Microsoft confirms final Windows 7 system requirements

When Microsoft released the official beta for Windows 7 a while back, it also published a set of system requirements. These were a general overview, and it seems that they have been updated to match the Windows 7 RC recently made available.

Here's the list of initial system requirements Microsoft made available:

* 1GHz processor (32- or 64-bit)
* 1GB of RAM
* 16 GB of available disk space
* Support for DirectX 9 graphics with 128MB of memory (for the Aero interface)

And here, you will find the updated and final list of requirements:

* 1 GHz processor (32- or 64-bit)
* 1 GB of RAM (32-bit); 2 GB of RAM (64-bit)
* 16 GB of available disk space (32-bit); 20 GB of avaiable disk space (64-bit)
* DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver

According to ZDNet, however, "If you are planning to run Windows XP Mode along with Windows 7, Microsoft is recommending a PC with a minimum of 2GB of memory and 15 GB of additional disk space." Microsoft stated, "In addition, Windows Virtual PC requires a PC with Intel-VT or AMD-V enabled in the CPU, as it takes advantage of the latest advancements in hardware virtualization."

If you're interested in comparing, here is the list of final specifications for Windows Vista:

* 1 GHz processor (32- or 64-bit)
* 512 MB of RAM (for Home Basic); 1 GB of RAM for all other versions
* 15 GB of available disk space
* Support for DirectX 9 graphics and 32 MB of graphics memory (for Home Basic); 128 MB of graphics memory plus WDDM support for all other versions

These specifications are not specific to any particular SKU, and again, are final. Thoughts?

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Spotify review: The iTunes killer?

Next Story

Pachter: Next generation consoles not before 2013

120 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Hard Drives are Very cheap these days so there is no reason not to buy a larger and faster one, xp is very old but there is a point to how fast it will operate, xp was made in an age where hardware was better but not alot of memory but hardware is better and there is only so much you can do to improve xp then you need to move on, if there are certain apps that don't work on vista then stick to xp but if your software/hardware can handle vista/windows 7 then use that, and as others have said you are not being forced to upgrade/downgrade.

Forum users not understanding what "system requirements" mean yet bitching about some vague "HDD space" which they cannot even count properly (hard links %â„–:â„–%:)? Nothing new...

there are lies, damn lies, and benchmarks. system requirement as stated by msfudd rank higher than benchmarks ...

to be able to run both 64bit and 32bit apps without the need of using a virtual machine running a 32bit os (wow64 is like virtual machine for 32bit apps) as well as a host of other virtualised parts of the os for security and performace reasons

Ambroos said,
Interesting. Good that they actually state DirectX9 with WDDM 1.0 or higher as a requirement, now all vendors will at least be forced to deliver pc's that are Aero capable.

Good! Some dumbass at Lenovo/IBM installed Vista Basic on my gf's hideously underpowered PC (it meets min. requirements) but it was PAINFULLY slow. Hapilly humming along with XP now !

Plus the damn UAC kicked me out during remote assistance, in the middle of virus removal.

a little advice here for a potential 7 user currently on Vista Ultimate 32 bit.

( my general current rig specs )
EVGA sli 590 nforce SLI AM2 platform
4 gigs of pc2 6400 ram @ 800 mhz
AMD 6000+ duel core @3.01 ghz
2 striped Raptors for system drive
2 mirrored WD's for data
3 19 nch widescreens.. ( not running in SLi mode ) WDDM made me buy identical cards
2 x G-force 8500 GT's ( not a gamer.. just a web developer.. light graphics )

sorry if I am out of line posting this here.. but would like to know from the people in the know.. :)

thanks so much in advance!! :)


would you guys and gals say I have a win 7 machine ready hardware wise?

Any help in adavance is much appreciated...

greatestfall said,
this post screams MY E-PEEN STROKE IT PLZ.

but, if it is not that kind of post, I think 7 will run just fine on your system.



no.. seriously.. it really was a very honest question.. It is my work rig, and was not really trying to get any kind of "satisfaction" from any kind of reply like your own.. but I thought it was funny.. and you still managed to answer my question in the long run.. thank you

Atlonite said,
with that you'll probably run win7 rather well infact probably better than vista



thanks for your reply... I wonder why a latter OS could run more effentiently than an older OS "Vista" ?

I think most of the complaints about harddrive requirements are from older users who still have that voice in their mind from back when they were running DOS and playing Hugo's House of Horrors. Much like people who talk about the 'good old days' in any topic, they're usually deluding themselves into forgetting key downsides that MOTIVATED developers to progress into what we have today (just like people who were children in the 50s had no idea what the world was actually like back then, because they were children and living in the family bubble--and they never figure out that it's the family bubble they long for, and not the 50s themselves).

It requires a more powerful CPU than XP.
It requires more RAM than XP.
It requires more Hard Drive Space than XP / Crysis.
I do not have a SINGLE application that requires Vista/7.
My Hardware can't handle DirectX10 Gaming.
I get better performance for GUI, Search Speed, Gaming Speed, Photoshop Speed in XP.

Microsoft seriously fails to appealing to Power Users who do not care about Glitter and fancy Aero effects.

Udedenkz said,
It requires a more powerful CPU than XP.
It requires more RAM than XP.
It requires more Hard Drive Space than XP / Crysis.
I do not have a SINGLE application that requires Vista/7.
My Hardware can't handle DirectX10 Gaming.
I get better performance for GUI, Search Speed, Gaming Speed, Photoshop Speed in XP.

Microsoft seriously fails to appealing to Power Users who do not care about Glitter and fancy Aero effects.

oh please, why don't you just time travel to the stone age and live there.
XP is 8 years old, you need to exit from hibernation.

darth_vader said,

oh please, why don't you just time travel to the stone age and live there.
XP is 8 years old, you need to exit from hibernation.

Windows XP64 has actually been released in 2005.
Service Pack 3 for XP32 has been released in like 2008, I think.

Using 185.xx drivers, and April Realtek Drivers, etc.

This Stone Age can run GTAIV and Crysis, and does not have that much DRM.

Udedenkz said,
It requires a more powerful CPU than XP.
It requires more RAM than XP.
It requires more Hard Drive Space than XP / Crysis.
I do not have a SINGLE application that requires Vista/7.
My Hardware can't handle DirectX10 Gaming.
I get better performance for GUI, Search Speed, Gaming Speed, Photoshop Speed in XP.

Microsoft seriously fails to appealing to Power Users who do not care about Glitter and fancy Aero effects.


... how do you define "Power User?" -- With Photoshop??!!

Don't tell me your processor is slower than 1GHz and you don't have the RAM or disk space. As far as speed goes betas of Windows 7 have been benchmarked all over the place and show it to be faster than XP.

Oh and the Crysis thing is really tired.

saturnslullaby said,

... how do you define "Power User?" -- With Photoshop??!!

For me, a power user is a person who knows his or her way around the system. You know, basic stuff, like removing useless dependencies in services, disabling dynamic link libraries, knowing what exactly starts with his/her system and having full control over it, removing Viruses manually, going without a virus for half a year at least while connected to the internet, etc.

I am not sure what you mean by Photoshop - I have Photoshop, Illustrator, and Bridge CS3 installed on my System. These programs are performance and memory hogs to put it lightly - if you have enough layers in a 600DPi image - Photoshop will be using like 1GB minimum. 170MB for Windows XP + 1GB + 600MB FireFox Open - the RAM usage adds up quickly, now if it wasn't XP, add another 600MB to the equation - scratch disks would be used more often with 7, hindering performance. Now, what I mean by PS running slow is actually different, I mean that it opens up a new document slower.

@m.keeley - actually it is two cloacked at 2400 Mhz.

Udedenkz said,
Windows XP64 has actually been released in 2005.
Service Pack 3 for XP32 has been released in like 2008, I think.

Using 185.xx drivers, and April Realtek Drivers, etc.

This Stone Age can run GTAIV and Crysis, and does not have that much DRM.


Now describe the "DRM" that Vista does have.

Udedenkz said,
It requires a more powerful CPU than XP.
It requires more RAM than XP.
It requires more Hard Drive Space than XP / Crysis.
I do not have a SINGLE application that requires Vista/7.
My Hardware can't handle DirectX10 Gaming.
I get better performance for GUI, Search Speed, Gaming Speed, Photoshop Speed in XP.

