Analysis - Microsoft vows to learn from Vista mistakes with Windows 7 launch

[HEXUS]

As the build up to the launch of Windows 7 continues, Microsoft has to do it right this time.

Read more.

[scaryjim]

Surely this is the final indictment of Vista; that even Microsoft is appealing for people to upgrade to W7 from the OS that preceded Vista by several years.

This isn't new - Microsoft did the same with ME: 98 -> XP was a supported upgrade path, ME -> XP wasn't. In fact, this whole kerfuffle feels just like the ME saga to me; except this time the replacement version hasn't been as badly rushed so shouldn't be as full of security holes (XP had 36 security updates released in its first 6 months...).]

I'm slightly more concerned that they claim that any computer currently running XP can run ME: XP actually runs acceptably on pretty much any PC with 256MB RAM (I've had it running quite happily on a Celeron 400 w. 256MB) and well on pretty much anything with 512MB. Given that 7 has a minimum requirement of 1GB of RAM I don't see how they can back that statement up!

On the other hand, if that is their claim I may be forced to put it to the test...

[dangel]

Realistically, I'd say 1gb is a min for both xp and 7 - xp with a few necessary bits and bobs soon jumps over the 512mb line.

[Bob Crabtree]

[- Snipped by Bob - ] I'm slightly more concerned that they claim that any computer currently running XP can run ME [you mean Win7, of course, Bob C]: XP actually runs acceptably on pretty much any PC with 256MB RAM (I've had it running quite happily on a Celeron 400 w. 256MB) and well on pretty much anything with 512MB. Given that 7 has a minimum requirement of 1GB of RAM I don't see how they can back that statement up!

On the other hand, if that is their claim I may be forced to put it to the test...

While I agreed with the doubts you express - I do think that 1GB will turn out to be a realistic minimum for Win 7, so Microsoft's assertion is undoubtedly flawed - I also have to say that I'm highly dubious about your assertions that, "XP actually runs acceptably on pretty much any PC with 256MB RAM" and "and well on pretty much anything with 512MB".

Why do I express that doubt?

Well, fact is, you've probably (certainly?) optimised the bejazuh out of those two PCs you mention - and keep background programs to a minimum.

In contrast, most people running XP PCs have no idea how to do those things, so a typical XP PC brought to me for TLC will have a huge number of background tasks running and won't have been optimised in any way at all.

Consequently, in my experience, while some lightly-used systems with few background tasks can get away with 512MB for XP, it's actually 756MB where most XP PCs have a little bit of breathing room - and that after *I've* optimised the bejazuh out of them and cut down on as many background task as is reasonable to do.

If you do have an XP PC with 756MB - or, better, 1GB - the whole experience for users is massively better.

But none of this detracts from your substantive point about Microsoft's (Laurence Painell's) highly suspect claim that, "any PC currently running XP will be able to run Windows 7"

And, I think that everyone here abouts (and a huge number further afield) would be very interested in reading of your hands-on tests of Win7 running on those two PCs you mention!



Bob C