backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 58 comment(s) - last by Helbore.. on Dec 21 at 2:17 PM
You're going to need at least 800 MHz and 512 MB

Microsoft has updated its Get Ready Web site to include the minimum system requirements to run Windows Vista.

A Windows Vista Capable PC must include at least a CPU running at 800MHz, 512 MB of RAM, a DirectX 9 graphics card capable of at least 800x600, a CD-ROM drive and a 20 GB HDD with at least 15 GB free for the install. Of course, systems with bare minimum specifications will be unable to run Vista in the Aero interface.

In order a PC to be certified as “Windows Vista Premium Ready,” it must have at least a 1 GHz CPU, 1 GB of RAM, a DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory, Pixel Shader 2.0, DVD-ROM drive, a sound card, internet access and 40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.

For Windows XP, users who did not meet the minimal requirements for XP Home (300 MHz, 128 MB) were still able to install and run the operating system, albeit rather slowly. It remains to be seen if Windows Vista will allow installs on machines lesser than minimal specification.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
GHz myth
By lplatypus on 12/19/2006 5:58:15 PM , Rating: 3
Haven't we moved on from measuring CPU performance in GHz?




RE: GHz myth
By walk2k on 12/19/2006 6:06:53 PM , Rating: 3
No not really. Not back when they were 800mhz for sure. That didn't happen until AMD started using the "Althon" rating, when they were about 1.4 Ghz.


RE: GHz myth
By lplatypus on 12/19/2006 6:17:15 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I suppose that the GHz myth became more evident when Intel started marketing Pentium 4 processors with significantly worse IPC than competitors. As you say, this started happening at slightly higher clock frequencies than 1GHz. Today however I can buy a 1GHz x86-compatible embedded processor like a Via C3 or AMD Geode which would be heaps slower than a 1GHz Athlon from yesteryear, so I think that the GHz myth is relevant at 1GHz today.


RE: GHz myth
By dice1111 on 12/19/2006 6:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
This is an interesting point. What should we be messuring CPU in nowadays? Serial numbers and CPU types? Cache? FSB speed? Heat?

It's not that simple. If CPU makers could post their processing powers in a quanitative messurement (like HP and tourque of a car engine), it would make a lot more sence to us simpletons, and easier for them to sell me on a product.

Maybe in gigaflops or a new word like Compupower or something.


RE: GHz myth
By ADDAvenger on 12/19/2006 6:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
Even FLOPS aren't entirely accurate though, theoretical FLOPS seem to be about ten times more than actual real-world FLOPS in everything but supercomputers, and even they seem to get half the real-world FLOPS. I don't remember the numbers exactly, the 1/10 and 1/2 numbers are somewhat made up, but it's close.


RE: GHz myth
By Oregonian2 on 12/19/2006 6:22:50 PM , Rating: 2
And Floating Point performance (FLOPS) may not be terribly relevant anyway. A zero-FLOP processor might run most of vista (or any other OS) just fine. FLOPS is more relevant for things like running SETI-at-home (or the new version whatever it's called).





RE: GHz myth
By greylica on 12/20/2006 7:54:48 AM , Rating: 2
You are completely wrong, FLOP Means almost everything on our digital world. MP3 decompresion, Mpeg, Games, encryptation algoritms, everything, everuything has at least one use for the FLOP operators.


RE: GHz myth
By walk2k on 12/19/06, Rating: -1
RE: GHz myth
By kamel5547 on 12/20/2006 12:24:31 AM , Rating: 2
Um... so how deos this apply to the AMD chip vs an Intel chip lets say... 2.6Ghz dual core athlon performs worse than a 2.4 Ghz Intel dual core... Or the fact that a Pentium D performs fare worse than both those processors at higher clocks and being a dual core chip as well.

Ghz are irrelevant. YOu need another measure of performance that calcualtes real world operations performed.