Microsoft seriously fails to appealing to Power Users who do not care about Glitter and fancy Aero effects.


In what way?
1. CPU requirements - A P4 (heck, even a P-III) can run Windows 7 (or Vista 32-bit) for basic tasks. This is no more than XP32 requires.

2. RAM requirements - You don't have 512 MB of RAM? (That's the *recommended* minimum for XP, and the bare-minimum for Vista or 7 32-bit.) I have an old Gateway laptop that came with that little (upgradable to 1 GB). Given a USB thumb drive, I could upgrade the same laptop to Vista (or 7, for that matter); it lacks a DVD drive.

3. Graphics requirements: For Aero, you need DX 9c; this is only an issue for portables (laptops, notebooks, and netbooks) as desktops (even those with only PCI slots available) can upgrade to DX10. If you don't game, even that's a non-issue.

4. Drive space requirements - again, not really an issue (except for portables, and depending on the age of the laptop/note/netbook, rather easily fixable, as large hard drives for the portable crowd are dropping in price; see Western Digital's Scorpio line).

5. None of my own applications requires either Vista or 7, either (same applies to my hardware). XP supports all my applications and hardware; some of it is supported even in Windows 2000 Professional. I upgraded (first to Vista, and now to 7) for reasons of *increased stability*; not looks/appearance.

Ok stick with XP. Why do you feel the need to tell everyone you like XP more and to try to get everyone else to stay on an ancient OS?

PGHammer said,
*Snip*

I am a performance freak, the less something requires, the more power there is to other components.

* Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (300 MHz is recommended)
* At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended)
* At least 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available space on the hard disk
* CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drive
* Keyboard and a Microsoft Mouse or some other compatible pointing device
* Video adapter and monitor with Super VGA (800 x 600)or higher resolution
* Sound card
* Speakers or headphones

That is the XP Minimum System Requirements.

Udedenkz said,

Windows XP64 has actually been released in 2005.
Service Pack 3 for XP32 has been released in like 2008, I think.

Using 185.xx drivers, and April Realtek Drivers, etc.

This Stone Age can run GTAIV and Crysis, and does not have that much DRM.


Don't start with the DRM bull****. Windows Vista/7 support DRM media like HD-DVD, Blu-ray and so on, Linux and OS X (can't do that, yet..).

Enough of this crap.

Windows 7 has a faster GUI, why? Because it's done by the graphics card, and not the CPU.

Search speed is faster than XP.

Gaming speed is onpar with XP.

Photoshop runs brilliantly here!

Udedenkz said,
It requires a more powerful CPU than XP.
It requires more RAM than XP.
It requires more Hard Drive Space than XP / Crysis.
I do not have a SINGLE application that requires Vista/7.
My Hardware can't handle DirectX10 Gaming.
I get better performance for GUI, Search Speed, Gaming Speed, Photoshop Speed in XP.

Microsoft seriously fails to appealing to Power Users who do not care about Glitter and fancy Aero effects.

remember most people are NOT power users, they hardy know to to use eBay let again anything else

when i installed vista, there was a command line operation someone told me to do that cleans up unneeded files (after install the cabs are not cleaned up and just sit idley away) you can do this command even after installing a service pack. does anyone remember what it was? will it work on win7?

After installing Service Pack 1 in Vista you were able to use sp1cln.exe in cmd. But this is only for cleaning files that were left over from the SP installation.

So, use the Cleanup utility or even better CCleaner.

These specifications are not specific to any particular SKU, and again, are final. Thoughts?

Yes, my thoughts are I'm still not paying for/begging for/stealing their OS....

if the win7 prices are anything like what the vista pricing was like here in New Zealand then i think MS might be trying to push **** up hill, consider this at release a retail copy of windows vista home prem $599.95nzd ultimate $995.95nzd that sort of pricing just put a ton of people off evan now vista ultimate is still $445.52nzd

I was able to run the beta on my crappy laptop... AMD 1ghz, 1gb ram shared with video 64mb. It ran smoothly, vista wont even install on this thing :P

actually i have seen this happen and just last week to boot where vista actually threw a hissyfit but win7 just chugged along and finished the install and ran vista on the other hand got 80% through the install and failed this was a retail disk not oem or pirated previous os was winxp home

i would not try Windows 7, while XP works fine for my job, i don't want Windws 7 to occupy too much resource to lower my system performance, but doing nothing better.

But it DOES do a lot of things better. It's easier to use, starts and shuts down faster, requires less tweaks to get it running nicely, it's more secure, it's got less legacy annoyances..the list is long. You shouldn't have to worry about it lowering your system performance, you might even find out it improves it. At least that's the case on my system.

People, note that the requirements for hard drive space are just that, requirements. It doesn't mean the OS itself takes that much space. At the moment my Windows 7 build 7068 (64-bit) folder takes about 13 GB. Add to that space for temp files, common program files and page file and the 16-20 GB requirement isn't that much.

For the record I think OSX is around that size too. The comparison to previous operating systems is poor because those didn't have anywhere near the driver support, icon sizes etc etc that today's operating systems do. Also notice that unlike XP, Vista and Win7 (or OSX for that matter) never ask for the installation CD when installing drivers.

Windows 7 is the best performing graphiical based OS that microsoft has ever created. Every application feels MUCH faster is Win 7 than in xp or vista.

shiik said,
i would not try Windows 7, while XP works fine for my job, i don't want Windws 7 to occupy too much resource to lower my system performance, but doing nothing better.

And it's quotes like that which start the whole "Don't switch to Windows Version xxxx" movements......

I hate this "If its not broken, don't fix it" mentality. This is what gives people issues and problems down the line. Sure you can stay with your 7 year old OS forever. However, you are hurting yourself. XP will never be as secure or functional as 7 is going to be. Eventually as hardware and software people stop making drivers and programs compatible with XP, you are going to be forced to upgrade anyway.

Steven77 said,
Keep using a decade old out of mainstream support OS!

A decade old? Is it 2011 already, or do you have your own TARDIS?

DJGM said,
A decade old? Is it 2011 already, or do you have your own TARDIS?

Well put. It bothers me that people pull this information out of their ***es. Latest Service Pack for XP32 was rather recent and Windows XP x64 is actually a lot newer than XP32 and people should not be confusing the two.

Oh no not 20GB!!! I mean what do we all do? It funny how you can never satisfy those who don't want to be satisfied. Do you want it to install on a single floppy next? MS has done a great job with this OS and yet some of you find ways to bitch about a few GIGS of space. Are you that limited or cheap? I can donate my 60GB drive to you for the cost of shipping and handling.

now we all know vista never run good on 1 gb, forget 512. even after sp1.
seven runs very well on 1 gb though. i even installed seven on atom with 512 ram and it was just like vista on 1 gb

I installed Vista on a 512 system a couple of years ago. No problem and it ran smoothly. Now its running on a 1gb and 6gb system. Again no problem.

I am now laughing at those people who thought 7 would have lower requirements than Vista and claimed that its better than Vista when its actually Vista with improvements. I expect SP2 to bring Vista to par with 7.

I don't know about SP2 for vista but 7 does have lower requirements. Lots of people have said this who've used both and have installed (or tried to) Vista and 7 on older systems.

atifsh said,
now we all know vista never run good on 1 gb, forget 512. even after sp1.
seven runs very well on 1 gb though. i even installed seven on atom with 512 ram and it was just like vista on 1 gb :)

7 definitely performs better on older systems than vista ever did.

Titoist said,
I am now laughing at those people who thought 7 would have lower requirements than Vista and claimed that its better than Vista when its actually Vista with improvements. I expect SP2 to bring Vista to par with 7.

Vista is XP with improvements. Your point being? XP is NT 4.0 with improvements even. As OS X 10.5 is to 10.4.

