Windows Vista System Requirements Released

By Slimy
in Back Page News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

AltecXP

Posted
Posted

Oh i'm not saying it doesn't run bad on 1gb if nothing is loaded, however Vista at startup uses 600mb of ram.

Play a game and Vista is worse than XP on 1gb, or play some music, surf the net and use messenger, it begins to get slower.

Vista is a ram cow, it uses 400mb more than XP at startup. It's a shame I find.

OK you really need to stop talking. The OS taking a lot of memory is a GOOD thing it makes the OS respond faster and it releases memory as it is needed by other programs. What would you rather have? an OS trying to get memory from other programs or the OS already having the ram allocated and it just lending it to programs as needed? using more ram just makes the OS more efficent. Ram is ment to be used...why are you bitching that it finally is?

Also I run 1GB and do Dreamweaver, Fireworks, VS.net 2005, office 2007 all the time and have NEVER had any issues is my 2GB machine quicker? yes. But how much of that is do to the fact it has a 10,000rpm HDD, dual channel, better GPU a faster CPU? and its not amazingly better just smoother if anything.

The systems im speaking of are in my sig. and aside from the desktop being smoother I wouldnt really call it faster at all, more efficent yes. Neither are faster then XP was on the same machine.

Experienced

Xab

Posted
Posted

LOL....It blows my mind that people still think a DVD-ROM drive is some sort of major investment. You can nab the damn things for like $20. Hell, you can get a DVD Burner for less than $30. If your PC doesn't have a DVD Drive, then it prolly doesn't have enough power to run Vista anyway. No offense, just my opinion.

***Disregard this if you're talking about a laptop.***

Completely agreed. When DVD burner drives are $30, in my opinion no computer game or application of any kind should ever be produced on CD-ROM anymore. I cycle my old machines to different rooms, and my build from like 4 computers ago has a DVD drive.

Grand Master

ozgeek

Posted
Posted

Not this stupid argument again.

Offer time, system requirements for everything increase. You make it sound bad that a Operating system made for today's computers don't run on the minimum system requirements of Windows XP when it was released. Seesh.

Technology gets faster, and to Operating systems, software, games need to use faster hardware to take advantage of the new/more advanced technologies. *sighs*

Excatly. The system requirement of XP was controversial, but nowadays, the system specs of XP is meh and almost everybody have systems today that can run XP with much ease. This will be same for Vista. 5 years from now we will have systems that will run Vista with ease - as well as XP. XP will be like running Windows 98 on todays computers.

Grand Master

TheNay

Posted
Posted

OK you really need to stop talking. The OS taking a lot of memory is a GOOD thing it makes the OS respond faster and it releases memory as it is needed by other programs. What would you rather have? an OS trying to get memory from other programs or the OS already having the ram allocated and it just lending it to programs as needed? using more ram just makes the OS more efficent. Ram is ment to be used...why are you bitching that it finally is?

Also I run 1GB and do Dreamweaver, Fireworks, VS.net 2005, office 2007 all the time and have NEVER had any issues is my 2GB machine quicker? yes. But how much of that is do to the fact it has a 10,000rpm HDD, dual channel, better GPU a faster CPU? and its not amazingly better just smoother if anything.

The systems im speaking of are in my sig. and aside from the desktop being smoother I wouldnt really call it faster at all, more efficent yes. Neither are faster then XP was on the same machine.

I'm sorry but i'm not going to stop talking.

I just find the requirements under rated. I'm not the only one who agrees with me on that.

Seeing how 98 went to XP, it used double the ram, thats fine, but XP to Vista uses more than double the ram. Sure ram is meant to be used, but not excessively when idle.

The XP requirements were under rated as well. How about you go on XP, run all your programs on 128mb of ram (which is recommended), it won't be optimal. 512MB-1GB made things so much better. Anyone agree on that? lol

Grand Master

Slimy

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The XP requirements were under rated as well. How about you go on XP, run all your programs on 128mb of ram (which is recommended), it won't be optimal. 512MB-1GB made things so much better. Anyone agree on that? lol

If XP was meant to work better with minimum requirements than recommended or anything above, it wouldn't be a good OS still today. Vista is not meant to be used with today's computers. It works with them, but it will be optimal with the computer's that not everyone can afford, right now. Minimum requirements are what work, not what is optimal.

Grand Master

NightmarE D

Posted
Posted

People need to stop talking as if all new computers come with DVD drives.

There's a good chunk of brand new computers that don't come with a DVD drive/burner even though they're dirt cheap now.

Also, not everyone who owns a computer wants a DVD drive. If Microsoft is releasing a CD-Rom version of Vista I'm not surprised by that at all.

To the people saying a PC without a DVD drive is worthless....GET A CLUE!

Until the day comes when all software or games is released on DVD, then there's no reason at all to switch over if you don't have any need for a DVD drive.

Proficient

Aud

Posted
Posted

Until the day comes when all software or games is released on DVD, then there's no reason at all to switch over if you don't have any need for a DVD drive.

Soooo the fact that Vista was originally DVD-only still doesn't count as a "need for a DVD drive"? :rofl:

Proficient

none_needed

Posted
Posted

The day will come. And we're getting to it slowly. It wont happen in just "one day".