RE: GHz myth
By cochy on 12/19/2006 6:35:58 PM , Rating: 5
Microsoft should do what game publishers do: List all compatible parts by name, i.e. AthlonXP 2000+ or better/Pentium 3 1Ghz or better etc.

Problem solved.


RE: GHz myth
By PitViper007 on 12/20/2006 11:35:57 AM , Rating: 2
While I agree totally with you that MS should list the required CPU specs according to the CPU manufacturer's naming convention, I think that they still have the specs low enough that at this point, it isn't required.

On a side note, I've been running the Vista RC1 Beta for a while now on an Athlon 64 3200+ machine with 1GB ram. I have to say that while it seems to run OK, it is a memory hog. The OS alone seems to want 400-500 meg of ram alone. Add in any programs you want to run, and I think a minimum of 1GB is a necessity.

PitViper


not too bad...
By thejez on 12/19/2006 5:49:01 PM , Rating: 2
I installed vista ultimate on my Athlon XP 1700+ with 512 MB of RAM, 128MB ATI 7600XT, and 80GB hdd.... everything installed just fine and wasn't too slow with Glass turned on. However i did install another 512 MB of ram ($45) and now it runs a lot faster... for daily use its plenty fast although i dont play a lot games on that machine... i am also adding a 2GB ReadyBoost drive over the hollidays to see if that will increase the speed even more...




RE: not too bad...
By Pirks on 12/19/06, Rating: -1
RE: not too bad...
By edpsx on 12/19/2006 6:53:49 PM , Rating: 2
No its not.. read my other post. I do recommend 1gb of ram though.


RE: not too bad...
By nurbsenvi on 12/19/2006 7:13:41 PM , Rating: 2
Does he mean he can boot from 2gb flash mem?
I know that the Vista does support Hybrid hard drive which has got flash mem in them

but what does he mean by "2gb flash"?

is there a way you can boot from 2gb flash without the need for loading from hdd?


RE: not too bad...
By edpsx on 12/19/2006 11:04:12 PM , Rating: 2
I dont know whether or not you can boot to it.. maybe from hibernation its possible but from a cold boot Id imagine unless the BIOS supports it its not feasible. It basically adds another swap space available when RAM gets full and it needs extra memory to use.


RE: not too bad...
By thejez on 12/20/2006 12:31:31 AM , Rating: 2
ReadyBoost allows you to create a shadow of your swap file onto a flashdrive where access times are typically < 1ms (if you get a decent flash drive)... this speeds up access to smaller (4k) chunks of data that is accessed frequently from the swap file... this speeds up the system by reducing the latency required to access the data in the swap file.

It not near as performant as adding real mem to a system but its way cheaper. I can add a 2GB flash drive for ~ $25 where 2GB of mem is way more expensive.


RE: not too bad...
By thejez on 12/20/2006 12:34:58 AM , Rating: 2
i think your confusing what i am talking about with ReadyDrive which support the hybrid drives for super fast boot times and hybernate recovery.

Here is a link that explains the new performance stuff in vista at a high level: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/features/for...


RE: not too bad...
By thejez on 12/20/2006 12:25:44 AM , Rating: 2
please send me the link to the website where i can buy 2GB (2x 1GB) of PC2100 ram for $25.... cause thats what the 2GB flashdrive cost me.


RE: not too bad...
By fireproofmatch on 12/20/2006 3:57:55 AM , Rating: 2
you are the stupidest thing I heard all this week. do your research.


RE: not too bad...
By slashbinslashbash on 12/19/2006 10:17:06 PM , Rating: 2
ATI 7600XT? That's a new one :O

And the 800MHz requirement does make sense. The PIII and Athlon were fairly close in performance back in those days. The bigger problem is that 512MB is the upper limit on those old Intel 815 chipset motherboards that came with those Coppermine PIII's. Stuck at 512MB is no place to be with Vista.


minimal configuration
By Bytre on 12/19/2006 6:25:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it can be installed on machines with less than the minimum configuration. There is not a cpu speed lock in it.