Office 2010 system requirements confirmed

Alex Dubec from the Office Trustworthy Computing Performance team, posted an update on the Office 2010 system requirements for users.  One of the major problems faced by the Office 2010 team was to keep application requirements as minimal as possible, so users don’t need to upgrade hardware.

In a nutshell, users that can run Office 2007 will have no problem running Office 2010 on their system.  However, there is no guarantee that users running Office 2003 on their system will be able to run Office 2010.

The minimum requirements for Office 2007 & 2010 is a 500Mhz processor with 256MB of RAM, compared to Office 2003, with 233Mhz and 128MB of RAM.  CPU and GPU usage hasn’t changed since Office 2007, but Office 2010 does require more disk space than any previous version.  The minimum disk space requirement has increase by 0.5GB while other Office 2010 suites have increase by 1.0GB or 1.5GB.

The reasons for the increase is the added features, the new ribbon interface in all of the applications, the different flavours of Office 2010 and conservatism " which means Microsoft will round up to the nearest 0.5GB or 1GB.  If an application measured 1.63GB, the minimum requirements would be rounded up to 2GB or 1.99GB would be rounded up to 2.5GB.

Microsoft Office 2010 will still run on a DirectX9.0c graphics processor with 64MB of RAM.  Microsoft does recommend a higher system requirement to speed up performance in programs like Excel and PowerPoint, to help render graphs and charts.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

What happens when you ask Steve Ballmer to sign a MacBook?

Next Story

ICANN approves the use of non-Latin domain names

50 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Oh yes... it can be done, start it up, go to Starbucks, then go to the donut shop, and then come back home or to your office. It will be waiting for you. =P

Hm... I expected it to require a latter version of DirectX... I'm looking forward to this release. Office 2010 brings a lot of improvements...

M_Lyons10 said,
Hm... I expected it to require a latter version of DirectX... I'm looking forward to this release. Office 2010 brings a lot of improvements...

It's pretty much inline with what Aero needs, DX9.0C or higher video card. That's the base for WPF apps iirc.

GP007 said,

It's pretty much inline with what Aero needs, DX9.0C or higher video card. That's the base for WPF apps iirc.

Wpf accelerated base is DirectX 7. Dx9 is only for wddm drivers which is not related. this is why wpf on xp is easily accelerated with old cards and xpdm drivers. The wddm dx9 drivers do add extra font acceleration, and a few enhancements but is not needed.

the requrement is way to low for this day and age.

i mean how went office 2010 in something like Pentium 2 system??

Chrono951 said,
I can finally say that my SLI system was necessary. I need it to render the graphs in powerpoint.

Of course, seeing how powrpoint can do videos as well now and some other crazy effects few people even know about.

It probably wouldn't give them the leeway to play with, most likely anything above 1.8GB or around there would be rounded up to 2.5GB.

WelshBluebird said,
"1.99GB would be rounded up to 2.5GB."

Is anyone else confused about this? Surely 1.99GB would round to 2GB??


Nope, it's just in case. But I think Microsoft would try to compress it a little bit more to get it down to 2GB required.

cybertimber2008 said,
Interesting that it didn't say the required OSs.
Didn't 2007 require XP SP2 and up?

If that was true for Office 2007 then saying "If you can run 2007 you'll be able to run 2010 just fine" has that covered.

Soldiers33 said,

they always say that and when you run it its slow as hell
That's why they are called minimum and we have recommended or "optimal" requirements.

However, I kind of agree with you. They are set too low this time.

Soldiers33 said,

they always say that and when you run it its slow as hell

Multitasking, folks.

Office usually has more running than just the Offiice application itself (this has been true since Office 2000) as, starrting with that version, additional background processes were added (largely moved from the foreground). Secondly, Office 2010 is (except for C2R) designed largely for multicore (real or virtual) processors (it's faster on Northwood-C processors than Northwood-B, even when clocked identically; the difference can only be due to the load moving to that second virtual core; however, even low-end true multicore CPUs, such as Celeron DC, are faster still than even Northwood-C).

It is low although realistically I can't see too many people running this on a system with less than a gig anyway, at least not legally. While XP will run on a machine with that much RAM I doubt it's likely that a user would be prepared to shell out for office who has not also shelled out for RAM at some point. Anyone with a system that old probably doesn't want to upgrade anything, including their office suite.

And systems running a newer OS probably shipped with a gig at minimum anyway.

Edited by Smigit, Jan 23 2010, 4:06pm :

warwagon said,
I'd just be happy if wordpad in Windows 7 had spell checking :D
If only Windows had system wide spell check like OSX :(

Rudy said,
If only Windows had system wide spell check like OSX :(

Personally I don't want to see it being added to win32 - they need stop adding features to a dying API and focus on getting .NET up to speed so that it can eventually replace win32 one day.

warwagon said,
I'd just be happy if wordpad in Windows 7 had spell checking :D

office suite is nothing compared to wordpad

rawr_boy81 said,

Personally I don't want to see it being added to win32 - they need stop adding features to a dying API and focus on getting .NET up to speed so that it can eventually replace win32 one day.

That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a while.

Leo Natan said,

That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a while.

Don't be rude. .Net has a lot of potential so I agree with rawr_boy81. But regardless, it would be nice if old apps had it too I guess.

Rudy said,
If only Windows had system wide spell check like OSX :(

Now now.....then how could Microsoft justify charging $700 for the suite if they had system-wide spell-check?

ManOfMystery said,

Now now.....then how could Microsoft justify charging $700 for the suite if they had system-wide spell-check?

1. No one pays $700 for Office unless they are clueless.
2. What does Office have to do with system wide spell check?

rawr_boy81 said,

Personally I don't want to see it being added to win32 - they need stop adding features to a dying API and focus on getting .NET up to speed so that it can eventually replace win32 one day.

.Net mostly wraps win32 API functions for simplified development. Any functionality not in the framework requires you to call win32 API functions.

Edited by jimbo11883, Jan 23 2010, 3:35pm :

rawr_boy81 said,

Personally I don't want to see it being added to win32 - they need stop adding features to a dying API and focus on getting .NET up to speed so that it can eventually replace win32 one day.

.NET was never designed to replace Win32, it was designed to replace MFC (if you want to argue it was designed to replace anything rather than add to it). .NET is just a big wrapper for Win32. Thinking that Win32 will be replaced by .NET is not something that is going to happen. Yes .NET has its place and that place is client and web apps with a few other little bits in the middle (windows services, etc.). Win32 (or Win64) will always be there as the lowest interface to the operating system. Look at Windows 7 and all the new bits added to COM. Hell one of the biggest selling points of Silverlight 4 is COM compatibility.

.NET is designed for a specific task, and it is doing well at what it was designed for. Win32/64 is designed for a totally different reason and the two will live together for a very long time.

Edit: Also I would love to see a system wide spell checking API added to Windows. It is kind of sad that such simple things as a spell checker and a dictionary are not available as core OS component in my opinion.

Edited by dtytfyiutiufg, Jan 24 2010, 5:32pm :