Microsoft Confirms Windows "7" - MGX Conference

[George P Global Moderator]

I think more things will move to 64bit faster than the move to 32bit was. Once you get the major hardware parts to support 64bit then the rest is simple. CPUs, graphics cards, and sound cards are key. hdds and optical drives are covered also more or less. The things lagging behind 64bit wise are probably just external devices like scanners and printers?

After that it's just the apps, but Vista x64 will run 32bit apps just fine as many know. And all a software dev has to do is move their next version to 64bit when the time comes. Many people would probably upgrade apps to native 64bit from 32bit without even noticing if everything goes right.

[Sheppard]

DRivers!!!

Drivers arent that much of an issue anymore, i have 64bit drivers for every bit of my hardware, including the obscure dvb-t TV card i have in.

[Izlude]

64bit tech is very cheap now. remember am2 4200? sure beats out my old northwood 2.8, wonder what took me so long to pay a measly 60 dollars for it? thats retail baby! slap me with oem parts any day, i'm sure even a public preschool supported by volunteer workers could afford 64 bit machines these days. i say they should force head on with 64!

[Lt-DavidW]

What a strange thing for you to saying knowing the majority of folks living in Egypt can't afford machines with the specs you are running. In fact, a majority of users I bet are running Semprons with XP or Starter Edition.

Walk like an Egyption

But the majority of those who cannot afford 64-bit capable machines will probably not have the system requirements to upgrade to Windows Vista, let alone Windows 7 in the first place.

I have an old rig with an AMD Athlon 64 3000+ in it. I've had this for years. This is low spec. already.

So imagine how old it will look in a few years when Windows 7 is released and the "high spec." people are running 4GHz Octo-Core CPUs. Yet even this processor has full 64-bit support!

To sum it all up: When Windows 7 is released 64 bit CPUs will not be high spec. at all.

[freak_power]

I say Microsoft should forget about 32bit operating system and go for 64bit release only.

[Mr. Dee]

But the majority of those who cannot afford 64-bit capable machines will probably not have the system requirements to upgrade to Windows Vista, let alone Windows 7 in the first place.

I have an old rig with an AMD Athlon 64 3000+ in it. I've had this for years. This is low spec. already.

So imagine how old it will look in a few years when Windows 7 is released and the "high spec." people are running 4GHz Octo-Core CPUs. Yet even this processor has full 64-bit support!

To sum it all up: When Windows 7 is released 64 bit CPUs will not be high spec. at all.

You are predicting, Microsoft has confirmed that Windows 7 will be available in 32 and 64 bit versions, so there is nothing else to say about that.

There is a Vista Starter Edition btw with similar requirements to XP Starter Edition:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/...er/default.mspx

[Pharos]

Just give it time, guys. 2GB is slowing becoming the standard size for RAM, then more and more OEM builders will start to come with 4gb theeen 64-bit will become mainstream. :yes:

[Lt-DavidW]

You are predicting, Microsoft has confirmed that Windows 7 will be available in 32 and 64 bit versions, so there is nothing else to say about that.

There is plenty to say about it! We're on a public discussion forum, and what we're discussing is relevant to the thread. You cannot simply request silence from those who oppose your particular point of view.

There is a Vista Starter Edition btw with similar requirements to XP Starter Edition:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/...er/default.mspx

It's mischievous to refer to Starter Edition as 'Vista'. Vista Starter Edition is hardly available to anyone, and even those that can get it are wasting their time on this junk of an OS. It has deliberately imposed restrictions such as not allowing more than three windows open simultaneously. Why anyone would use this is beyond me (unless we're talking about OLPC $100 laptops here?).

[Mr. Dee]

There is plenty to say about it! We're on a public discussion forum, and what we're discussing is relevant to the thread. You cannot simply request silence from those who oppose your particular point of view.

It's mischievous to refer to Starter Edition as 'Vista'. Vista Starter Edition is hardly available to anyone, and even those that can get it are wasting their time on this junk of an OS. It has deliberately imposed restrictions such as not allowing more than three windows open simultaneously. Why anyone would use this is beyond me (unless we're talking about OLPC $100 laptops here?).

No where in my post did I request silence on the topic or oppose different views. I am just going by Microsoft's word, you know the same Company that makes the OS? Yep, Neowin is an open forum, but its not Microsoft Corp. and Microsoft did say, Windows 7 will be available for both 32 and 64 bit platforms.

