Hi Folks,
"Microsoft has released 'minimum' and 'recommended' specifications for Vista.
The minimum means that the operating system will run but some new features will be disabled. Recommended means that this is what is needed to get the most basic configuration of the whole package working.
VISTA HARDWARE CHECKLIST Minimum Recommended Processor 800MHz 1GHz 32 or 64 bit System Memory 512MB 1GB Graphics card DirectX 9 capable Runs Windows Aero Graphics Memory - - 128MB Free space on Hard Drive 15GB 15GB
Source: Microsoft"
Well, that's good news! If Vista catches on, there should be a good bit of decent kit coming cheap onto the secondhand market that would run Linux very nicely. Looking forward to that!
Best wishes to all, Ted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 19-May-06 Time: 20:03:23 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
** Ted Harding Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk [2006-05-19 20:11]:
Hi Folks,
"Microsoft has released 'minimum' and 'recommended' specifications for Vista.
The minimum means that the operating system will run but some new features will be disabled. Recommended means that this is what is needed to get the most basic configuration of the whole package working.
VISTA HARDWARE CHECKLIST Minimum Recommended Processor 800MHz 1GHz 32 or 64 bit System Memory 512MB 1GB Graphics card DirectX 9 capable Runs Windows Aero Graphics Memory - - 128MB Free space on Hard Drive 15GB 15GB
Source: Microsoft"
Well, that's good news! If Vista catches on, there should be a good bit of decent kit coming cheap onto the secondhand market that would run Linux very nicely. Looking forward to that!
** end quote [Ted Harding]
I think they're being more than a little optimistic there aren't they (actually aren't they always?). I have Windows XP running on a 1.2GHz processor with 512MB memory and it runs like a dog - even though it is a very recent installation. Maybe I'm just too used to the performance of my Linux box, but waiting for 10-15 seconds while it gets itself sorted out so I can log on and pausing whilst switching between windows doesn't feel like blistering performance to me.
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:51:22PM +0100, Paul Tansom wrote:
I think they're being more than a little optimistic there aren't they (actually aren't they always?). I have Windows XP running on a 1.2GHz processor with 512MB memory and it runs like a dog - even though it is a very recent installation. Maybe I'm just too used to the performance of my Linux box, but waiting for 10-15 seconds while it gets itself sorted out so I can log on and pausing whilst switching between windows doesn't feel like blistering performance to me.
I dislike Windows XP as much as the next Linux geek but that doesn't sound right. On my desktop Windows XP certainly isn't as snappy as Linux+Gnome but it's not slow, and given that I've been using a 1.2Ghz machine with 512 Megs ram with XP recently and it wasn't bad at all I'm wondering if you havn't got the correct chipset drivers installed or something similar as that seems a very common way to make Windows run /very/ slowly.
Thanks Adam
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 09:40:41PM +0100, Adam Bower wrote:
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:51:22PM +0100, Paul Tansom wrote:
I think they're being more than a little optimistic there aren't they (actually aren't they always?). I have Windows XP running on a 1.2GHz processor with 512MB memory and it runs like a dog - even though it is a very recent installation. Maybe I'm just too used to the performance of my Linux box, but waiting for 10-15 seconds while it gets itself sorted out so I can log on and pausing whilst switching between windows doesn't feel like blistering performance to me.
I dislike Windows XP as much as the next Linux geek but that doesn't sound right. On my desktop Windows XP certainly isn't as snappy as Linux+Gnome but it's not slow, and given that I've been using a 1.2Ghz machine with 512 Megs ram with XP recently and it wasn't bad at all
My sacrificial XP box doesn't see a lot of use (occasionally IE or sniffing USB traffic for the purposes of writing support for Linux), but I find it fairly responsive, even over rdesktop. Dual PII-350 with 512MB.
J.
On Friday 19 May 2006 21:40, Adam Bower wrote:
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:51:22PM +0100, Paul Tansom wrote:
I think they're being more than a little optimistic there aren't they (actually aren't they always?). I have Windows XP running on a 1.2GHz processor with 512MB memory and it runs like a dog - even though it is a very recent installation. Maybe I'm just too used to the performance of my Linux box, but waiting for 10-15 seconds while it gets itself sorted out so I can log on and pausing whilst switching between windows doesn't feel like blistering performance to me.
I dislike Windows XP as much as the next Linux geek but that doesn't sound right. On my desktop Windows XP certainly isn't as snappy as Linux+Gnome but it's not slow, and given that I've been using a 1.2Ghz machine with 512 Megs ram with XP recently and it wasn't bad at all I'm wondering if you havn't got the correct chipset drivers installed or something similar as that seems a very common way to make Windows run /very/ slowly.
Yes, there's no need to present any strange perceptions on this one - I've run windows XP on a 233mhz pentium machine with 256Mb of ram.
Of course, you could probably find animated 640x480 gifs that would be more useful than windows, but that fisher-price desktop sat there eating RAM and offering sparse functionality, which to be fair is what you're paying Microsoft for.
Huzzah,
Ten
--- There are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary, and those who don't.
On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 20:03 +0100, Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk wrote:
VISTA HARDWARE CHECKLIST Minimum Recommended Processor 800MHz 1GHz 32 or 64 bit System Memory 512MB 1GB Graphics card DirectX 9 capable Runs Windows Aero Graphics Memory - - 128MB Free space on Hard Drive 15GB 15GB
Source: Microsoft"
What is interesting is that if we look at the much more conservative minimum requirements for XP Pro -------------------------------- PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended
128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*
Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor
--------------------------------
We can see that they are pretty unrealistic, I'd feel pretty sorry for anyone trying to do anything with an XP machine at that level.
What I am hoping is that the new minimum spec actually reflects not only enough horsepower to just boot the system, but enough to actually use it. If not then we are looking at an unacceptable level of bloat for what amounts to a bit of eyecandy and some DRM
Wayne
-
Adam Bower -
Jonathan McDowell -
Paul Tansom -
Ted.Harding＠nessie.mcc.ac.uk -
Ten -
Wayne Stallwood