Brandon Live Veteran Posted September 8, 2005 Veteran Share Posted September 8, 2005 RAM: 2GB is the ideal configuration for 64-bit Vista, we're told. Vista 32-bit will work ideally at 1GB, and minimum 512. However, since 64-bit is handling data chunks that are double the size, you'll need double the memory, hence the 2GB. 586492621[/snapback] Nothing but BS. That's not how it works. 64-bit addressing doesn't make your data bigger. 64-bit systems will allow programs to USE more memory (in addition to the other benefits of AMD64 - such as the extra registers)... but it will in no way mean you'll need more memory. 512MB is the min and 1GB is good for TODAY's systems - because memory is cheap and people like to have a lot running - and applications are being designed to take advantage of more memory. So yeah, more memory will always be good. But that bit about 64-bit systems "needing double the memory" is completely rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted September 8, 2005 Veteran Share Posted September 8, 2005 this is serious garbage. microsoft should get a reality check and realize that they're building an os and not an earth simulator. even though 2gb worth of sticks are fairly inexpensive these days, but that's not a good enough reason to force me into an upgrade. 586493809[/snapback] This is serious garbage - but not because of MS. It's becaues that entire post was NOTHING BUT BS. Vista will not even come close to requiring that stuff. For example, you can run Vista happily with 32MB of video memory. Even less if you want. You can run an LDDM driver (and thus the "glass" effects) on a 32MB card just fine. Yes, you'll need more than that if you want to use higher resolutions. For most people 64MB or 128MB will give you a very good experience. Chances are if you have a 23" + monitor with really high resolutions, you probably already have at *least* a 128MB video card... and you probably have something even bigger than that. The real dividing factors among video cards will of course be: LDDM support, drivre quality, and performance - so very little will have changed... except that non-gamers may have more incentive to upgrade than before. But it's far from a requirement and you could certainly live without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 This a joke? RAM: 2GB is the ideal configuration for 64-bit Vista, we're told. Vista 32-bit will work ideally at 1GB, and minimum 512. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted September 8, 2005 Veteran Share Posted September 8, 2005 Talk about overstating the requirements. This is more of a "best case scenario" case since 95 percent of PCs out there won't have all these things, even when vista ships. Remember : Microsoft wants to sell vista to Joe Dad and Joe Mom that have a 2.4 Ghz CPU they bought "a year or two ago" and aren't going to upgrade for a while. 586492827[/snapback] Exactly. Of course, there are several goals... One is to be able to sell Vista to Bob and Sue everday user. So it has to run great on their systems and offer them something of value over XP. But then we also want to drive purchasing of new hardware and of upgrades. So how do they accomplish that? Make those upgrades more worthwhile. By taking advantage of advanced hardware if it's there you give people an incentive to buy it. Right now, if you don't play games or do advanced 3D work... you could probably get by with a Riva TNT card. You'd only need enough RAM for the size of the framebuffer you wanted - probably not more than 32MB. Even 16MB would probably do for most people. With Vista, I suspect you'll be able to enjoy the same performance you're used to on that setup - with many benefits that Vista has to offer. But if that same Joe User upgraded to a Geforce 7800 on XP - without playing games or doing 3D modelling/CAD - they would hardly notice the difference. On Vista, however, he'd be treated to an improved experience... new UI effects, and better performance than was possible on XP. I think it's a win-win situation. And posts like this are just BS and FUD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted September 8, 2005 Veteran Share Posted September 8, 2005 This a joke?RAM: 2GB is the ideal configuration for 64-bit Vista, we're told. Vista 32-bit will work ideally at 1GB, and minimum 512. :laugh: 586494279[/snapback] It's either a joke or just some idiot spewing nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skiiper Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 sure, this is cool, but it probably just means we all have to up our systems, which is also cool. What isnt cool is the fact that a lot of notebooks now like my own would be rendered useless, and you gotta spend all that money upgrading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chavo Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Like I said. It's some BS that original poster is spreading and people are diving into it head first. Calm down, take a shower and relax. Many people are running Vista on computers way below this spec now. Including me. What could MS do to possibly change the requirements so much? You're talking about a giant leap in hardware requirements. It's not going to happen people. I know a lot of you don't have common sense, but that's why I'm here. Listen to me since you don't have the required common sense I'll supply it to you. This thread is utter nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lhnz Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Yeah right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canbeli Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 VISTA/Microsoft: Adds visual effects and effeciency by asking for more (system specs). So is it really effecient or is it just working faster cos you got a faster computer? MAC/Apple: Adds visual effects and maximizes effeciency, but does not require higher specs. That's real effeciency, and a real good job for the visual effects part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted September 8, 2005 Veteran Share Posted September 8, 2005 VISTA/Microsoft: Adds visual effects and effeciency by asking for more (system specs). So is it really effecient or is it just working faster cos you got a faster computer?MAC/Apple: Adds visual effects and maximizes effeciency, but does not require higher specs. That's real effeciency, and a real good job for the visual effects part. 586494334[/snapback] You've got to be kidding. You didn't think the original post was real did you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curve Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Im happy my specs meet those desired ideas, im just still a bit confused about all this monitor stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin-uk Veteran Posted September 8, 2005 Veteran Share Posted September 8, 2005 The part about hdcp is bs...I hope somebody makes a player which can read the stream normally and play it back (hd-(dvd)) content etc... 586492690[/snapback] Im Sure DVD-Jon will be along shortly :p IF i get Vista i'll probably run it on a 233Mhz 4MB Graphics / 256MB Ram like im running XP on now :p :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigGiantHead Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Damn, it'll cost me a s***load of money to upgrade almost my whole system to be Vista compatible. Hardware is too expensive in my country. Wish it would be like XP which ran just fine on my old P-II 400. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigapixels Veteran Posted September 8, 2005 Veteran Share Posted September 8, 2005 Yet one more reason I'm glad that I switched. The latest versions of OS X still support much older hardware and run fine on it. I have to wonder whether or not this trend in (majorly) upgrading to accommodate the new Windows will continue with later versions, because that would suck for the average consumer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notuptome2004 Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 incase no one saw this here is a link to the Vista beta 2 preview http://www.apcstart.com/teched/pivot/entry.php?id=5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasondefaoite Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 incase no one saw this here is a link to the Vista beta 2 previewhttp://www.apcstart.com/teched/pivot/entry.php?id=5 586494473[/snapback] "McDonald revealed that copies of Beta 2 would be released at the Professional Developer's Conference in September," That can't be right can it? I thought Beta 2 was the end of 2005, and there was going to be a Beta1 refresh at the PDC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megamanXplosion Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Yet one more reason I'm glad that I switched. The latest versions of OS X still support much older hardware and run fine on it.I have to wonder whether or not this trend in (majorly) upgrading to accommodate the new Windows will continue with later versions, because that would suck for the average consumer. You're glad you switched to a Mac because news sites publish utter nonsense? Congratulations. Now, let me repeat what I said earlier in bold and italic, except this time much bigger and in red - hopefully people will actually read it this time... These are not the requirements, minimum or recommended, for Windows Vista and are complete utter nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malisk Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 (edited) Microsoft believes that you're going to see the amount of video memory being shipped on cards hurtle up when Vista ships. I sure hope they aren't proud and boast about this though... :p It's more an admit of defeat than anything else if they may struggle a bit on 128 MB video cards to display some windows. However, since 64-bit is handling data chunks that are double the size, you'll need double the memory, hence the 2GB. LOL, that's oversimplifying it a liiittle bit! :D A 64-bit processor can MOVE twice as large data chunks, which doesn't affect requirements, and variables may end up using twice the RAM, but it's far, far, from an across-the-board change in requirements, although if this is from Microsoft's mouth, they're just grossly simplifying it for the average Joe to understand. Anyone using Windows XP 64-bit should be able to verify that their systems didn't suddenly become much more sluggish, requiring twice the RAM. To play HD-DVD or Blu-Ray content you need a HDCP compatible monitor. Not if said formats are ripped and unprotected pirated copies. They sure are fueling the piracy by treating everyone like a crook like this. This isn't really Microsoft's fault - HDCP is something that content makers, in their eternal wisdom, have decided is necessary to stop us all watching pirated movies. Correction: "stop us all from watching copies bought in stores easily". Copy protection never really stopped the pirates. One pirate is enough to remove a protections, then it's spread on P2P for thousands. (a big LOL from me if that's not their idea of what'll happen) Then receive the freedom the consumers lack. Compare e.g. iTunes DRM to high bitrate mp3's or even FLAC... Edited September 8, 2005 by Jugalator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThisSiteHasLostItsCharm Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 hmmm, to me it sounds like vista is just xp but with sh*t loads of eye candy and shiny seethrough stuff, I'll stick with XP thank you very much. MS might as well stick a gold medallion round the logo and call it Windows Bling Editon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerxes Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Yikes! I only recently got myself a nice new PC...but if I want to run Vista "optimally" I'll need get a new computer (again) :wacko: well I'll stick to XP for sometime now I think, Vista looks good but I personally think it's not worth spending a fortune upgrading my PC again to make it run well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrCobra Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 I don't believe that those will be the recommended requirement or even the minimum requirements. That would be suicide for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightmarE D Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 I's an OS or a next-gen game? That's what I was thinking. Vista sounds more like a gaming console than a OS. XBOX 360.5 VBOX 360 VITOX 360 VIAGRA 360 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nautica Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Ill stick with xp for another 3 years at least... I mean common.. I have winXP running on a 500mhz celeron with 64mb ram, and it works JUST FINE for surfing messenging word etc edit// I will be upgrading the ram to maybe 300mb... :D that way it will run a bit smoother :D :s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightmarE D Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 I got XP running on a computer I let my nephews use to play games it's only 233mhz with 64mb ram. Good for playing older games or surfing the net I also have it running on a laptop at 333mhz with 96mb ram with a 2mb video card. Still surprised I got it to work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightmarE D Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Correction: "stop us all from watching copies bought in stores easily". Copy protection never really stopped the pirates. One pirate is enough to remove a protections, then it's spread on P2P for thousands. (a big LOL from me if that's not their idea of what'll happen) Then receive the freedom the consumers lack. Compare e.g. iTunes DRM to high bitrate mp3's or even FLAC... Yeah really...I still laugh when the RIAA thought they stopped CD Ripping when they put that thing on CD's to make them not play in computer drives. Then within 24 hours, come to find out all you had to do was either hold in the Shift or Ctrl key when you inserted the CD and it would bypass that lock and let you play/rip the CD LMAO. I'm sure that guy DVD Jon or whatever he's called will crack it within a month after it's released LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts