nightRider Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 I've updated the article on the first page. Please post here if you don't understand something or have found something that's wrong. 586291295[/snapback] Vista, what kind of video card do you have for that minimum requirement thing. And if you use the min requirement, will glass work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolution Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Vista, what kind of video card do you have for that minimum requirement thing. And if you use the min requirement, will glass work? 586295575[/snapback] According to Microsoft, a card that has at least 64 MB of RAM (dedicated), supports DirectX 9.0, and at supports at least Pixel Shader 2.0. Vista Hardware Although it may have been "written" by him, it's basically a plaguarized version of the WinSuperSite with a few words changed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightRider Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 So did he actually test Vista with those specs?? I think that requiring 512 MB of memory is a bit like a "trying to make consumers spend more money" scheme. Is that article talking about the ideal specs to get the ultimate feel of Vista? If not, then are the minimum requirements that he posted really the minimum? And what was the result? I would like to know. If i installed Vista on my comp without upgrading my video card what features would I not be able to have? Is it just the aero glass? Would anything else be affected? And if so, what else? Sorry, I know that this is a lot of info to ask for. thanks in advance to anyone that gives me answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vista Posted July 30, 2005 Author Share Posted July 30, 2005 I tested Vista on those minimum requirements and it worked without any problems. With a Geforce 2 you probably won't be able to get the aero glass effects. You'll need a Geforce FX. With a Geforce 2 you'll be able to use all features of Vista instead the new graphical technologies. REMEMBER: Beta 2 will have all next-gen features integrated. Beta 1 doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightRider Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 what does the new graphical technologies include? is it a lot? what video card did you have when you tested it under the minimum requirements? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vista Posted August 4, 2005 Author Share Posted August 4, 2005 what does the new graphical technologies include? is it a lot?what video card did you have when you tested it under the minimum requirements? 586309396[/snapback] There are a lot of new graphical technologies which are explained in the article like WGF. WGF is supported on G70 cards only. I used S3 ProSavage 8MB integrated video to test the minimum requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jphillips59 Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 How great does the video card have to be? This is the first time i've ever had to check what my video card is and this is what it says:NVIDIA GeForce 2 MX/MX 400 Video memory: 32 MB Will this work for the aero glass, etc. ? 586295413[/snapback] No, 128MB and has to be DirectX9 capable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vista Posted September 15, 2005 Author Share Posted September 15, 2005 I completely updated the whole article on the first page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lardiop Veteran Posted September 15, 2005 Veteran Share Posted September 15, 2005 Microsoft has repeatedly stressed that Vista will run just fine (minus the fancy glass effects) on hardware back to a high end P3 system. The system requirements for Beta 2 shoudnt be any different than Beta 1, and definitely wont require anything close to your speculated requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhavalhirdhav Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Beta2 Hardware requrment wont be that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted September 15, 2005 Veteran Share Posted September 15, 2005 No, 128MB and has to be DirectX9 capable 586326270[/snapback] That is not correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyko_x Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 (edited) I just watched a video of a developer at microsoft who was showing off what the system could do. He described his system as "beefy" and said he was using an ATI X800 graphics card. How did you come up with that 1gig estimate of video ram??? Besides that point I have some questions about some of the other stuff in the article. "The G70 videocards also are fully optimized for DirectX 10" <-- how can it be fully optimized for something that's not out yet? "Gaming will be the same as on a gameconsole. No bugs, crashes, slow loading times or stutters anymore." <-- Bugs and crashes are due to poor coding (due to MS, game developer or other party), hardware conflicts etc. How can MS guarantee all games will be bug free? In addition, game developers always push the hardware. Unless you tell me that harddrives will disappear within the next year, slow loading is not something you can just say will never occur. Even with dual core, if the developers push the hardware enough both cores might be too busy to start preloading a new level in a game if you see what I mean. "run more than 15 graphical applications (applications that use both 2d and 3d graphics and use 100% of your CPU) at the same time instead of 2" <-- where's this information from? I can run more than 2 applications at the same time its just they will each run slower. Also, I don't care if we happen to get 4 core processors next year. If you run 15 apps at the same times each will run slow as hell. You can't get around having to share cpu time since transistors can't do two things at the same time. Other than some of your BS though, I'm surprised that so many people just believe all the speculation out there. People it's not even beta 2. I'm sick of seeing posts like "will my system be enough to run vista smoothly"..and then they believe all the random yes's and no's people give them. Edited September 15, 2005 by psyko_x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ev0| Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 stop writing articles full of misinformation please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted September 15, 2005 Veteran Share Posted September 15, 2005 "run more than 15 graphical applications (applications that use both 2d and 3d graphics and use 100% of your CPU) at the same time instead of 2" <-- where's this information from? I can run more than 2 applications at the same time its just they will each run slower. Also, I don't care if we happen to get 4 core processors next year. If you run 15 apps at the same times each will run slow as hell. You can't get around having to share cpu time since transistors can't do two things at the same time. 586529866[/snapback] Actually... I think someone (probably the guy that wrote what you quoted) misunderstood the change. In 2000/XP, you cannot have more than one (or technically, maybe 2) 3D-accelerated applications on the screen at the same time. Have you ever noticed that Nvidia's "nView" features (like transparent windows, etc) become disabled when it detects that another app is using 3D acceleration? Under Vista with LDDM, that won't be a problem. Partly because of changes to the driver model, and partly because the window manager is now a Direct3D app. On Vista, you can do something like 60+ 3D accelerated apps at once... not that you'd probably want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts