Windows Vista minimum spec
Discussion
It seems you'll need a bit of a super-computer to optimally run Microsoft's new bloatware OS
[quote=A Tech Strategist within Microsoft]Nigel Page, has gone on record to discuss the hardware requirements for Windows Vista, due out next Christmas.
What he's said is kind of shocking.
System breakdown
Graphics: Vista has changed from using the CPU to display bitmaps on the screen to using the GPU to render vectors. This means the entire display model in Vista has changed. To render the screen in the GPU requires an awful lot of memory to do optimally - 256MB is a happy medium, but you'll actually see benefit from more. Microsoft believes that you're going to see the amount of video memory being shipped on cards hurtle up when Vista ships.
CPU: Threading is the main target for Vista. Currently, very little of Windows XP is threaded - the target is to make Vista perform far better on dual-core and multi-core processors.
RAM: 2GB is the ideal configuration for 64-bit Vista, we're told. Vista 32-bit will work ideally at 1GB, and minimum 512. However, since 64-bit is handling data chunks that are double the size, you'll need double the memory, hence the 2GB. Nigel mentions DDR3 - which is a little odd, since the roadmap for DDR3, on Intel gear at least, doesn't really kick in until 2007.
HDD: SATA is definitely the way forward for Vista, due, Microsoft tells us, to Native Command Queueing. NCQ allows for out of order completions - that is, if Vista needs tasks 1,2,3,4 and 5 done, it can do them in the order 2,5,3,4,1 if that's a more efficient route for the hard drive head to take over the disk. This leads to far faster completion times. NCQ is supported on SATA2 drives, so expect them to start becoming the standard sooner rather than later. Microsoft thinks that these features will provide SCSI-level performance.
Bus: AGP is 'not optimal' for Vista. Because of the fact that graphics cards may have to utilise main system memory for some rendering tasks, a fast, bi-direction bus is needed - that's PCI express.
Display: Prepare to feel the red mist of rage - no current TFT monitor out there is going to support high definition playback in Vista. You may already have heard rumblings about this, but here it is. 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. [/quote]
[quote=A Tech Strategist within Microsoft]Nigel Page, has gone on record to discuss the hardware requirements for Windows Vista, due out next Christmas.
What he's said is kind of shocking.
System breakdown
Graphics: Vista has changed from using the CPU to display bitmaps on the screen to using the GPU to render vectors. This means the entire display model in Vista has changed. To render the screen in the GPU requires an awful lot of memory to do optimally - 256MB is a happy medium, but you'll actually see benefit from more. Microsoft believes that you're going to see the amount of video memory being shipped on cards hurtle up when Vista ships.
CPU: Threading is the main target for Vista. Currently, very little of Windows XP is threaded - the target is to make Vista perform far better on dual-core and multi-core processors.
RAM: 2GB is the ideal configuration for 64-bit Vista, we're told. Vista 32-bit will work ideally at 1GB, and minimum 512. However, since 64-bit is handling data chunks that are double the size, you'll need double the memory, hence the 2GB. Nigel mentions DDR3 - which is a little odd, since the roadmap for DDR3, on Intel gear at least, doesn't really kick in until 2007.
HDD: SATA is definitely the way forward for Vista, due, Microsoft tells us, to Native Command Queueing. NCQ allows for out of order completions - that is, if Vista needs tasks 1,2,3,4 and 5 done, it can do them in the order 2,5,3,4,1 if that's a more efficient route for the hard drive head to take over the disk. This leads to far faster completion times. NCQ is supported on SATA2 drives, so expect them to start becoming the standard sooner rather than later. Microsoft thinks that these features will provide SCSI-level performance.
Bus: AGP is 'not optimal' for Vista. Because of the fact that graphics cards may have to utilise main system memory for some rendering tasks, a fast, bi-direction bus is needed - that's PCI express.
Display: Prepare to feel the red mist of rage - no current TFT monitor out there is going to support high definition playback in Vista. You may already have heard rumblings about this, but here it is. 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. [/quote]
rsvmilly said:
It seems you'll need a bit of a super-computer to optimally run Microsoft's new bloatware OS
A Tech Strategist within Microsoft said:
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.
....to stop us all watching pirated movies.
Isn't there a version of XP without media player as per that EU ruling a while ago? Maybe the same will be true with Vista, then you can just install whatever to view DVD's with.
Persoanly, I'l probably still be running Linux
I hear Linux's windowing system is moving towards OpenGL/vector based rendering too, I'd be surprised if something isn't out before Xmas 06! As for the other features.. it all sounds a bit bloaty and a bit of a pain in the arse to me. Of course the licensing structure and the mega marketing budget should ensure it sells like hotcakes whatever it turns out like. Oh well.squirrelz said:
www.spatz-tech.de/spatz/dvi_magic.htm
400 Euros goes a long way towards buying your next TFT screen which does support HDCP inputs....
Your all being very cynical!!! Windows Vista is in early Beta stages so performance will not be up to scratch by any means.
Plus, what do you think makes technology drive forward. 2GB RAM? That's nothing! I've already got 1.5GB and I've had 1GB for the last 12 months.
SATA hard disks? Nothing new. All new PC's have them. They're even cheaper than IDE (PATA) drives now.
GPU Bandwidth? Again....who cares! The average GPU comes with 256MB memory anyway so that's fine by me. I've had my GPU for almost 4 years now and am long overdue an upgrade and it has 128MB DDR memory. I think 4 years on 256MB DDR memory is going to be pretty standard.
Encrypted monitor inputs. This is only valid if your watching HD movies / programs. HDTV won't be transmitted comercially until 2010 (I think), so chances are you'll change your TFT by then.
If not, your not really after quality gear so you won't mind watching it in it's inferior form which is probably better than DVD which I think is pretty good now!
Anyhow....all i'm trying to say is that Vista may be a little slow now, but it's beta and beta's always have their faults!
And don't get me started on Linux. How much bloatware there is on that thing is ridiculous! Have you seen the packages you can get for SuSE for example!?
Knar, Knor, Kcalculator, Kwidget, Kcoffee, Kweasle_329
Who invents these names and most of the utils are useless anyway!
grrrrr
Plus, what do you think makes technology drive forward. 2GB RAM? That's nothing! I've already got 1.5GB and I've had 1GB for the last 12 months.
SATA hard disks? Nothing new. All new PC's have them. They're even cheaper than IDE (PATA) drives now.
GPU Bandwidth? Again....who cares! The average GPU comes with 256MB memory anyway so that's fine by me. I've had my GPU for almost 4 years now and am long overdue an upgrade and it has 128MB DDR memory. I think 4 years on 256MB DDR memory is going to be pretty standard.
Encrypted monitor inputs. This is only valid if your watching HD movies / programs. HDTV won't be transmitted comercially until 2010 (I think), so chances are you'll change your TFT by then.
If not, your not really after quality gear so you won't mind watching it in it's inferior form which is probably better than DVD which I think is pretty good now!
Anyhow....all i'm trying to say is that Vista may be a little slow now, but it's beta and beta's always have their faults!
And don't get me started on Linux. How much bloatware there is on that thing is ridiculous! Have you seen the packages you can get for SuSE for example!?
Knar, Knor, Kcalculator, Kwidget, Kcoffee, Kweasle_329
Who invents these names and most of the utils are useless anyway!
grrrrr
"Graphics: Vista has changed from using the CPU to display bitmaps on the screen to using the GPU to render vectors. This means the entire display model in Vista has changed. To render the screen in the GPU requires an awful lot of memory to do optimally - 256MB is a happy medium, but you'll actually see benefit from more. Microsoft believes that you're going to see the amount of video memory being shipped on cards hurtle up when Vista ships.
CPU: Threading is the main target for Vista. Currently, very little of Windows XP is threaded - the target is to make Vista perform far better on dual-core and multi-core processors. "
bah - its an operating system its job isnt to use up all system resources, its job is to be as efficient as possible to allow other applications to runn effectivly.
The latest games do not need 256mb graphics cards, and an operating system which needs multi cored CPU's is just wrong, utilise them for 3rd party applications is what we want.
"RAM: 2GB is the ideal configuration for 64-bit Vista, we're told. Vista 32-bit will work ideally at 1GB, and minimum 512. However, since 64-bit is handling data chunks that are double the size, you'll need double the memory, hence the 2GB. Nigel mentions DDR3 - which is a little odd, since the roadmap for DDR3, on Intel gear at least, doesn't really kick in until 2007. "
That'll be for all the crap we dont need , want or use then. 1GB is fine atm with 2000/xp and heavy work.
"HDD: SATA is definitely the way forward for Vista, due, Microsoft tells us, to Native Command Queueing. NCQ allows for out of order completions - that is, if Vista needs tasks 1,2,3,4 and 5 done, it can do them in the order 2,5,3,4,1 if that's a more efficient route for the hard drive head to take over the disk. This leads to far faster completion times. NCQ is supported on SATA2 drives, so expect them to start becoming the standard sooner rather than later. Microsoft thinks that these features will provide SCSI-level performance. "
Microsoft tells us a lot, and windows since NT has done out of order completion (NCQ) on SCSI drives, it hasnt made an impact on desktop PC's because its not needed, servers will still use scsi. Ok if its there it'll be used but its not vital.
"Bus: AGP is 'not optimal' for Vista. Because of the fact that graphics cards may have to utilise main system memory for some rendering tasks, a fast, bi-direction bus is needed - that's PCI express. "
Currently the performance is very similar between the two because they both still need enough local memory to do their job, main ram just isnt as quick for either.
"Display: Prepare to feel the red mist of rage "
MPAA own the legaslative system in the US I think, no suprise here, there screwing us out of as much 'ownership' as they can.
Theres always scare stories about the next version of windows, when it his only the latest run it ok, but give it a few months and you forget about the old hardware and move on...
CPU: Threading is the main target for Vista. Currently, very little of Windows XP is threaded - the target is to make Vista perform far better on dual-core and multi-core processors. "
bah - its an operating system its job isnt to use up all system resources, its job is to be as efficient as possible to allow other applications to runn effectivly.
The latest games do not need 256mb graphics cards, and an operating system which needs multi cored CPU's is just wrong, utilise them for 3rd party applications is what we want.
"RAM: 2GB is the ideal configuration for 64-bit Vista, we're told. Vista 32-bit will work ideally at 1GB, and minimum 512. However, since 64-bit is handling data chunks that are double the size, you'll need double the memory, hence the 2GB. Nigel mentions DDR3 - which is a little odd, since the roadmap for DDR3, on Intel gear at least, doesn't really kick in until 2007. "
That'll be for all the crap we dont need , want or use then. 1GB is fine atm with 2000/xp and heavy work.
"HDD: SATA is definitely the way forward for Vista, due, Microsoft tells us, to Native Command Queueing. NCQ allows for out of order completions - that is, if Vista needs tasks 1,2,3,4 and 5 done, it can do them in the order 2,5,3,4,1 if that's a more efficient route for the hard drive head to take over the disk. This leads to far faster completion times. NCQ is supported on SATA2 drives, so expect them to start becoming the standard sooner rather than later. Microsoft thinks that these features will provide SCSI-level performance. "
Microsoft tells us a lot, and windows since NT has done out of order completion (NCQ) on SCSI drives, it hasnt made an impact on desktop PC's because its not needed, servers will still use scsi. Ok if its there it'll be used but its not vital.
"Bus: AGP is 'not optimal' for Vista. Because of the fact that graphics cards may have to utilise main system memory for some rendering tasks, a fast, bi-direction bus is needed - that's PCI express. "
Currently the performance is very similar between the two because they both still need enough local memory to do their job, main ram just isnt as quick for either.
"Display: Prepare to feel the red mist of rage "
MPAA own the legaslative system in the US I think, no suprise here, there screwing us out of as much 'ownership' as they can.
Theres always scare stories about the next version of windows, when it his only the latest run it ok, but give it a few months and you forget about the old hardware and move on...
I reckon the next node is going to be the big decider for vista.
Intel are "preparing for 65nm", but it doesn't sound like they're "ramping up".
If you want a meaty graphics pipe, on a standard graphics card, expect to pay considerable cash. Otherwise, we'll just have to wait for intel and their vector maths stuff to operate at 65nm.
I think it's debateable if asics are going to follow microprocessors down into deep ultra violet and e-beam lithography, there are alternative technologies that make better commercial sense.
Perhaps the drapes will remain down for a while longer, on the windows vista.
>> Edited by dilbert on Tuesday 13th September 01:35
Intel are "preparing for 65nm", but it doesn't sound like they're "ramping up".
If you want a meaty graphics pipe, on a standard graphics card, expect to pay considerable cash. Otherwise, we'll just have to wait for intel and their vector maths stuff to operate at 65nm.
I think it's debateable if asics are going to follow microprocessors down into deep ultra violet and e-beam lithography, there are alternative technologies that make better commercial sense.
Perhaps the drapes will remain down for a while longer, on the windows vista.
>> Edited by dilbert on Tuesday 13th September 01:35
This is quite an interesting article on Vista's development, it certainly explains some of the delays anyway!
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB112743680328349448,00.html?mod=todays_us_page_one
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB112743680328349448,00.html?mod=todays_us_page_one
These are the same arguements we well all having about not taking this route:-
DOS -> Win 3.1 -> Win95 -> Win98 -> Winme -> WinXP
and yet how many people do you know still running Win3.1 'cos its all they need? We WILL take this route in the end and as the prices drop we the un-questioning sheep will follow.
I still think my XT is good value for money... Well 640k is enough for anyone
DOS -> Win 3.1 -> Win95 -> Win98 -> Winme -> WinXP
and yet how many people do you know still running Win3.1 'cos its all they need? We WILL take this route in the end and as the prices drop we the un-questioning sheep will follow.
I still think my XT is good value for money... Well 640k is enough for anyone
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff