main

Microsoft to spell out Vista's needs

Hurmoth   on 18 May 2006 - 13:21 · 35 comments & 20410 views

Advertisement (Why?)
On Thursday, Microsoft is expected to give details of two marketing programs that computer makers and retailers can use to indicate whether, and how well, their computers will run Windows Vista, the successor to the aging Windows XP. The “Vista-capable” program lists the features needed to minimally run the new operating system. The “Premium Ready” program will identify PCs that can take advantage of Vista’s high-end features, including its new Aero graphics.

To be Vista-capable, a machine needs at least an 800MHz processor, 512MB of memory and a graphics card that can run DirectX 9 graphics. To carry the Premium Ready designation, a PC must have a 1GHz processor, 1GB of main memory, 128MB of memory and a graphics card that supports Vista’s new graphics-driver model.

The new programs are designed to help PC makers characterize and label new systems, but they also give existing PC owners a better sense of whether it is feasible to upgrade their machines.

The Vista-capable program comes as Microsoft is preparing to offer a broader test version of the Windows update, which the software maker has said will be made available this quarter to about two million testers. The company also hosts its annual Windows Hardware Engineering Conference (WinHEC) for hardware makers next week in Seattle.

News source: CNET News.com




Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 35 additional comments
(1 reply) #1 digitalsoft on 18 May 2006 - 13:55
finally, some news... looks like im vista-capable anyways
#1.1 Vandalsquad on 18 May 2006 - 14:04
Capable and lagging and having no spanky looking GUI are 2 different things
(5 replies) #2 neoapple on 18 May 2006 - 14:00
finally they pulling away from the older hardware.
#2.1 markjensen on 18 May 2006 - 14:40
Is it necessarily a good thing that they don't support the low end? After all, if the hardware is still operational, it would be nice if there were a minimal mode that allowed operation with reduced features.

They seem to support high-end, and mid-end with their options, and that is good. But if they are listing 800MHz and 512MB RAM as minimum, does that mean that a 750MHz machine will refuse to install? If so, then I imagine performance on the 800MHz would be awful!

I guess that software is being used as the medium that generates hardware sales for DELL, HP, etc., and for Microsoft to offer this "low end" computing solution would be extra work for Microsoft, without those nice OEM pre-installed sales...
#2.2 raskren on 18 May 2006 - 14:51
Mark,

They list 800 Mhz as the minimum frequency for the Vista-capable tier. Vista will install on machines with lesser hardware.

800 Mhz isn't exactly bleeding edge hardware. Vista will install on a machine with 256 MB of RAM albeit with reduced functionality. Again, 256 MB is paltry by today's standards.

There's also Vista Starter Edition which is targeted at very low-end hardware. You can't pick that one up in the United States though (AFAIK).
#2.3 markjensen on 18 May 2006 - 16:07
Thanks for the clarification, raskren. When I saw the "Vista capable" minimums, it seemed to indicate anything less than that would not be "capable"...
#2.4 theyarecomingforyou on 18 May 2006 - 17:12
You'll still see projects to get Vista running on a 486 with a 1MB graphics card, so I wouldn't worry.

The only complaint I have with these specs is how low the premium processor speed is - it should at least be 1.5GHz, that way developers can cater to a higher basic level. I think Vista should have also been 64bit only but Intel have been very slow to support it and their current Core Duo chips are still only 32bit (until the Core 2 Duo). Still, the performance ratings should help a lot (if implemented correctly).
#2.5 markjensen on 18 May 2006 - 17:27
You'll still see projects to get Vista running on a 486 with a 1MB graphics card, so I wouldn't worry.


I don't think that getting even XP on a 486 has been successful... (link)
(1 reply) #3 Arkos Reed on 18 May 2006 - 14:21
the 1Gb of ram should be taken as a strict minimum requirement, being a MCE tester, the test box I received 3 years ago for the original beta (Dell Dimension 8250, P4 3.06Ghz 512Mb RDram updated with an X700 AGP) totally craps out because it only has 512Mb
#3.1 sphbecker on 19 May 2006 - 12:24
Some of the earlier beta builds wasted a lot of memory. I have run Vista with 512 and it seems fine. If anyone is buying a computer now they should clearly get 1 GB or more, but someone with 512 may or may not need to upgrade depending on what they do with the computer.
(1 reply) #4 HoochieMamma on 18 May 2006 - 14:22
Good, not too low and not like some people said "Over 4Gz CPU required".
#4.1 Ashl on 18 May 2006 - 14:28
I was expecting more like 1.5-2 ghz? But if it's like XP with saying 233 mhz but needing more like 500 mhz you will need that anyway. 1 GB ram should become standard with OEM makers now as 512mb won't be enogh with programs i expect like 128 mb was no good on XP.
#5 Orange on 18 May 2006 - 14:24
I never trust the specs anyways. Look at XP you need at least 500mhz but box says 233mhz or something.
(7 replies) #6 Kombatant on 18 May 2006 - 15:14
Imo RAM usage is slowly getting ridiculous. Soon you'll be forced out of 32bit OSes simply because you'll need more than 3-4GB of RAM with the OS+apps+games.
#6.1 raskren on 18 May 2006 - 15:28
You must be in a 1990's way of thinking. RAM is cheap. In 1994 16 MB of RAM cost $140. Now you can get over a gig for that much. Unused RAM = wasted RAM.
#6.2 Jugalator on 18 May 2006 - 16:12
Yes, RAM is cheap, going from 32-bit to 64-bit to meet requirements isn't

What the parent was saying is that these ever increasing RAM requirements may cause other trouble than simply the RAM costs.
#6.3 mrbester on 18 May 2006 - 16:18
So what if RAM is cheap? Does OSX use up great whacking gobs of RAM just to display a desktop? Seeing as all the funky graphic stuff isn't going to be in Vista anyway, what does it need it all for?
I do agree with other posters about the "minimum" requirements though; if you have a machine with those specs, it's going to run like a sloth in jam.
Next we'll be seeing OSs that only come on BluRay discs (bloatware expands to fill the space provided).
#6.4 theyarecomingforyou on 18 May 2006 - 17:20
RAM usage shot up years ago, from 64MB through 512MB... then 1GB slowly became the standard and it has stayed there for years. It's absolutely amazing that it hasn't needed to increase sooner. RAM has dropped in price and everyone took that for granted... now that new applications run better with more people are suddenly moaning. I'm all for Windows using more RAM if it will improve performance and if it will release it for applications that need it (which it seems to be geared towards) - if it doesn't then it's obviously just bloat.
#6.5 J_R_G on 18 May 2006 - 17:24
What 'funky graphic stuff' isn't in Vista may I ask? And do you have figures for how much memory vista is using to display the desktop? If not maybe you shouldn't criticize it for that.
#6.6 MioTheGreat on 18 May 2006 - 17:47
Well, 5381.1's dwm.exe (Desktop Window Manager) seems to eat up ~100 megs on my rig. But I have a gig of RAM, and I won't complain. RAM is cheap and I have no problem going to newegg and picking up another stick. I'm sure the memory usage will get better on this particular process as it becomes more optimized over the next few months.

In any case, there has been no cut in 'Funky graphics stuff'. It's all here, and it's beautiful.
#6.7 Angel Blue01 on 21 May 2006 - 12:25
$80 for another 1GB of RAM is not cheap!
#7 EddieF on 18 May 2006 - 15:40
1 gig of ram eh? Looks like the day 4gig of ram will be normal is nearing. I guess I better swap out my 512 sticks with 1 gigers.

I wonder how many people who meet the requirements for Vista will max out on ram (max MB can support) trying to get everything to run smoothly (photoshop, DVD converting, etc)
#8 Nathanael on 18 May 2006 - 15:41
I guess it's time to start buying 2GB of RAM.
#9 PureLegend on 18 May 2006 - 16:42
Looks like my 1GB is becoming obsolete fast...
(2 replies) #10 nexus291 on 18 May 2006 - 16:45
what about my PC, I M looking forward to download Vista Beta 2 as beta 1 runs very slow

P4 2.4 GHz Northwood
1 GB RAM
Geforce FX 5700 non Ultra
#10.1 xMorpheousx416 on 18 May 2006 - 19:28
As far as I can recollect, the 5700 would be the low end of the FX series cards that can handle the new UI without much of an issue.
#10.2 nexus291 on 18 May 2006 - 19:37
i just downloaded the advisor, without the TV Tuner & Netowrk connectivity, it says i can run ultimate edition fine
(1 reply) #11 vetDazzla on 18 May 2006 - 16:58
"128MB of memory and a graphics card that supports Vista’s new graphics-driver model."

What graphics cards would those be?

Are we talking about the ATI X**** series? E.g. X1600? Or is it the generation after that?
#11.1 theyarecomingforyou on 18 May 2006 - 17:14
Nope, just DirectX 9.
#12 pyehac on 18 May 2006 - 18:04
hmm. According to those specs, only two of the five computers in my house are able to run it (3, if I can get a keyboard, mouse and monitor for another computer) But still, I'd wait until they work out the kinks.
#13 Allan® on 18 May 2006 - 18:21
(1 reply) #14 Draje on 18 May 2006 - 19:04
Jeez, all that just for the OS, that's insane. Sounds like Vista is gonna need some really good hardware to run games. If I ever get Vista, I'm going to turn off alot of the features like glass and such.
#14.1 mattrobs on 19 May 2006 - 07:47
Glass will automatically turn off (i.e. free the graphics memory) when running games.
#15 mx3 on 18 May 2006 - 19:55
I'm glad they're saying 512 MB for the "capable" specs. Right now a lot of computer manufacturers throw 256 in and that's simply not enough to run XP decently.

I'm thinking that if your computer meets the requirements for "premium" that it'll probably run pretty well (as opposed to just barely being able to handle it like minimum requirements often imply).

And I remember a lot of people were freaking out when the XP specs were released but it didn't turn out to be that bad. Almost all the PCs being sold today will be able to run Vista when it comes out in ~7 months.
#16 b0m8er on 18 May 2006 - 20:12
Good! I''m Vista capable :p

But that grphx reqs are insane... But I'm sure that no-glass mode will work on older cards

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)