run faster and more efficiently. This could include shuffling parts of the software into different parts of the computer's memory, rewriting chunks of software applications, or even just tweaking the controls on your desktop control panel. ----------------------------------- wtd Sat May 27, 2006 5:14 pm ----------------------------------- By turning things off, it isn't performing to its utmost capacity, is it? ----------------------------------- Blade Sat May 27, 2006 10:46 pm ----------------------------------- utmost capacity with all the things running that you need. but you do this by tweaking different things in the control panel. your goal will be to have the computer running as fast and as efficient as possible with everything you NEED running. ----------------------------------- codemage Mon May 29, 2006 8:16 am ----------------------------------- I understand where everyone is coming from. My angle: When I think of utmost capacity in regards to workstation usage, I think of utmost *functional* capacity. When I think of utmost functional capacity, I don't picture things like transparency effects, super-smooth screen transitions, and completely unecessary widgets all over my nice clean deskop. ----------------------------------- wtd Mon May 29, 2006 9:48 am ----------------------------------- Except that those things can have benefits we're often not conscious of. Look at the way drop shadows are used in Mac OS X, for instance. Since each window has a dropshadow around it, it doesn't need a border to distinguish it from other windows. You gain extra space in which to work, and the shadow is a more natural barrier for your brain to recognize than a 4-6 pixel wide solid color border. ----------------------------------- rizzix Mon May 29, 2006 7:51 pm ----------------------------------- transparency effects This is a big timesaver super-smooth screen transitions Yea, but once you get used to it, it feels odd switching back. completely unecessary widgets all over my nice clean deskop. This is a very subjective matter of course, but generally widgets are helpful, especially when you find the right ones.