As for Windows Vista Starter Edition, those are your views you know. But, Windows Vista Starter edition is a Windows Vista SKU - its disturbing how little you know about the OS. Insert your Windows Vista 32 bit DVD, run the installation, do not enter a product key, there in a list you will see Windows Vista Starter edition as one of the available SKUs you can install.

It also shows as version 6.0 in the About dialog if you need further understanding. Try doing more research before responding please. Windows Vista Starter edition is available in 139 countries by the way, but is not available in the US, European Union and Japan, which are considered as developed markets. But when you say its 'hardly' available to anyone, you make 139 countries around the world sound like nothing.

Please read the page:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/...er/default.mspx

Its targeting an audience that is different from those in developed markets. People with really basic needs who probably only turn their computer on to check email, or listen to music or type something in Word pad. Not everybody wants all the features or needs all the features that Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bit provides in these developing nations. So, try to be more understanding of peoples needs and cultures, in addition to afford ability and ease of use. This is what Vista Starter Edition is about.

BTW, Windows Vista Starter Edition supports a max resolution of 1024 by 768, and 5 windows open, up from 3 in XP Starter edition. The reason why this restriction was is imposed was to reduce the complexity of the OS, make it simpler to understand and work with. Vista Ultimate is feature rich but can daunting or complex for someone in a developing country who has never seen a PC or used one before.

[Andrew Lyle Global Moderator]

Bit disappointed to hear that instead of taking the plunge and going 64 bit mainstream, Microsoft has chosen to prolong the life of the old 32 bit architecture. Otherwise, interesting news.

64bit isn't as mainstream to the public as you think. to geeks like us it is, but another vista disaster will occur if they do not go 32bit once again. venders will once again, slack on making compatable drivers for Windows 7, and it's even harder for venders to cook up 32bit and 64bit for a new operating system.

theres still a lot of computers out their using a 32bit processor

[+Tantawi Subscriber²]

What a strange thing for you to saying knowing the majority of folks living in Egypt can't afford machines with the specs you are running. In fact, a majority of users I bet are running Semprons with XP or Starter Edition.

Walk like an Egyption

huh?

You miss the point. People who are running Semprons will not be using Windows 7 anyway, heck they wont even use Vista, got it? It's has nothing to do with what the majority is running, and while we're on it... majority is running Pentium 4s.

[Mr. Dee]

huh?

You miss the point. People who are running Semprons will not be using Windows 7 anyway, heck they wont even use Vista, got it? It's has nothing to do with what the majority is running, and while we're on it... majority is running Pentium 4s.

AMD will always have a introductory line, which is what the Sempron is for. Windows 7 might not run on the Semprons of today, but it will on the Semprons of 2009 and 2010. Also, I am running Windows Vista Business on a AMD Sempron 1.6 Ghz, 512 MBs of RAM, nVidia Geforce FX 5200 128 MB AGP.

I am also running Vista Ultimate 32 bit on a Pentium 4 3.2 GHz, 2 GBs of RAM, 128 MB AGP nVidia Geforce FX 5200.

[+Tantawi Subscriber²]

The next Semprons and Celerons, way before 2009 and 2010, is 64-bit capable so no excuse not to abandon 32-bit OSs, this will be for the best of technology overall.

[Lt-DavidW]

No where in my post did I request silence on the topic or oppose different views.

I am just going by Microsoft's word, you know the same Company that makes the OS?

How can I possibly have misinterpreted when you say "there is nothing else to say about that"?

You know fine well that I am well aware of Microsoft Corporation. That sarcasm is not warranted.

Yep, Neowin is an open forum, but its not Microsoft Corp. and Microsoft did say, Windows 7 will be available for both 32 and 64 bit platforms. As for Windows Vista Starter Edition, those are your views you know.

Did anyone here say that it wouldn't be? :blink:

As for my views; yes, we're allowed to express our opinions here.

But, Windows Vista Starter edition is a Windows Vista SKU - its disturbing how little you know about the OS. Insert your Windows Vista 32 bit DVD, run the installation, do not enter a product key, there in a list you will see Windows Vista Starter edition as one of the available SKUs you can install. It also shows as version 6.0 in the About dialog if you need further understanding. Try doing more research before responding please.

Now I feel you're being pedantic. Either that or you have a severe problem with understanding.

I am well aware that there is a Starter Edition of Vista. What else did you think I believed once I'd said "Vista Starter Edition is hardly available to anyone".

BTW, Windows Vista Starter Edition supports a max resolution of 1024 by 768, and 5 windows open, up from 3 in XP Starter edition. The reason why this restriction was is imposed was to reduce the complexity of the OS, make it simpler to understand and work with. Vista Ultimate is feature rich but can daunting or complex for someone in a developing country who has never seen a PC or used one before.

Ohhh I see - it's a "feature".

My gran has never used a PC before neither, yet I'm not convinced she would see the benefit to this.

People who are running Semprons will not be using Windows 7 anyway, heck they wont even use Vista, got it? It's has nothing to do with what the majority is running, and while we're on it... majority is running Pentium 4s.

Yes, that's exactly the point! Thank you Tantawi, somebody understands me!

Mr. Dee, Starter Edition isn't what is important here. People in developing countries will not benefit from a 32 bit OS in 2009. If you doubt this, then I challenge you in two years time to find me a 32 bit processor that is cheaper than the cheapest 64 bit processor. You will have a tough time doing so as 32 bit processors are already almost obsolete. :rolleyes:

[George P Global Moderator]

Guys, going 64bit only isn't really a matter of hardware, it's more a problem with software. Compared to hardware, more apps are lacking 64bit versions.

Right now, we have CPUs that are 64bit and for very low prices. RAM will work regardless, so will HDDs. Video cards have 64bit drivers right now, both nVidia and ATi. Performence for them might not be that great, but give it a few more revisions, it's a new driver model ontop of being 64bit. Sound cards might be iffy, but I think Creative has 64bit drivers? Asus has their new sound cards coming and i'm sure they'll support 64bit quick. This will put pressure on Creative to do the same.

The other stuff would be NICs, and any add-on cards like RAID etc, but the majority of users don't buy and use those cards. Not to mention many motherboards have RAID on-board already.

That just leaves whatever external devices like Printers and Scanners that are probably holding back 64bit adoption rates. Maybe routers/modems also, but I don't know about those yet. Regardless, compared to the 3 or 4 hardware groups that are behind on 64bit support, how many programs do you know that are native 64bit?

It's all good to move to 64bit with your hardware, and get the ability to use more RAM, but you won't notice a true performence boost if the apps are running on WoW32, aka 32bit emulation on Windows x64.

[Mr. Dee]

I am going to quote your replies:

But the majority of those who cannot afford 64-bit capable machines will probably not have the system requirements to upgrade to Windows Vista, let alone Windows 7 in the first place.

Thats what you said. First of all, the Starter Edition SKU only comes preloaded on OEM machines. XP Starter was released only through OEMs, most of these persons tend to not want to upgrade their machines, the focus of the release is to end the digital divide, it is not intended to be revenue maker. The OEM license is around $30 US when converted.

How can I possibly have misinterpreted when you say "there is nothing else to say about that"?

You know fine well that I am well aware of Microsoft Corporation. That sarcasm is not warranted.

The point is, you can have your views, but its end of story for now, Microsoft has said that Windows 7 will be released in both 32 and 64 bit versions. The tone of your reply makes it sound like they can't do that, of course they can, its their software. They have done the research they know the demographics. You can't dictate to them what they should and should not sell.

Did anyone here say that it wouldn't be? blink.gif

As for my views; yes, we're allowed to express our opinions here.

You made it sound like it is too impossible for 32-bit release of Windows 7.

Now I feel you're being pedantic. Either that or you have a severe problem with understanding.

I am well aware that there is a Starter Edition of Vista. What else did you think I believed once I'd said "Vista Starter Edition is hardly available to anyone".

Your words:

It's mischievous to refer to Starter Edition as 'Vista'. Vista Starter Edition is hardly available to anyone, and even those that can get it are wasting their time on this junk of an OS. It has deliberately imposed restrictions such as not allowing more than three windows open simultaneously. Why anyone would use this is beyond me (unless we're talking about OLPC $100 laptops here?).

I understand that you were probably just insulting it, but come on, it is a Vista SKU, just lacks certain functionality thats available Home Basic and premium Vista SKUs.

Ohhh I see - it's a "feature".

My gran has never used a PC before neither, yet I'm not convinced she would see the benefit to this.

Oh, I see, so everybody around the world is an exact replica of your grand mother? Try and think more realistically, Vista and XP Starter Edition are sold in "developing" nations, some where the illiteracy rate is very high, places where people could never even imagine what a computer looks like or what it is to use one. The computer for people in these countries is to facilitate learning yes, but basic fundamentals need to also be in place, such as the ability to read and write. Throwing a PC in front of them is not the answer alone.

Mr. Dee, Starter Edition isn't what is important here. People in developing countries will not benefit from a 32 bit OS in 2009. If you doubt this, then I challenge you in two years time to find me a 32 bit processor that is cheaper than the cheapest 64 bit processor. You will have a tough time doing so as 32 bit processors are already almost obsolete.

Your mind is very boxed in, you need to take a trip to some of these developing nations or do some research on Developing Nations around the world and illiteracy before you can determine the needs of people in these countries. The fundamentals first of all are water, food, proper sanitation, schools, learning to read and write. The focus should not be on Intel, AMD, Linux, processor brand or architecture.

You say nobody has a need for a 32 bit OS in 2009, so nobody has a need for a 32 bit Microsoft Office in 2009 either. Word and Excel or not processor intensive applications, Internet Explorer, Media Player or not processor intensive applications. So why is it important that Starter edition needs to be 64-bit for persons in developing nations when they are not taking advantage of the core functionality of such an architecture? I can understand the migration to 64 bit on the high and low end, but is it really significant for everyone when it comes to software?

64 bit Windows targets a specific segment of the market that understands the capabilities, advantages and disadvantages of using it, the biggest advantage of all has to be the support for a larger memory address space that allows you to do more number crunching with scientific, financial and other engineering applications that use a lot of memory. Does a family in a developing nation need that kind of power in their OS, should it be relevant to all? Of course NOT, and Microsoft realizes that. To put it simply, with the basic functionality that Starter edition provides, it does not need to be 64 bit. Microsoft has the developer resources to compile for both architectures, so its not a strain, NT is very portable.

Yes, I can understand for developing markets such as Europe, US, Japan and Canada there can be just a 64 bit version of Windows 7, since more multi-media applications and games will target the memory address of the architecture and OS. But again, you need to think these things out. Some people only make a dollar per day, they can't afford basic amenities much more tricked out 64 bit PC.

[Lt-DavidW]

I am going to quote your replies:

Thats what you said. First of all, the Starter Edition SKU only comes preloaded on OEM machines. XP Starter was released only through OEMs, most of these persons tend to not want to upgrade their machines, the focus of the release is to end the digital divide, it is not intended to be revenue maker. The OEM license is around $30 US when converted.

I'm quite optimistic that 32-bit Vista will meet the computing needs of people who live,

in "developing" nations, some where the illiteracy rate is very high, places where people could never even imagine what a computer looks like or what it is to use one. The computer for people in these countries is to facilitate learning yes, but basic fundamentals need to also be in place, such as the ability to read and write. Throwing a PC in front of them is not the answer alone.

By the time Vista support is abandoned by Microsoft, sometime long after XP support ends in 2014, I am confident that most if not all working processors, even those in developing countries, will be 64-bit capable. Now you are free to argue that these people will have no need for 64-bit technology (yet Vista is not enough?), but it's really a non-issue as processors are already being made 64-bit-capable by default, and will be cheaper (if not already) to mass produce than 32-bit-only processors. I will be surprised if their Pentium 4s are still ticking along nicely in 2020.

The point is, you can have your views, but its end of story for now, Microsoft has said that Windows 7 will be released in both 32 and 64 bit versions. The tone of your reply makes it sound like they can't do that, of course they can, its their software. They have done the research they know the demographics. You can't dictate to them what they should and should not sell.

You made it sound like it is too impossible for 32-bit release of Windows 7.

Nowhere did I say that I object to Microsoft making a 32-bit Windows 7. There are many reasons they may have chosen to do this, the main one being the very reason that the majority of us here are still using 32-bit XP or Vista on our 64-bit-capable computers - software compatibility. I'd also like to point out that I am not a dictator.

why is it important that Starter edition needs to be 64-bit for persons in developing nations when they are not taking advantage of the core functionality of such an architecture? I can understand the migration to 64 bit on the high and low end, but is it really significant for everyone when it comes to software?

The same reason that XP and Vista starter edition are 32-bit and not 16-bit - mass production drives down the costs to a point where the better technology is cheaper than the older. This is what we mean when we say that older technology is obsolete.

you need to take a trip to some of these developing nations or do some research on Developing Nations around the world and illiteracy before you can determine the needs of people in these countries. The fundamentals first of all are water, food, proper sanitation, schools, learning to read and write. The focus should not be on Intel, AMD, Linux, processor brand or architecture.

While I fully agree, you are completely missing the point.

You stated that the majority of computers sold in these developing countries come with their OS preinstalled by the OEM. But in 2009 it will cheaper for the manufacturer to install a 64-bit-capable processor compared to the cost of hunting down old 32-bit-only Pentium 4s.

And those who are still using old 32-bit-capable-only machines because they cannot afford a new computer can still continue to use their OEM-installed 32-bit XP or Vista until 2014/2020 or whenever, by which point their 15-20 year old machines will have drawn their last breath.

[Mr. Dee]

You stated that the majority of computers sold in these developing countries come with their OS preinstalled by the OEM. But in 2009 it will cheaper for the manufacturer to install a 64-bit-capable processor compared to the cost of hunting down old 32-bit-only Pentium 4s.

And those who are still using old 32-bit-capable-only machines because they cannot afford a new computer can still continue to use their OEM-installed 32-bit XP or Vista until 2014/2020 or whenever, by which point their 15-20 year old machines will have drawn their last breath.

You keep trying to confuse what I said. I said, there is no problem with the machines being 64 bit capable, since its just as cheap to add the instruction set to x86 as it is to build a 32 bit only processor. So, it comes at no cost to the OEM or the consumer. You have gone all the way out to years 2014, 2020 when the topic is dealing with Windows 7 and the years 2009 to 2010 (near future).

What I don't understand is why you believe the OS must be 64 bit only too? You are predicting that Windows 7 will be 64-bit when Microsoft has 'clearly' confirmed it will be a 32 and 64 bit release. There is just nothing else to say about that. In fact, I have an AMD Sempron 1.6 GHz 64-bit machine with 512 MBs of RAM and an nVidia Geforce FX 5200 AGP 128 MBs which I have no intention of upgrading.

That machine runs Vista x64 horribly, but runs Vista x86 Business like a champ. I am sure there are many persons in a similar situation. Yes I could upgrade the memory and other components, but this is not a realistic assumption of how everybody works. People buy there computer to use it, not upgrade every single thing to meet Microsoft's requirements every time. Now are you telling me, when Windows 7 is released I should ditch the 32 bit release in favor of 64 bit when I know that it will not run well on it based on passed experiences with Vista 64-bit?

Windows 7 64 bit won't run well on the 64 bit low end machines of today, so your point is pretty much moot on why everybody must be running 64 bit to streamline Microsoft's operating system development efforts. And trust me, there will always be low end models of Intel and AMD processors even when they are 64 bit. But, going back to Starter Edition, that OS does not have to be available in a 64 bit version, it is of no value to the targeted market. You need to think these things out.

You need to also stop assuming whats best for Microsoft, you are just one individual, Microsoft is a huge entity with over 70,000 employees around the world with people in marketing doing research on what will best meet the needs of users on the Windows platform in the next few years. They have obviously come to the conclusion that there is still a need for a 32 bit Windows 7 client. Again, you are not entitled or have the right the determine whats best for 1 billion Windows users, sorry, thats just my view but you can have an opinion which this forum is for.

[Lt-DavidW]

What I don't understand is why you believe the OS must be 64 bit only too?

You are predicting that Windows 7 will be 64-bit when Microsoft has 'clearly' confirmed it will be a 32 and 64 bit release.

Once again you are putting words into my mouth and stating I claimed things which I did not!

Continuing this discussion with you is obviously going to be futile. :no:

[Mr. Dee]

Once again you are putting words into my mouth and stating I claimed things which I did not!

Continuing this discussion with you is obviously going to be futile. :no:

Thats because you are in the niche enthusiast mode expecting everybody must be like you. Microsoft has done the right thing by deciding to develop a 32 bit Windows 7 client for my 32 bit P4 machine and the Core Duos of today. In fact 32 bit CPUs are still in production and will not be phased out until next year, not to mention those already in stock. Somebody is gonna buy them this year or next year. Those users are expecting to at least be able to upgrade their 32 bit systems to next 32 bit release of Windows.

