Windows 7 x64 Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 (edited) Your computer should run this. System requirements for Windows 7 aren't any great mystery, but now we're getting a much better idea of what it'll say on the retail box. Microsoft posted relatively modest system requirements (at least for any computer belonging to a Tom's Hardware reader) when it released the Windows 7 public beta in January and only slightly modified them for the release of yesterday's Release Candidate. The system requirements for the beta at the time called for: 1 GHz 32-bit or 64-bit processor 1 GB of system memory 16 GB of available disk space Support for DirectX 9 graphics with 128 MB memory (to enable the Aero theme) The system requirements published yesterday for the official Release Candidate are the following: 1 GHz or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor 1 GB of RAM (32-bit)/2 GB of RAM (64-bit) 16 GB of available disk space (32-bit)/20 GB (64-bit) DirectX 9 graphics device with Windows Display Driver Model 1.0 or higher driver The only real changes to the system requirements since January are slightly bumped up ones for the 64-bit version, though we suspect anyone who plans to run the x64 build will have a machine that's way beyond the minimum (having at least 4 GB of RAM would be a good starting point). While the system requirements posted yesterday apply to the Release Candidate, Microsoft told ZDNet that they were 'final', though it's unknown if there will be different requirements between different SKUs such as Starter Edition or Ultimate Edition. ?"The system requirements are final and not SKU-specific", said a Microsoft spokesperson. Those who plan to run XP Mode will need at least 2 GB RAM, 15 GB of additional hard drive space and a processor that supports hardware virtualization. According to early tests, Windows 7 performs better than Windows Vista on the same hardware. "It's been a long time since we've had a version of Windows that will actually run better [than the previous version] on the hardware that most customers have," Mike Nash, corporate vice president of Microsoft's Windows product management group, said during a conference call with reporters, quoted bComputerWorldu>. Windows 7 does carry with it slightly heftier system requirements than Vista does, despite it being a better performer. From one generation to the next -- and three years later -- Windows 7's system demands does seem positively modest. For reference, Windows Vista?s system requirements are: 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 Source: Tom's Hardware Edited May 2, 2009 by Windows 7 x64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gian Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 (edited) I am running Windows XP. I have a P4 2.8Ghz and 1.5GB Ram. If I upgrade to windows 7 will it be faster and will it utilize less resources than XP? Edited May 2, 2009 by gianpan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
what Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 I am running Windows XP. I have a P4 2.8Ghz and 1.5GB Ram.If I upgrade to windows 7 will it be faster and will it utilize less resources than XP? Faster most likely, less resources no. Can I ask why you don't want your hardware to be used to its full potential? Why would you have 1.5GB of RAM (*cough* get more *cough*) and only use, say, 512MB of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsupersonic Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 I meet those requirements, and it runs alright, decent, but it could be much better. XP still works best on those specs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolution Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Is there a list somewhere to indicate which cards support WDDM 1.1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbfc_uk Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Thank god I got a new latop last year. The only thing I was worried about was my integrated Intel GMA 965 (x3100) graphics, but they are supported and there is a WDDM 1.1 driver available. I think the golden rule is if you card can run Aero in Vista, it'll work in Windows 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windows 7 x64 Posted May 2, 2009 Author Share Posted May 2, 2009 Is there a list somewhere to indicate which cards support WDDM 1.1? Those will probably have to be DirectX 11 cards, like the GT300 GPU(s) from nVIDIA when they come out; not sure what ATi is going to call their next set of DX11 GPU(s), but will probably be HD 5xxx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbfc_uk Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Those will probably have to be DirectX 11 cards, like the GT300 GPU(s) from nVIDIA when they come out; not sure what ATi is going to call their next set of DX11 GPU(s), but will probably be HD 5xxx. My Mobile Intel® 965 Express Chipset has a WDDM 1.1 driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperAFK Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Those will probably have to be DirectX 11 cards, like the GT300 GPU(s) from nVIDIA when they come out; not sure what ATi is going to call their next set of DX11 GPU(s), but will probably be HD 5xxx. I'm running a wdm 1.1 driver on a 9600gt... DirectX 10 and 10.1 cards are both supported with wdm 1.1 drivers by ati and nvidia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom01 Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 I think this is the first time EVER I've seen honest hardware requirements. Anti Virus software requirements make me laugh "32MB Ram". Right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudnartim Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Id say any card that supports directx 10 should be able to do wddm 1.1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gian Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Faster most likely, less resources no. Can I ask why you don't want your hardware to be used to its full potential? Why would you have 1.5GB of RAM (*cough* get more *cough*) and only use, say, 512MB of it? I didn't quite understand what you mean, I don't use only 512MB of it. I had 2gb RAM my mobo failed and then I had to get another one but I couldn't find any old mobo so I had to settle with a ****ty one that only has 2 dimms, and I have to stick to 1gb + 512MB... I can't even bother to go get another 1gb Stick - no point, I will upgrade to i7 or an iMac later this year. I am just not sure if Windows 7 will give a few more months of life to my PC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DClark Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 So is this the first Windows operating system where the system requirements are similar to it's predecessor? Considering the amount of memory that was required from Windows 95 to Windows XP (8MB to 128MB = 16x in 6 years) whereas Windows XP to Windows 7 (128MB to 1GB = 8x in 8 years) one must consider Microsoft has gained 2.25x programming efficiency in the past decade, despite criticisms. Note: Based on recommended settings, not minimal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePitt Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 I am running Windows XP. I have a P4 2.8Ghz and 1.5GB Ram.If I upgrade to windows 7 will it be faster and will it utilize less resources than XP? the answer to that is simple. no. For example in performance matters, I did a simple xvid encode. On 7 was between 20% and 30% slower than was on XP (many ppl (windows supporters?) would say that 7 is faster when in reality is not). Probably the excuse would be that the codec is not optimized and stuff. The only thing that seems to run almost like XP is Winrar and this because they support multi-core now but the performace is the same... And about the resources, well... Eat all you have. Because the so called caching thing. Or using the new (generation) principle: If you have (idle) resources, why not to use it?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jewishornet Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 Well at least MS is almost being honest this time. Vista absolutely chokes on 1GB RAM and a 1GHz CPU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary2MBz Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 I want to see the stickers and packaging now. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanVP Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 Bah...my 64 bit quad core computer can handle this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Growled Member Posted May 3, 2009 Member Share Posted May 3, 2009 There is still a lot of old computers out there with less than the minimum requirements, though. Not as much as there were when Vista came out, but still plenty of people who will need to upgrade their hardware before they upgrade from XP to 7. I'm nice and safe and ready to try 7. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin. Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 Those system requirements sound fair to me. Today's computers and any that were made a few years ago should easily run Windows 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modernponderer Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 There is still a lot of old computers out there with less than the minimum requirements, though. Not as much as there were when Vista came out, but still plenty of people who will need to upgrade their hardware before they upgrade from XP to 7. I think these minimum requirements are incorrect, since there have been reports of installations with 512 MB of RAM. I don't think they have raised this requirement technically (in the installer) since Vista. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jewishornet Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 Those system requirements sound fair to me. Today's computers and any that were made a few years ago should easily run Windows 7. Absolutely. If you can't meet those minimum requirements its definately time to upgrade. 1GHz CPU's came out almost a decade ago and RAM is cheaper than burrito's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazysah Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 Some nice requirements there. I am sure most people will be able to meet it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AltecXP Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 I have been running VMware on my mac with both Vista and 7 allowed to only use 1 core (2.4GHz) and 1 GB or ram. They both run just fine, but 7 is slightly quicker. I think as long as you have a 7200RPM HDD< and a 2GHz + cpu you can get away with 1GB ram just fine in Vista. Seeing these makes me want to try 512mb of RAM on my VMware now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giantpotato Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 I think the RAM requirements for x64 are overestimated. I'm running x64 with 1.5GB of ram, with 256 dedicated to Video, so 1.25GB usable, and it runs just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AltecXP Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 I just set my VM for 512MB ram and windows runs at an acceptable pace compared to my Mother's PC with 768MB ram, 700MHz PC and Windows XP Physical Memory (MB) Total: 511 Cached: 198 Available: 192 Free: 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts