Beefy requirements for Vista

[Steve]

We know about Vista's GUI using 3D vector graphics, but could this really dramatically bump up system requirements? We won't know for sure for a while, but it's looking like a possibility:

The transcript quotes Page as stating, "The GPU will need a plenty of room to operate in Vista. The more memory you put on a video card, the better, really. We want the least dumping back to main memory because that's slower than graphics. If you have 128 MByte, that's good; if you have 256 MByte, that's better; but I expect that video card memory will go up a lot when Longhorn is released."

As for system RAM, Page reportedly said, 512 MByte is "heaps" for a 32-bit system. For a 64-bit system, however, "you're going to want 2 gigs of DDR3 RAM." The transcript states that Page explained 64-bit users will need to double their memory because units of memory are naturally double the size. "If you try to make do with what you've got," the transcript adds, "you'll see less performance. But RAM is now so cheap, it's hardly an issue."

[Tom's Hardware]

[Mike Fishcake]

In other news, The CEOs of ATI, nVidia, Corsair and Infineon were seen painfully but happily limping away from Nigel Page's house last week...

[Decemoto]

Ouch! I don't mind though, after all, it's silly to have your brand new £300 graphics card sitting around and doing nothing, when it can be kicking out some nice effects for you on your desktop. As long as it's scalable so that people without that kind of money can still do what they want on the system, I don't see a problem really!

[mike_w]

Ouch! I don't mind though, after all, it's silly to have your brand new £300 graphics card sitting around and doing nothing, when it can be kicking out some nice effects for you on your desktop.

Well, I don't buy a decent graphics card to make a desktop look pretty - I buy them to play games. I'd much rather have some kind of improved functionality over a bit of shinyness which means that less computers can run the operating system.

[ajbrun]

I'd hve thought they'd make it so that as many people as possible can buy the OS, therefore increasing sales and profit. I though that's what MS does best?

[Xenctuary]

And how come Apple's amazing operating system isn't so demanding?

[Mike Fishcake]

I'd hve thought they'd make it so that as many people as possible can buy the OS, therefore increasing sales and profit. I though that's what MS does best?

Good point. Software is what the vast majority of the public want, not hardware. If someone can't run an OS on a £400 PC because they don't have 2GB to be able to type a few emails and do a bit of word processing, they're not going to want to buy it.

[Decemoto]

Well, I don't buy a decent graphics card to make a desktop look pretty - I buy them to play games. I'd much rather have some kind of improved functionality over a bit of shinyness which means that less computers can run the operating system.

I agree, I also buy my graphics cards with the primary purpose of playing games. Also, I too would much rather have extra functionality than just graphical effects tacked on. All I was saying is that as long as the functionality is there, a bit of eye candy is no bad thing!

[tommylittleboy@]

Paul Thurrott discusses the different versions of Vista on release, with the Lower end Home edition not including the aero experience UI. Read here

[YorkieBen]

2 gigs of ddr3 ram?

er no-one uses ddr3 ram at the moment for system ram do they? And I wasnt aware that it was on amd or intels roadmaps (at least for the next year or so)

[FatalSaviour]

In other news, The CEOs of ATI, nVidia, Corsair and Infineon were seen painfully but happily limping away from Nigel Page's house last week...

Here here

2 gigs of ddr3 ram?

er no-one uses ddr3 ram at the moment for system ram do they? And I wasnt aware that it was on amd or intels roadmaps (at least for the next year or so)

By the time a fully functional Longhorn/Vista/(insert next name here) appears with all the bits that it was originally planned with, I'll be surprised if DDR4 isn't passing us by

[FatalSaviour]

Good point. Software is what the vast majority of the public want, not hardware. If someone can't run an OS on a £400 PC because they don't have 2GB to be able to type a few emails and do a bit of word processing, they're not going to want to buy it.

Scaleeeeeeable...As has been mentioned, I would welcome the beautification, but only as long as you can turn it down on older systems.

[Stoo]

They've completely lost the plot... *shakes head*

[autopilot]

Vista's fancy interface will need at least a 6600GT and 1 gig of RAM to just about be ok.

BUT, the fancy UI bells and wistles can be turned off (how else would MS sell millions of copies to businesses that don't have gaming spec PC's).

But by the time it comes out, which in reality probably wont be until 2007, any new basic entry level PC should have the power to run the new interface.

[iranu]

256mb on a gfx card to run an OS!! ffs thats crazy. Me thinking that APC magazine is the equivalent of PC plus.

[dangel]

I've got an X600 running Vista just fine... with a mere 128megs, all 3d stuff enabled and runs fine thank-you-very-much. Most desktop PC's bought this year and last will meet basic requirements IMHO. I have 1 gig of ram in my desktop here FYI. I've not tried the 64bit iteration of it tho, but i can't see the memory requirements being vastly different - XP64bit edition runs fine in 1 gig for me for example.

Vista contains a whole new windowing system, and whilst it has 3d effects they're not the icing on the cake - no, that falls to the fact that now every window in the system has independant state stored for it, which means fars less redrawing (for example, when you drag one window over another the window beneath doesn't need to repaint) and therefore everything is a LOT smoother. Vista has/will have a much better look and feel, and that's great IMHO - bring it on, i'm sick of cacky win95-style user interfaces.

Those that think Vista won't ship in 2006 are sorely misguided - they're well on track now with beta 2 not so far away. I've got the PDC build here (legally I might add, since we're a MSDN subscribed company) and it's yet to crash on me - astounding for an MS beta (1.5). MS' number one priority right now is to ship it on time - and not only that, ship it stable. It even looks like they'll achieve the latter - since this new OS is a ground-up rewrite, not a rehash of old code like it's predecessors.