Bulky System Requirements for Windows Vista 615
unsurreal writes ""A Tech Strategist within Microsoft, Nigel Page, has gone on record to discuss the hardware requirements for Windows Vista, due out next Christmas." The next year is going to be an interesting one as hardware vendors smile towards the shocking new recommended hardware needed for the next generation Windows operating system." From the article: "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." Coverage available at Tom's Hardware as well, with a semi-transcript at Tech Ed.
256mb? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, let's all take turns bashing Microsoft! (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Buy NVIDIA and ATI stock (Score:5, Insightful)
Business: Performance & Lifecycles (Score:1, Insightful)
256MB of video memory? (Score:5, Insightful)
Eye-candy doesn't result in functionality Microsoft... shift your attention towards usability.
Thanks, Bill! (Score:5, Insightful)
MS driving up HW prices? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but I really don't like this system of forced upgrades due to "enhancements." If I buy a computer that is 1000$, I expect it to be good for quite a long time. I think computers are at a point now where they can be treated as appliances, lasting for decades. If people just kept on using windows 2000/xp, a current day $500 PC would be good enough until the hardware dies. The problem is, that hardware just doesn't last that long these days. Ah well, maybe it's not a giant conspiracy, but I can see why Dell and such like their partnership with MS.
Well, maybe there are enough people like me who are fed up with upgrades, and they'll just stay with windows 2000/xp or use linux/*bsd.
Ho-hum (Score:5, Insightful)
We're covering this as if most users were going to upgrade from XP to Vista, and will be thus compelled to shell out big bucks for new graphics cards, ram, disks, etc for their current computers just to run the new OS.
This is, of course, not the case. Most users who cannot upgrade will march blithely on with the OS they already have. I'm writing from work, where we're still using Windows 2000. The computer next to me is an ancient Pentium 133--and it runs Win95.
Home users will encounter Vista when they decide to buy a brand new computer, and from that perspective, they'll have gotten a shiny new OS with their shiny new hardware. Nobody will see the cost of the OS and the cost of the hardware to run it as separate things.
But vectors are supposed to save memory (Score:1, Insightful)
vectorized icons need 256MB? (Score:5, Insightful)
(and the Indy *did* ship with a journaling filesystem... XFS...)
Re:Heard this before (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Almost admissable proof of monopoly. (Score:5, Insightful)
have you seen current 600 dollar pcs?
they far outclass the 600 dollar mac mini and those run tiger.
by the time vista ships, 600 bucks will buy you a lot more power than you "need" to run vista.
if you turn off the eye-candy , it'll run as well as xp does today.
you have it wrong, hardware requirements are not a good reason not to get vista. there are much better reasons not to get it, like the massive DRM and financially supporting ms, which is as good reason as any.
Re:256MB of video memory? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now, the bulk of windows purchasers are the same people who don't know any better and are more impressed with flashy graphics for their home PC than features that 99% of them will never use or never realize they are using.
Windows is the OS of the masses, yes it can be a good OS and in some respects it is, however... the bottom line is that Windows is being designed to appeal to people who buy the system based on what they *see*.
Re:Buy NVIDIA and ATI stock (Score:3, Insightful)
Another take (Score:2, Insightful)
Why so much VRAM for GPU-driven display? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mac OS X 10.4 is capable of rendering the entire interface using the GPU (they call it Quartz Extreme [apple.com]). The system delivers some incredibly cool visual effects (see Core Image [apple.com]), and it does it on systems with as little as 64 MB of VRAM on the graphics card. So what the hell is Vista going to do where 256 will be optimal?
Re:Almost admissable proof of monopoly. (Score:5, Insightful)
Vista is nearly all eye-candy, if you strip off the eye-candy, all you have is XP with staggering DRM.
Re:Almost admissable proof of monopoly. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, since 64-bit is handling data chunks that are double the size, you'll need double the memory, hence the 2GB.
64bit data is double the size of 32bit data? Just installing a 64bit version of an OS doubles your RAM requirements compared to the 32bit version?
Since when?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:256mb? (Score:2, Insightful)
OEM Windows (Score:3, Insightful)
Fsck Hollywood (Score:3, Insightful)
HD-DVD and BluRay can join DAT, SACD, and DVD-Audio as formats that were killed by greed.
Re:Thank you Captain Obvious... (Score:3, Insightful)
through emulation at least.
you cannot emulate the DRM of the x86 mac or the "EULA" of the ppc macs but you can install the basic vista on a ppc machine. the DRM (secure boot) isn't mandatory or you'd have several billion computers that vista couldn't be installed on.
that's what i mean by artificial restrictions. you can buy mac os or windows and install on any chip arch/hardware if the manufacturers don't go out of their way to prevent it. DRM and the like are artificial restrictions. because even when you pay for the software, you are at the mercy of the vendor and don't really own it.
ironic that apple said they won't prevent people from installing windows on osx86 but yet the reverse isn't true. what's apple's excuse?
people who buy region 2-5 dvd discs cannot play them on unapproved hardware (i.e. hw that has the ability to play multi-region). the fact is, the dvd consortium et al have no right whatsoever to tell you what hardware you may use to play it back on. if we had some competent judges and legislators they wouldn't be allowed to artificially restrict discs/software/movies/music to certain hardware in the first place. it places undue harm on the customers for no gain in return.
any hardware that has the capability to play and use the purchase is perfectly ok and legal. but the corollary to that isn't for the manufacturer to build custom chips to circumvent the then right (if we ever see the day when congress and judges do the right thing) for users to choose their hardware.
why the heck not? they paid for it.
artificial restrictions. that's why.
Re:256mb? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet another reason not to upgrade from windows 2000 or XP. I read a post suggesting that the hardware requirements won't be that bad by the time it's released. Hardware requirements certainly won't be an issue by the time people are actually interested in upgrading which could be some ways down the road from the initial release.
I use and love linux, but if it gains market share it will be for reasons other than hardware requirements.
Re:Almost admissable proof of monopoly. (Score:5, Insightful)
We all know that the Mac Mini is pretty much the most powerful computer you can buy in a package that small, so you Mac zealots can put that tired old line to rest.
However, for some people, size really doesn't matter that much. It's pretty much a fact that you can buy a heck of a lot more computer for the money if you don't mind it being the size of a breadbox rather than the size of a standard CD drive. And then there are some people who actually do like things like extra drive bays and PCI slots.
Re:Thanks, Bill! (Score:2, Insightful)
because apple charges a hefty premium on macs. the chip architecture they run on is irrelevant in terms of cost to the end user.
they are macs and will be charged a mac price.
video ram is exceedingly cheap if it's not bleeding edge fast. check out some radeon/geforce low end cards that have 256megs of ram. and by low end i don't mean shitty, i mean last years mid range models. you can get this years mid range 256m cards for around 150 bucks or so if you want a little more 3d oomph.
and by late 2006/2007 256MBs video ram will be the dirty cheap super low end version of cards.
and on top of that, vista has 3 different modes for eye candy: the top model requires 256ram and a top notch WGF 1/2.0 card, the medium model requires a dx8 level card (most computers already have or will have at least this) and then there's the windows classic which requires just about nothing.
the hardware requirements shouldn't be a bother to anyone. this isn't 1995 where hardware costs an arm and a leg. you can get a 5-600 dollar computer that can rip vista a new one and add a 200 dollar video card and you can get the best model of eye candy if you're so inclined.
but then again, vista doesnt have much to offer beyond optical sweets. it's XP+. stick with w2k or xp, you'll be better off. i plan on never upgrading, not in the least part due to the system-wide DRM and bullshit monitor upgrading to view HD video.
Insightful? (Score:5, Insightful)
CPU stacks now have 8-byte entries, so they are pretty much always twice as big.
AMD64 code is quite a bit bigger than IA32 code. Most estimates say 15%.
None of these double your memory requirements, but it's probably easier for them to prereq 2GB of ram than 1.4GB.
Re:Mac guys, this is your cue! (Score:3, Insightful)
But why such a powerful GPU? If Apple can achieve the same thing using a minimum of 32MB (like my little iBook), why can't Microsoft?
What's the compelling reason for such a hefty GPU requirement? Do you have to launch Doom III to 'delete' files? This is serious GPU power here, and if it's just rendering windows it seems to be poorly optimised.
Maybe it's a beta thing, and by the time it ships you can get by with lower GPU requirements.
Resources (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Almost admissable proof of monopoly. (Score:3, Insightful)
do you realize that the bulk of the pc's out there are P-III 866 or less? there still is a HUGE userbase of windows 98? Most people call their home pc "good enough". you do not need more than Windows 98 or 2000 on a P-III 550 with 256 meg of ram and NO 3d video card to go online, run that stolen copy of office 97 from the office, use tax-cut once a year and read email. those items cover 90% of all computer uses in the typical home.
Dont believe me? go house shopping. 9 out of 10 homes have a really stinking old PC. Hell I still see OKI dot matrix printers at people's houses once in a while, and I'm shopping the $200,000.00 price mark in michigan where that is considered a really nice house. (as opposed to the one room crapshack in da hood you would get in San Fransisco for that price)
People are not buying new pc's. Most will not upgrade until they buy a program they need and it will not run or refuses to install.
Re:Almost admissable proof of monopoly. (Score:4, Insightful)
You were doing so well right up till this point.
Nintendo has never been and still is not in any danger of going anywhere. At any given time all of their supported platforms have many spots in the top 10 selling titles on the platform-wide charts. Their largest first party titles sell nearly as many copies as the most of even the best chart-busters on the other platforms.
Nintendo can sell less cubes than Microsoft sells boxes, and Nintendo is still shoving a flaming foot of victory right up Microsoft's ass because their volume of first party sales is so high.
To illustrate the point, take Halo for example. Nearly all XBox owners bought Halo 1 and Halo 2. Very few other titles on the XBox have enjoyed that kind of success. On the Gamecube, the list of chart-busting first party titles that sold to nearly anyone seriously playing their cube isn't limited to Metroid Prime 1 and 2. There's also Zelda, Mario, Pokemon, Smash Brothers, Starfox Assault, Mario Party, Double Dash, and so on. Keep in mind these are all Nintendo branded titles.
The situation was very similar on the N64 as well. It's just a basic fact that Nintendo has always relied very heavily on it's first party titles and has profited very handsomely as a result.
Nintendo didn't just barely survive. Nintendo has been doing exceptionally well. The falling value of the Yen the past few years has hurt Nintendo much worse than sales have.
Just because the numbers don't make it out to appear as if Nintendo is doing just fine doesn't mean it isn't the case. Microsoft continues to just piss away sewers full of money on the XBox, and many believe this will continue to be the case with the 360.
In the worst case scenerio that the falling support for the Cube will carry over into the Revolution, that doesn't change the fact that Nintendo still owns the handheld market.
Despite Sony's claims to the contrary, the GBA still dominates, and the DS is fat and happy with stellar sales. (Though I honestly wish I understood how Nintendogs has become so popular....)
There's also one other thing to remember.
Practically every Gamecube player is still waiting for Twilight Princess, delayed though it may be.
If the Xbox is lucky, it MIGHT see one last huge seller before the 360 replaces it. Don't count on it, though.
(BTW - DC, PS2, XBox, GC, GBA, DS, PSP... Yes, I got'em all...)
We Told You So (Score:3, Insightful)
You want to stay with Microsoft?
You pay the hardware cost.
I can't wait until the corporations see that every secretary in the office has to have 2GB of RAM - or they have to support 2000 and XP themselves after "end of life" - which will be about five minutes after Vista ships, since Gates may be an asshole, but he's not stupid.
I can't wait to see the minimum disk space, too. Forget about putting Vista on a Bart's PE flash drive...even if you have a 4GB one.
Re:Almost admissable proof of monopoly. (Score:1, Insightful)
Opening up a web browser, an email client and running antivirus software brought the memory requirements up to 240 MB - effectively using almost all available memory.
Don't tell me XP isn't a memory hog. 512 MB is a minimum requirement for this OS which is 3+ years old, to avoid memory mapping to the hard drive. So a new Windows OS to be released 4-5 years later is going to require 2 GB? Thats probably a conservative estimate, not a bloated one.
Re:Insightful? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it doesn't. That's silly. Even in the most extreme case 90% of memory contains DATA.
The only way that half of memory would be pointers is if your entire computer's memory had a tree or list of integers, and what use is that? All real applications, even computational ones, contain lots of data: strings, images, documents.
The two biggest users of memory on most computers would be cache (whether the file system, or database pages, or web pages), and images (icons, web browser pictures, game textures).
wank (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny how MacOS X has managed just fine on a 32meg card for the past couple of years... even Tiger.
Microsoft is trying to tell us that rendering a Windows desktop requires more 3d memory capacity than the PS2 uses for something like Gran Turismo 4? That their own X box has 1/4 the capacity needed to render a Windows desktop?
Pfft..
smash.
we need a "just say no to vista" campaign (Score:1, Insightful)
with a website explaining vista's DRM stuff.
explaining how its ungodly system requirements are totally insane.
and we need a good web graphic button that is eye pleasing and catching. nothing overly zealous like the windows logo with a circle and bar (that's a good way to preach to only the converted).