We demand for next gen OS and more efficient OS than what we have now and yet we refuse to make changes on our side of the consumer. You want this and that in Windows but yet you refuse to make the chances necessary on your end.

If OSX were to be sold without the MAC machines to people like you.. I bet its gonna be the same problem like what it is now too. You cant install Tiger on Panther machines coz the OS requirement is greater to ensure performance.

If u're happy with ur present config. Then continue using it. Dont bitch about stuff.

Contributor

diso25

Posted
Posted

No one is forcing you to use it.

Hold up. Let me get it right For u. Microsoft is forcing me to use VISTA, new software and updates will soon only be available for Vista just like officce 2007 is not available for windows 2000. Maybe not now but by the time vista SP1 comes out microsoft will make you get vista or screewww you over

Grand Master

I am Reid

Posted
Posted

People need to stop talking as if all new computers come with DVD drives.

There's a good chunk of brand new computers that don't come with a DVD drive/burner even though they're dirt cheap now.

Also, not everyone who owns a computer wants a DVD drive. If Microsoft is releasing a CD-Rom version of Vista I'm not surprised by that at all.

To the people saying a PC without a DVD drive is worthless....GET A CLUE!

Until the day comes when all software or games is released on DVD, then there's no reason at all to switch over if you don't have any need for a DVD drive.

I looked, and could only find 3 computers without a DVD drive, and they were refurbished, and PLEASE give me one reason that someone wouldnt want a dvd-rom. Name ONE single advantage a cd-rom has over a dvd-rom. Yeah we get it, you hate windows and everything microsoft, but you are really strecthing it on this. You are bitching about one of the most stupid things you could possible bitch about.

Here you go

and i only have 1gb of ram and a core 2 duo and onboard graphics, and vista hands down runs faster then what xp does on here.

Mentor

ScottKin

Posted
Posted

nice now we have the offical specs we can see how obsurde and how much we need to blow just for this stupid OS

Which brand of pole, reel, line, and bait do you use for your trolling?

All I see is a lot of heat from you and very little light.

--ScottKin

Grand Master

Denis W. Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

If you don't have a DVD-ROM at the minimum on your computer, (or laptop evne) it's time to upgrade. That rock that sitting on your desk, is about as good as a door stop....

Those rocks make great donations for charity, no?

Hold up. Let me get it right For u. Microsoft is forcing me to use VISTA, new software and updates will soon only be available for Vista just like officce 2007 is not available for windows 2000. Maybe not now but by the time vista SP1 comes out microsoft will make you get vista or screewww you over

Well, if they did force you to use Vista, no one would be using Office XP, or 2000 - which both of these suites are still commonly used. No one would be running equipment controlling PCs using Windows 98 or older (i.e. a machine controlling the lights of a theatre). No one would be able to hit CTRL+ALT+DEL on those numerous Windows NT 4 systems in the workforce. Point-of-sale machines in numerous supermarkets will cease to function just because they use Windows 98, 2000, Me, and to a far lesser extent, XP. Those rural families living away from modernism won't have a clue as to why they were locked out of their computers. Oh yeah, even those gigantic billboards in major cities will suddenly go blank.

End of support doesn't indicate them forcing you to upgrade, mmmmmkay? Get back to me when they start timebombing their OSes.

Even with support discontinued for, say, Windows 98, you're bound to run into a few individuals on the 'net that put together unofficial fixes.

Enthusiast

see-seA

Posted
Posted

It still amazes me how people moan about how much RAM Vista uses compared to previous Windows versions. The purpose of RAM is for quick access to information that the system needs. Exactly the same with the registers down on the CPU level. When info is needed, the registers are first searched at very high speeds. If the data required is not found there, the computer looks elsewhere, normally at RAM. Now as the RAM is so vast nowdays (1gb and over) plenty can be stored there and it's up to the OS to manage what's placed there.

Yes, Vista does run a bunch of services that require memory, however Vista uses a completely (and more efficient) RAM allocation technology. See, what it does is keep track of what programs you use frequently. So if you use Word quite a bit, the startup files for Word will be cached by Vista into RAM. You then see Vista taking up more memory than XP as XP didn't do this, however now when you decide to run Word, the system no longer has to load data from the hard disk, which as we know is painfully slow, but it takes what it needs from RAM which is much quicker.

Don't think that just because your RAM usage has gone up it's a sign of bloat. I'm not saying Vista uses RAM 100% effectively, it just utilizes more RAM to speed up your computing experience.

Please, oh please, don't be suckered into those Free-Your-Memory programs for Vista. Why pick up info from the hard drive when it's been cached in RAM for you? Why do you think Vista runs smoothly on computers with less than 1Gb of RAM?

Proficient

none_needed

Posted
Posted

Suddenly Vista is out, a DVD-ROM is costly. But not when Spiderman 3 or LOTR is released on DVD's and u own a top of the line HD-DVD set top player. Getting XBOX 360, PS3 or Wii is not a problem, but getting a DVD-ROM for ur pc suddenly is a huge finanical problem. For god sake you people..

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.