Improvements is also a word that can refer to many things. Improvements could mean more features, it could mean better interface, it could even mean better performance. To add that dog-gone many features to an OS, and keep relatively identical requirements as a 3 year old OS is one thing, but half of the users are claiming superior responsiveness to Vista, including myself as it runs smoothly on my 512 mb laptop with a Radeon x1100 and a 1.4 GHz Turion with Aero and all effects enabled. That alone goes to show that requirements are not always the lowest you can go effectively. Remember that Vista's requirements were also extremely dubbed down due to the Intel issue and them being abnormally high for an XP seasoned market.

ok u have installed vista on 512 mb and u think its runs smooth, .. but then dare i ask... is it smooth compared to vista on 1 gb ram?

sorry, iv used systems with 512 and 1 gb on vista RTM, and all those systems were yes fine if u just boot vista, but if u install stuff like office and antivirus... thats other story.

when i say smooth it means smooth with most or all day to day software we use.

Titoist said,
I installed Vista on a 512 system a couple of years ago. No problem and it ran smoothly. Now its running on a 1gb and 6gb system. Again no problem.

I am now laughing at those people who thought 7 would have lower requirements than Vista and claimed that its better than Vista when its actually Vista with improvements. I expect SP2 to bring Vista to par with 7.


In my humble opinion (backed up with side-by-side testing of 7 RC with Vista with RTM SP2, both 64-bit), that theory is all wet. Consider that I actually *fired* Vista 64 and I'm now running 7 RC as sole operating system. Stability (especially under load) is way up (not only compared to Vista 64-bit, but Vista 32-bit as well), especially in low-RAM conditions.

GP007 said,
I don't know about SP2 for vista but 7 does have lower requirements. Lots of people have said this who've used both and have installed (or tried to) Vista and 7 on older systems.


point in case my friend ran vista on his 3200xp with 1.5gb ram 80gb sata hdd and yeah sure it ran ok maybe a little sluggish sometimes but now he's running win7 on the same setup and evan i can notice the difference in speed his machine is now alot more snappier than it ever was with vista sp1 it just seems to be faster i know the hardware hasn't changed but i realy do rhink that win7 uttilises the hardware it's being run on much more efficiently than vista ever did

They should, all current (well from the Core 2 line and onwards) have it, so I don't see why the Intel Macs wouldn't.

@Xerxes, not all of the Core 2 range have it, some of the lesser known processors don't have it, and a lot of the laptop processors don't.

@TonyLock: Look for your processor here (Intel.com), and make sure that it has a tick in the "Intel® Virtualization Technology (Intel® VT)Φ" column.

Xerxes said,
They should, all current (well from the Core 2 line and onwards) have it, so I don't see why the Intel Macs wouldn't.

Run securable (http://www.grc.com/securable.htm) to test it.

ok, doesn't matter though at the moment (since these days we have 2 TBz around) not not many have that kind of privilege

My 7yo POS PC ran it fine on 768MB of ram. Not smooth at times, but I could do basic day to day work and anything Internet related just fine.

I can install XP + cut down it's weight to 500MB. I'm just not sure how much exercise 7 will require to get that slim and beautifully operational. Right now its like a FAT woman with full of make-ups and lipsticks etc etc

Good for you, if you want to cripple your Win7 install and prevent future updates from installing properly, go right ahead.

Xerxes said,
Good for you, if you want to cripple your Win7 install and prevent future updates from installing properly, go right ahead.

How about you chill out and let people do what they want? If they want to install the OS they OWN a certain way they want it, they sure as hell shouldn't listen to you telling them how to do it and if they are wrong or not.

-Hiroshi- said,
How about you chill out and let people do what they want? If they want to install the OS they OWN a certain way they want it, they sure as hell shouldn't listen to you telling them how to do it and if they are wrong or not.



Look who's telling who to chill out. Xerxes has a point. When you start ripping parts of the code out and install patches that may need something you've taken out, that will only screw with the stability of your system.

And for the record, you don't actually OWN windows. Only the right to install it and use it on your PC.

Lol yeah, owning Windows would earn you the right to make copies and sell it.

And yeah again, its wrong to rip apart an OS like that. You could end up having to rip apart your computer (or at least a reinstall).

Chrono951 said,
Didn't Microsoft just comment on this idea where people who made Vlite versions of Vista will have issues installing SP2?

vlite did break vista, sp updates where not possible.

The minimum requirements look higher, which is a good thing, as everyone knows you don't need a better PC to run it... Just means less people will be complaining that they meet the min. requirements, but can't run it properly!

JunkMail said,
I don't like the HDD requirement should really cut some bloat, rest all is fine.

Windows 7 has cut so much out already.

JunkMail said,
I don't like the HDD requirement should really cut some bloat, rest all is fine.

They have and prices for large hard drives are very low compared to what they used to be.

*sign* always someone who has to complain about "bloat". HDDs are dirt cheap these days. If 20Gb is too much perhaps you shouldn't even be putting Windows on it to begin with?

Xerxes said,
*sign* always someone who has to complain about "bloat". HDDs are dirt cheap these days. If 20Gb is too much perhaps you shouldn't even be putting Windows on it to begin with?

Yep. My laptop has a 40 GB HDD in it (this laptop was released in 2004).

JunkMail, you should have no problem finding an IDE hard drive over 20 GB.

So what if HDs are larger and more affordable today than they were yesterday? There's nothing wrong with asking that operating systems be as lean and efficient as they can be. If it's a matter of choosing space required vs. features, then I'd personally opt for the features - but I don't want software makers thinking that they can get sloppy just because the average computer is fast enough that the deficiencies in the software maker's code will barely be noticable.

My programming professor had actually remarked on this point a few years ago. Back when he was a student, and computing time was shared and compiling took a long time (relative to today) there was a real incentive to make sure that your code was as efficient as it could possibly be. The programming culture today cares less about efficiency. They don't need to be so concerned with it now, of course, and they can focus on the "fun stuff" - but they should still strive to be as efficient as they can.

Windows 3.1 came on 3 floppy disks. Should Windows 7 also come on 3 fdd? I know it's a huge exageration, but that's where we're at. It's not 1995 any more.

Silverskull said,
Yep. My laptop has a 40 GB HDD in it (this laptop was released in 2004).

JunkMail, you should have no problem finding an IDE hard drive over 20 GB.

I think people are confused in thinking all of that is actually loaded when you boot. It's only there in case you need it and I'd rather have that then something that won't work properly. Besides, I do have a 1TB Samsung F1 so and I got it for $79 shipped @ NewEgg. People really need to stop crying about install requirements.

nothin2seehere said,
Windows 3.1 came on 3 floppy disks. Should Windows 7 also come on 3 fdd? I know it's a huge exageration, but that's where we're at. It's not 1995 any more.


3? The Windows 3.11 for Workgroups disks I have are 12 disks....

neufuse said,
3? The Windows 3.11 for Workgroups disks I have are 12 disks....


I actually once managed to make a very barebones boot disk with DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.1 on a single 1.44MB floppy. It booted straight to File Manager and had Notepad, and that was about it. It was still useful for doing file recovery on systems with failing hard drives.

Ledgem said,
So what if HDs are larger and more affordable today than they were yesterday? There's nothing wrong with asking that operating systems be as lean and efficient as they can be. If it's a matter of choosing space required vs. features, then I'd personally opt for the features - but I don't want software makers thinking that they can get sloppy just because the average computer is fast enough that the deficiencies in the software maker's code will barely be noticable.

My programming professor had actually remarked on this point a few years ago. Back when he was a student, and computing time was shared and compiling took a long time (relative to today) there was a real incentive to make sure that your code was as efficient as it could possibly be. The programming culture today cares less about efficiency. They don't need to be so concerned with it now, of course, and they can focus on the "fun stuff" - but they should still strive to be as efficient as they can.

Lean doesn't mean faster. A smaller disk footprint doesn't mean that those computers will perform faster.

JunkMail said,
I don't like the HDD requirement should really cut some bloat, rest all is fine.


1tb hdd cost about 80 bucks now, even less sometimes when you find a good sale. this is like people complaining that new games need dvd rom.

nekrosoft13 said,
1tb hdd cost about 80 bucks now, even less sometimes when you find a good sale. this is like people complaining that new games need dvd rom.

i see your point but still...

it's the point behind the OS taking up SOOO much space when it's just a operating system. you would think that 10GB would be more than enough for something like a OS.

nothin2seehere said,
Windows 3.1 came on 3 floppy disks. Should Windows 7 also come on 3 fdd? I know it's a huge exageration, but that's where we're at. It's not 1995 any more.

Windows 3.1 did NOT come on 3 fdd's at all, it came on SEVEN ...... I still have the disks my friend !!!!!

Yeesh, even Ubuntu linux has a recommended minimum of 8gb of harddrive space for the install. It sounds like you're lamenting that software compiles too easily now and harddrives are too big for developers to spend time shrinking their code, but...

Isn't that a really, really good thing? Like, an incredibly good thing? Knowing that they don't have to waste valuable time and energy ( = money), instead spending all of their time on features and stability--isn't that fantastic, that software development has reached this stage?

As it has been said already, and as common sense should point out, smaller footprints do not mean faster software. Likewise, even a 40gb OS has the potential to blaze along speedily. The majority of those bytes are not loaded into memory, and thus it's completely silly to think that they're somehow dragging Windows down.

so if win7 has cut so much bloat out already then how come it still has a lot of ultra legacy drivers installed but still requires me to provide a sata/raid driver on install this habit is still bull**** if you ask me especially when it downloads an updated version from MS after the install

Caveman-ugh said,
Windows 3.1 did NOT come on 3 fdd's at all, it came on SEVEN ...... I still have the disks my friend !!!!!


perhaps he's thinking of dos6.22 and not win3.11

Silverskull said,
Yep. My laptop has a 40 GB HDD in it (this laptop was released in 2004).

JunkMail, you should have no problem finding an IDE hard drive over 20 GB.


I have a 2004 laptop. They do make new IDE laptop drives that go up to 250GB.

And my laptop runs Vista, and I plan on testing it out with W7.

Will it be? When XP was released the home version was $99 and the pro was $199. When Vista was released the Premium version was $159, business was $199 and Ultimate was $249/259.

The trouble is that Ultimate is not really going to be available at retail. Professional is basically Vista Business mixed with Premium. The suppose Microsoft could release the Pro version for $199. It would make since in a way, but would not keep up with the price increase in the home version.

I have a real fear that the professional version will be $250 and the Ultimate version will be significantly more. Otherwise, why not offer it at regular retail?

bluarash said,
Will it be? When XP was released the home version was $99 and the pro was $199. When Vista was released the Premium version was $159, business was $199 and Ultimate was $249/259.

The trouble is that Ultimate is not really going to be available at retail. Professional is basically Vista Business mixed with Premium. The suppose Microsoft could release the Pro version for $199. It would make since in a way, but would not keep up with the price increase in the home version.

I have a real fear that the professional version will be $250 and the Ultimate version will be significantly more. Otherwise, why not offer it at regular retail?


Most sales of 7 Ultimate (like Vista Ultimate) won't be as upgrade SKUs but as OEM SKUs (either with a new computer or the BYOPC crowd). Professional will pretty much replace Home Premium, while Premium will replace Basic (and be the minimum SKU in non-EU developed markets). Remember, neither Starter or Basic will be sold in developed markets. Surprisingly, Premium (not Basic) will likely be the preferred SKU for developed-market netbooks, for the simple reason that more and more netbooks will actually be able to support Aero.

Other predictions (which should be taken with a few grains of salt, of course):

1. OEM sales - For the first time ever, 64-bit editions will lead vs. 32-bit editions (this will be VERY noticeable with Ultimate and Professional).

2. Someone mentioned *bloat*; for that poster, bloat's not really much of an issue for new hardware, as large hard drives are hyper-prevalent for new computers, and the replacement market is also chockablock with them. (Bloat wasn't much of an issue with Vista, honestly.)

3. Upgrade vs. OEM - the upgrade market will largely remain soft; however, not for the same reason why it was in Vista's case. OEM SKU sales, especially 64-bit, will take off; surprisingly, the big driver won't be processor sales at first, but hard drives.

Isn't 20GB for 64bit a bit steep? Or 35GB with XP Mode? I want to run Windows 7 via BootCamp, but I can't give it a 35GB partition, I chose 10GB for XP, and I thought 7 was meant to be lighter than Vista. How big is the RC installed?

joshysquashy said,
Isn't 20GB for 64bit a bit steep? Or 35GB with XP Mode? I want to run Windows 7 via BootCamp, but I can't give it a 35GB partition, I chose 10GB for XP, and I thought 7 was meant to be lighter than Vista. How big is the RC installed?

It is a bit steep. You don't actually NEED 20GB to install 64-bit. I have it installed on a 16GB partition with plenty of software and still have about 1.5GB free. It's just not ideal

Robin.B said,
It is a bit steep. You don't actually NEED 20GB to install 64-bit. I have it installed on a 16GB partition with plenty of software and still have about 1.5GB free. It's just not ideal

it has all the 32bit stuff as well as 64bit stuff for compatibility etc..

It's around 8GB at the top end for 64bit Win7 I'd guess. But if you're going to say, have lots of ram, then you need say 8GB for the OS, plus x for ram pagefile, + hibernation file, and still have room for apps and patches.

So 20GB sounds about right. 8+4+4= 16GB with 4GB for some apps and patches etc. At that setup, 20GB min sounds right.

Now I know people with 8GB of ram already, so that just boosts things even more.

joshysquashy said,
Isn't 20GB for 64bit a bit steep? Or 35GB with XP Mode? I want to run Windows 7 via BootCamp, but I can't give it a 35GB partition, I chose 10GB for XP, and I thought 7 was meant to be lighter than Vista. How big is the RC installed?

When you can imagine the compatibility files (DLLs, etc) for Windows 7 to work with older hardware and solfware for 64-bit and 32-bit then you'll understand why such a large install. Really though, the days where a 1TB hard drive is $79 why are you complaining? That's less than 3% of the entire storage capacity.

joshysquashy said,
Isn't 20GB for 64bit a bit steep? Or 35GB with XP Mode? I want to run Windows 7 via BootCamp, but I can't give it a 35GB partition, I chose 10GB for XP, and I thought 7 was meant to be lighter than Vista. How big is the RC installed?


If you are running Windows on a Mac then I'm guessing you only use it for compatibility. If you have enough RAM (I assume you do or you wouldn̢۪t need the 64-bit version) then you really don't need the page file at its default size if you only boot it to run one or two apps or games. If you turn it down to 1GB or so that should free up a lot of disk space. The other option is to just install the 32-bit version because the 4GB RAM limit probably isn't going to matter on something that isn't your primary OS...at least not for a few years until games start to require more. I just installed the 32-bit version in a VPC and the VHD is right at 6GB so far.

Thirtythree said,
the days where a 1TB hard drive is $79 why are you complaining?.


hrm maybe where yo live these hdd are at such a low price but where i live they still cost more than $250

It's always better to exaggerate than inaggerate, like they did with Vista's reqs (and the Windows Vista Capable sticker confusion). The requirements are almost identical to Vista's, but they still seem to be more accurate this time :P

Kuraj said,
It's always better to exaggerate than inaggerate, like they did with Vista's reqs (and the Windows Vista Capable sticker confusion). The requirements are almost identical to Vista's, but they still seem to be more accurate this time :P

but Vista was released in 2006... thus those requirements are much more affordable now.

Kuraj said,
inaggerate
This is not a word :P

Also IMO they're not exaggerating - those requirements really are bare minimums.

I don't really think the (real) system requirements have changed much since Vista. It might work a little more of the low-end, but the real improvement is that it has been over two years and the hardware is now more affordable.

I think a more realistic approach is an AMD64 3500 with 1gig of memory for the 32bit install and 2gig for a 64bit install (not really sure about Intel). A more realistic scenario would be to bump up the memory to 2gigs for 32bit and 4gigs for 64bit if you actually want to multitask efficiently.

In the end, however, I still believe that dual cores are needed. The good news is that everything today outside of netbooks comes with them. For netbooks, it is unlikely they will need them given that the tasks running will be mostly system based with an application or two.

I used to run Vista on my single core Sempron 3200+, and never experienced any problems; I'm just picky about the software that I use :P

edit: report/edit buttons are way too close to each other

Interesting. Good that they actually state DirectX9 with WDDM 1.0 or higher as a requirement, now all vendors will at least be forced to deliver pc's that are Aero capable.

Yes, no cheap tricks anymore.
Anyway, those specs are much more accurate and fitting than the specs for Vista.
Running Vista on a 1GB machine is a nightmare, but Win7 works well there.