Windows Vista minimum requirements

Here they are:



Based on the assumption that Microsoft seem to always under-estimate the minimum requirements, I think this seems rather excessive. Windows XP can run on older hardware, however runs like shite. I presume this'll be the case with Vista and the minimum requirements.

Vista looks like it's going to be a rather bloated operating system if you ask me.

I saw that and it definatly doesn't apply to the beta one they got out, cos I have it and it says you need at least 128mb ram and the whole setup unpacked is only 5gb.

I have the february beta version but if the final ones gonna be that then they can fuck right off!! lol

:-s

Damn, I barely meet the minimum requirements and I bought my comp just a year ago.

heh yeah bollocks to buying a brand new pc just to run a bloated to fuck OS, even if it does look pretty (check out what mine looks like now, I think I can do without)

The beta is nothing like Vista will be, the current beta was simply rushed like hell just to have something to show those whom are anticipating Vista.

The beta was more like XP with a skin, I am sure the final product will be much different.

Wasn't this OS designed to stamp out piracy?

Yeh I think it was, im sticking with XP anyway, as long as it works, why the hell change it lol

(And the beta one, I uninstalled I just wanted to see wat it was like)

Not essentially.

I have heard from various sources however, that the reason Windows systems need such high hardware specifications is because companies like Intel pay Microsoft to bloat up their software to encourage people to upgrade to newer chipsets.

I'm not at all sure if that's true, however it has been mentioned on several tech forums I frequent to help people with technical issues.

It wouldn't suprise me though, as any distribution of Linux can breathe new life into even a Pentium1. Old hardware runs Linux great, and *nix seems to let the system wrap itself around the OS rather than have the OS wrap itself around the system.

This "bloat" of course is speculation, for all we know Microsoft may have devloped some really cool features which I'll probably never use.

your gonna miss a shitload of useful features those boneheads "came up with" over the last 5 years to make everything more connected, you will also not be able to play new games.

Added to that fact, Windows XP is now around 5 years old. XP and it's codebase is old, it's a dated OS. I presume eventually XP support will be phased out as is Win2000's, however this transition will be slow and most gave developers will probably make their games backward compatible for some time to come.

well your talking about intel, microsoft, ibm, EA, (microsoft studios), and many more, all companies wishing to make a profit off all PC users

haha this computer doesn't meet the minimum requirements.

mine doesnt meet the reccomended ones but easly meets the minimum.
Is there a screenshot of what its going to look like??!

The only problem is that if you change your motherboard you will not be able to activate, this is what defines a new "computer" in the EULA, which is protected by the complex activation algorithims they have engineered, this is to make hackers not be able to hack it, and for Microsoft to make boatloads as if you put a new motherboard in, or for that matter, upgrade several major parts of your computer in the same period of time (which is unknown), you will be forced to purchase another copy of the software, which may cost up to 400$ a pop for the Ultimate edition, which most people here would want to get.

Therefore, you may want to upgrade your PC before installing Vista to the point where you will not need a new motherboard for a while (meaning that amd or intel will be making new processors for the socket version). I'd reccomend going with the AMD Sempron, AMD 64, or Intel Centrino, although I frown upon Intel users as AMD is advancing much faster and is producing chips that are the same frequeny as prevous chips which can handle the bitcode much more efficiently. This is shown in the model numbers that AMD provides. I have a Sempron 3000+ that runs at 2Ghz. This is usually comparable to somewhere in between an Celeron 3.0 Ghz and P4 3.0 Ghz, although it is a very general speed descriptor.

So whatever you do, don't run Vista on your current machine that runs Xp just fine, keep XP on it and just wait a year till you can afford a new machine and the Vista bugs are worked out and maybe the price is lowered slightly.

Fuck that right off.

I seriously believe that's just stupid speculation.

No way will you have to purchase a new copy, you may have to re-activate Vista, but no way in hell will you need to purchase a copy. The software market now has GNU software to contend with, which is getting better as a viable desktop option all the time.

Can't imagine that being true.

No. If you read the EULA it is really limiting compared to XP. Thats why us moders and custom computer builders are gonna be hit the hardest. Kinda gay

No person I know wants to upgrade to Vista. But it will come slowly and surely, it will be unavoidable in a few years.

On a related topic, about HD-DVD and Blu-Ray playback on computers, good news, if true:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/di...0522235206.html