Microsoft provides more specific system requirements for Vista

[RussianSensation]

Summary: = Direct Link

- Vista asks for a system with a 3.0 GHz Intel or equivalent AMD processor and 1 GB of memory.
- "high end ATI GPU," namely a Radeon 9800, x600, x700, x800 or x850 device. According to Microsoft, ATI is preferred to Nvidia at this time due to superior driver support."
- a SATA or 7200 rpm EIDE hard drive.
- For Vista on notebooks, Microsoft recommended the Acer Ferrari 3400, the Acer Ferrari 4000, the HP Pavillion zd8230, the IBM Thinkpad T43 and the Toshiba Tecra M4.

Not too bad given that P4 3.0ghz is 2003 tech and besides X800/x850, the other videocards are clearly bottom level $100 parts.

Although, looking at Minimum system specs for XP = LINK, these specs might be laughable at best if history shows us anything.

 

[InlineFour]

those are still pretty highend specs. my current rig is only a 2.8ghz

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: InlineFour
those are still pretty highend specs. my current rig is only a 2.8ghz

Overclock it. 2.8C Northwoods with HT will get to 3.4ghz at 1.60V with ease.

 

[ShadowBlade]

so using Ludens method, you'll need...

- Vista asks for a system with a 6.0 GHz Intel or equivalent AMD processor and 2 GB of memory.
- "high end ATI GPU," namely a Radeon X1600, X1600XT, X1800, X180XL or X1800XT device. According to Microsoft, ATI is preferred to Nvidia at this time due to superior driver support."
- a SATA or 14400 rpm EIDE hard drive.

 

[GimpyFuzznut]

I don't think they will be that high.

 

[secretanchitman]

i think like 2.4 or something will be the specs, with 512MB minimum but 1GB for smoothness, and prolly a geforce4MX at the least for nvidia (ive seen comp makers use the mx for all their basic video) and a 9600XT for ati.

and not a SATA hd. wtf? i havent seen a benchmark that compares IDE and SATA (identical drives), and no, the raptor doesnt count.

 

[RussianSensation]

With respect to IDE/SATA I agree that it is just technicalities. However, there is no way MX card will cut it. No card below DX9 capable videocard (and probably with no less than 128mb of ram) will. Although x600 does create some confusion since it is nothing but 9600pro/xt and is not even mid-range anymore.

I would agree with Shadowblade that the requirements for "smoothness" will be much higher. Imo, for smoothness, XP needs about XP1500+ and 512mb of ram. This is not even close to minimum specs. Running XP even with Luden-adjusted recommended specs still results in a sluggish OS. So for Vista at least a dual core X2 4200+ and 2 gigs of ram and 7800GT.

 

[KeithP]

If you read the article you will see that these aren't system requirements for the release version of Vista. From the article;

We believe that especially ATI officials may have liked the recommendation to firms who are demonstrating Vista at their booths....

The email stated that "PCs that meet or exceed these specifications will provide the most responsive Windows Vista operating system demo experience."

They are telling vendors that are using the current build of Vista in their demos what they think will give them a good demo experience.

While I am sure a good Vista experience will require a powerful system, this email "memo" is about what it takes to run the beta well. No doubt the final release will be different.

-KeithP

 

[silent tone]

So, how much eyecandy can be turned off for those boxes that are slower? There are a lot of enthusiasts that don't meet the min reqs.

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
I would agree with Shadowblade that the requirements for "smoothness" will be much higher. Imo, for smoothness, XP needs about XP1500+ and 512mb of ram. This is not even close to minimum specs. Running XP even with Luden-adjusted recommended specs still results in a sluggish OS. So for Vista at least a dual core X2 4200+ and 2 gigs of ram and 7800GT.

Turn off the ugly XP theme, and use the Windows 2K theme without all the shading, window zooming and fading and XP will run just as well on the Luden-adjusted as it will on any single core system you can put together. When Id software gives minimum specs for their games, those aren't minimum specs to run the game at 1600x1200 with all eye candy on, they are the specs required just to run the game at all at any setting. Same goes for OS specs.

These are beta requirements anyway which don't mean anything. MS has a history of releasing OS's that perform much better than even late betas. No OS is going to require more than one core to run smoothly any time soon. Unless you're running 2560x1600 on your 30" flat panel with all the graphical widgets on, you're not going to need anything beyond a basic DX9 video card, and that's only required if you want to run the new UI, if you stick with the "classic" UI, you won't even need that. RAM is completely dependent on the software you run, except for a few games, I can't see anything beyond 1GB being necessary for Vista to perform at its best.

 

[thescreensavers]

My friend got a beta of vista 32bit he put it on his compaq presario 900 and it was slow he had 512 ram and a 1500+athlon xp cpu and I dont know what his graphics were but it was running just not fast

 

[RussianSensation]

But isnt it the point to run new OS the way it was intended with new GUI etc? I run BOINC, norton anti-virus and I usually have 5 windows explorers, word, excel and msn open when I do work and I easily exceed 512mb in memory usage in windows xp.

 

[13Gigatons]

With Vista I would say:

1. Dual Core
2. 2 Gigs memory
3. Modern Video card
4. 10,000 RPM drive*

Keep in mind that Vista is still a year away and AMD M2 with DDR2 will be out and even better video cards. Dual Core will become more mainstream.

*Still waiting for more 10,000 RPM drives to hit the market.

 

[lollybo]

would vista actualyl IMPROVE performance? If vista alone uses so much memory, I think it would be best to stick with XP for gaming...

 

[InlineFour]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
With Vista I would say:

1. Dual Core
2. 2 Gigs memory
3. Modern Video card
4. 10,000 RPM drive*

Keep in mind that Vista is still a year away and AMD M2 with DDR2 will be out and even better video cards. Dual Core will become more mainstream.

*Still waiting for more 10,000 RPM drives to hit the market.

doubt it. back when xp was first released, many of the win2000/winME computers could run XP just fine. even though vista is only a year away, i don't think dual core will be mainstream, yet.

 

[zest]

Dual core is not a requrement of Vista.
1Gb ram will work fine altough 2Gb is reccomended.

Also about the Gpu see this Nvidia Press Release..

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: InlineFour

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
With Vista I would say:

1. Dual Core
2. 2 Gigs memory
3. Modern Video card
4. 10,000 RPM drive*

Keep in mind that Vista is still a year away and AMD M2 with DDR2 will be out and even better video cards. Dual Core will become more mainstream.

*Still waiting for more 10,000 RPM drives to hit the market.

doubt it. back when xp was first released, many of the win2000/winME computers could run XP just fine. even though vista is only a year away, i don't think dual core will be mainstream, yet.

Sorry I forgot to mention what I want to run Vista with. I want it to run fast and smooth. Some people aleardy have Dual Core and 2 gigs of memory with Windows XP so with Vista we will want even more horsepower since it will be more bloated/feature rich.