[Lt-DavidW]

Once again you are putting words into my mouth and stating I claimed things which I did not!

Continuing this discussion with you is obviously going to be futile. :no:

Thats because you are in the niche enthusiast mode expecting everybody must be like you. Microsoft has done the right thing by deciding to develop a 32 bit Windows 7 client for my 32 bit P4 machine and the Core Duos of today.

There you go again making false assumptions! That is a perfect example of what I mean! You really don't know how to listen (or read). Did you conveniently choose to ignore me when I said,

Nowhere did I say that I object to Microsoft making a 32-bit Windows 7. There are many reasons they may have chosen to do this, the main one being the very reason that the majority of us here are still using 32-bit XP or Vista on our 64-bit-capable computers - software compatibility.

[Mr. Dee]

Thats because you are in the niche enthusiast mode expecting everybody must be like you. Microsoft has done the right thing by deciding to develop a 32 bit Windows 7 client for my 32 bit P4 machine and the Core Duos of today.

There you go again making false assumptions! That is a perfect example of what I mean! You really don't know how to listen (or read). Did you conveniently choose to ignore me when I said,

Re-read your post because you are flip-flopping.

[Lt-DavidW]

Re-read your post because you are flip-flopping.

No I'm not, you just fail to understand.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

A late entrant to the discussion, but hopefully my input won't be worthless.

It is shocking to me that MS will release a 32bit version of Windows 7 and it wouldn't surprise me if MS decided to cut that our before it hits RTM. I'm usually a huge supporter of backward compatibility, but I think the 64bit consumer level stuff out from Microsoft now has made the transition so smooth that it doesn't need to be prolonged in any way...

I've run Vista x64 Ultimate for almost 2 months now. When I originally installed it I thought I'd be uninstalling it within the week and would get a chance to just "see" how it functions. I expected incompatibilities across the board in every corner I could imagine. The reality is far from that and there has been little to no incompatibilities. I think I've only encountered 1 genuine application incompatibility and I was able to find a 32bit replacement with ease. And I do everything on here... I do my programming, gaming, school work, you name it... All runs like it did on Vista 32bit... If there were glaring problems between Vista 64 and 32 then I'd agree they need to continue 32bit, but the reality doesn't seem to require it.

I read a few pages in this thread and have seen some people arguing that MS needs to release a 32bit version of Windows 7 so it runs on their 32bit only chips. They argue that not everyone will be running 64bit chips and they too should be offered an upgrade path. I don't agree that this is a valid argument. It is invalid for a few reasons. Firstly, the majority of users purchase their version of Windows with a new computer. That means the majority of users will acquire Windows 7 through and OEM in 2010 (or whenever the release actually occurs) and that hardware will be 64bit capable. You'd be hard pressed to find a non-laptop shipping without 64bit support today! Secondly, there is no mandate for users to upgrade their operating system with each new MS release. Some users still run Windows 98 today and the applications they care about still work. The same is true for anyone running 32bit hardware in the Windows 7 time frame. If your applications work in Vista and you won't gain anything by going to the 64bit version of Windows 7 then why would you upgrade? If you applications started offering 64bit versions you'd probably be compelled to upgrade, but other than that you'd be allowed to stick to Vista (or even XP) if that works best for you.

In my honest opinion OS vendors like MS should only care about software backward compatibility when the time frame exceeds 3 years. As other improvements to the OS will generally make anything older less desirable to run the OS on anyways.

Vista is a prime example, but this same has held true for every MS OS release that I can remember. Vista needs a bigger HD, faster CPU, and more RAM (among other things) than XP did. The same is true for Windows XP when compared to Windows 2000. So the OS will usually cause people on older hardware to either sit on the sidelines or upgrade anyways. Why maintain support for hardware that won't be in manufacturing when the OS is released?

[ShaneSparky_YYZ]

I'm really surprised too that the next OS will be 32-bit as well, to make Vista work well you need 2GB of ram, and i'm sure "Windows 7" will need 4GB atleast to run well. Which requires you to have 64-bit, go figure. And, all new processors in the last 2 yrs at least are 64-bit capable, in 3 yrs from now everyone will have 64-bit chips, and those who have 32-bit chips only would need to upgrade their pc to run Win 7. I don't see why MS isn't pushing 64-bit more, it's eventually going to be the standard. What really "grinds my gears" is a lot of new software by MS is running in 32-bit still! Grrr! ;)