Microsoft reveals Vista checklist.
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology
15 GIG hard disk space minimum and 512Mb RAM!!! Flipping 'eck it better be good!
Do they ever learn?
>> Edited by scared but happy on Saturday 20th May 14:09
15 GIG hard disk space minimum and 512Mb RAM!!! Flipping 'eck it better be good!
bbc said:
The minimum means that the operating system will run but some new features will be disabled. Recommended means that this is what is needed to get the most basic configuration of the whole package working.
Do they ever learn?
>> Edited by scared but happy on Saturday 20th May 14:09
agent006 said:
I don't really see the problem. XP runs badly with less than 512mb of ram.
Depends on your needs - for a light user then it runs adequately well in 256MB, so having 512MB onboard gives you a fair old wodge of spare memory for making it run even better. Presumably to get the same differential between adequate and decent on Vista we'll be looking at going from 512MB to a gig...
agent006 said:
It would be pretty sifficult to find a PC for sale by the time vista comes out that doesn't meet the reccommended specs.
Perhaps not, but I'm sure the beancounters employed by most businesses would have no difficulty in continuing to find PCs that barely meet it
aldi said:
15 Gig? How many DVD's is it going to come on?
Comes on one at the moment, but I think it uncompresses a shed load of Cabs to achieve it...
To be honest though, people who are still running machines of a spec that won't allow Vista really won't be the sort who'll have it.
The ones moaning will be the ones trying to get it off the net for free - those of us who have legal licenses will most likely have kit good enough for Vista.
I can appreciate that people may not wish to slash out on a Graphics card in order to run the full Aero interface, but then thats a trade off for eye candy.
Ah, But this is the problem. The lower end PCs will be sold with 512Mb ram to make users upgrade. Look at some of the main computer sellers and 99% of PCs have 512Mb but 1Gb is so much better so why not include as standard?
Also most of the computers that I know people have they are about 1Ghz with 256mb ram. Now I know people will say yes but to upgrade you need xxxx, but if you think of it it all comes downto is it worth upgrading?
Remember people complained about 98 to XP? Well unless anyone can PROVE I need to upgrade to Vista will I need to?
Added: Also most computers coming into repair at computer shops are NOT 3.xxGhz 4Gb ram 200gb drive monsters they are cheap run-of-the-mill PC's
>> Edited by scared but happy on Sunday 21st May 13:45
Also most of the computers that I know people have they are about 1Ghz with 256mb ram. Now I know people will say yes but to upgrade you need xxxx, but if you think of it it all comes downto is it worth upgrading?
Remember people complained about 98 to XP? Well unless anyone can PROVE I need to upgrade to Vista will I need to?
Added: Also most computers coming into repair at computer shops are NOT 3.xxGhz 4Gb ram 200gb drive monsters they are cheap run-of-the-mill PC's
>> Edited by scared but happy on Sunday 21st May 13:45
scared but happy said:
Remember people complained about 98 to XP? Well unless anyone can PROVE I need to upgrade to Vista will I need to?
I think we're a long way from end-of-life for XP, so you won't be *forced* to upgrade for some time. By the time you do, I expect that the minimal hardware requirements for Vista will seem quite mundane.
scared but happy said:
Ah, But this is the problem. The lower end PCs will be sold with 512Mb ram to make users upgrade. Look at some of the main computer sellers and 99% of PCs have 512Mb but 1Gb is so much better so why not include as standard?
Also most of the computers that I know people have they are about 1Ghz with 256mb ram. Now I know people will say yes but to upgrade you need xxxx, but if you think of it it all comes downto is it worth upgrading?
Remember people complained about 98 to XP? Well unless anyone can PROVE I need to upgrade to Vista will I need to?
Added: Also most computers coming into repair at computer shops are NOT 3.xxGhz 4Gb ram 200gb drive monsters they are cheap run-of-the-mill PC's
>> Edited by scared but happy on Sunday 21st May 13:45
Fair points, but why are people expecting to be able to upgrade to the latest and greatest OS, yet still run it on their basic P3, 256Mb, 20Gb office machine?
Its a given that this is what helps drive the technology industry - after all they need to keep giving us new toys to play with - so hence you have to expect to upgrade your machine to cope.
The key difference with Vista is that it relies much more heavily on WinFS, and the Aero Interface. Any machine wishing to make the most of the cool features needs to be pretty strong in order to happily run without any coughing.
Bear in mind that MS are releasing many different versions (I think 8) and that the reason for this is exactly what we are on about. MS admit that many corporate customers will not upgrade to Vista for some time yet as they need to cycle their hardware. Hence, they are releasing 'basic' versions, which come without some of the bells and whistles - many of which are not wanted for business anyway.
MS will make very little revenue from people upgrading - most of their OS revenue will come from OEM licensing, in which the hardware suppliers will be selling the appropriate kit for.
Taking the argument of selling underspecced machines, its silly to imagine that the suppliers do this - many people will never eve open a pc again once brought, and additionally, won't buy any upgrades from the PC manufacturer - so PC manufacturers will try and extract the most profit and offer great deals - look at Dell - frequently 'offering' double memory.
scared but happy said:
Remember people complained about 98 to XP? Well unless anyone can PROVE I need to upgrade to Vista will I need to?
>> Edited by scared but happy on Sunday 21st May 13:45
Who is asking you to upgrade?
Nobody. (well MS would like you to - but thats the same as Mr Porsche wants you to buy a 911 too)
End of Life for XP is a very very long way off - corporates will not be in a rush to move - many have only just moved to XP.
momentofmadness said:
Just my very humble opinion as a typical home computer user, but it seems a bit mad that we will have to have a hugely powerful pc just to run the operating system. Who needs a 3D graphical interface? Just give me a reliable operating system without the 'bling' 
You'll be able to buy a basic cut down 'blingless' version - nece allowing you to run it on a lesser machine that you expect.
Oh I have no problem with upgrading and my machine** will stroll along with Vista going by the specs required its just annoying more than anything else. I must admit it took me a time to switch from '98
As for corporate machines they are still running windows NT going by the stuff coming though.
**so whats he moaning about I hear you say
>> Edited by scared but happy on Sunday 21st May 14:17
As for corporate machines they are still running windows NT going by the stuff coming though.
**so whats he moaning about I hear you say
>> Edited by scared but happy on Sunday 21st May 14:17
scared but happy said:
Oh I have no problem with upgrading and my machine** will stroll along with Vista going by the specs required its just annoying more than anything else. I must admit it took me a time to switch from '98
As for corporate machines they are still running windows NT going by the stuff coming though.
**so whats he moaning about I hear you say
>> Edited by scared but happy on Sunday 21st May 14:17
I've tried to get shot of all of mine, but due to a third part software company I still have to run an NT4 box - I think this why many corps still run NT4 simply because their bespoke software runs well enough, and they don't have the resources to change it to a newer platform. I believe the medical profession suffers considerably from this.
Tis' annoying indeed.
Anyway, what were we moaning about?
(Something I could understand)momentofmadness said:
.... it seems a bit mad that we will have to have a hugely powerful pc just to run the operating system.
Remember OS/2? This ran on a 386 and better than windows 3.1 at the time. As we dont have to upgrade I havent - I still run 95 on a 486 with 32M, does Word processing at home a treat. (keeps the wife happy). (I would point out I have a decent box for gaming/internet use).
GreenV8S said:
Remember people complained about 98 to XP? Well unless anyone can PROVE I need to upgrade to Vista will I need to?
I think we're a long way from end-of-life for XP, so you won't be *forced* to upgrade for some time. By the time you do, I expect that the minimal hardware requirements for Vista will seem quite mundane.
EoL is 2011 IIRC...
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff