Will Your PC Run Windows Vista?

[ViRaL1]

Something to think about for new PC buyers since most low to mid range systems have integrated graphics and a lot don't even include an AGP slot.

Microsoft's next OS will tax PC graphics, analysts say, and systems with integrated graphics might not display the Aero Glass interface.

Not all PCs will gain a full view of Windows Vista.
Microsoft Corp. has yet to finalize the minimum requirements for a PC to run its forthcoming operating system. But numerous PC industry watchers predict a dichotomy for the OS, which is due in late 2006.

Although it will be able to run on all but the most ancient machines, the OS will favor newer and relatively powerful machines when it comes to showing its true colors, analysts say.

Based on details provided by the software maker—a Microsoft representative this week suggested PC buyers who want to gain the full Windows Vista user interface experience pick up a PC with a discrete graphics card that supports its DirectX 9 graphics specification—analysts say that not all of today's hardware has the graphics chops necessary to display Windows Vista's most visually compelling feature, its new Aero Glass 3D user interface.

Thus even for PC owners who have purchased new machines in the last year, hardware upgrades of one type or another—either a new graphics card or, if a machine's graphics can not be upgraded, possibly a new system—may be necessary to run Windows Vista's Aero Glass effects.

Given Microsoft's suggestions, even buyers of new PCS in coming months will have to pay extra attention, and often spend extra, to ensure they choose systems with the graphical oomph necessary to run the Aero UI—if they expect to upgrade, analysts said.

"The question, now, is ultimately what will the…graphics requirements be when it ships and how many computers sold today will meet those requirements," said Joe Wilcox, an analyst at Jupiter Research.

Of particular concern are notebook PCs, which are traditionally a step behind when it comes to graphics performance, Wilcox said.

Microsoft has said it won't issue the minimum hardware requirements for Windows Vista until next summer. However, the company has already dropped hints that analysts say suggest Windows Vista's Aero UI requires relatively high-end graphics. The operating system itself will determine which level a PC fits into by sensing its graphics capabilities, and PCs will either be deemed capable of running Aero or not. Those that are not will present a classic Windows interface, the software giant has said.

Thus PCs also fit into two basic levels of preparedness for Windows Vista. At WinHEC in April, Mark Croft, a group product manager in the Windows product management group, told PC makers that most existing mainstream processors should run Longhorn. But he drew distinctions between PCs that will be "Longhorn-ready" versus "Longhorn-capable."

Older CPUs with 128 or 256 MB of memory and older graphics will be capable, he said.

In the interim, Microsoft is suggesting customers leave themselves room to, at a minimum, upgrade their PCs' graphics.

"Windows Vista provides the best possible user experience allowed by the graphics capabilities of each computer," a Microsoft spokeswoman said in an e-mail to Ziff Davis Internet. "As graphics support is still being finalized, customers who plan to purchase new PCs should consider specifying graphics cards with AGP or PCI Express interfaces, which are most easily upgraded. For Aero effects video graphics cards should support: DirectX 9 with an LDDM [Longhorn Display Driver Model] driver, 32 bpp [bits per pixel] color depth, and 64MB of graphics RAM."

Graphics cards that support DirectX 9 first came out for notebook PCs earlier this year. They have been available for desktops for some time. But given that most low-end PCs and notebooks now use integrated graphics and not all of them offer AGP or PCI slots, not all PCs' graphics can be upgraded. New PC buyers must also take those same issues into consideration, analysts said, making sure they either purchase hefty enough graphics to begin with, or have space to upgrade.

Whether or not a PC has so-called integrated graphics and or the means to upgrade to an add-in card will become the fault line that separates the graphical haves and have-nots, analysts say.

Most low-end to midrange desktops and notebooks make use of integrated graphics, meaning they rely on graphics processors that are parts of their chip sets. Chip sets shuttle data to points within a PC, not unlike a person's nervous system.

"If you go out and spend $500 and get a Dell special based on the [Intel] 865GV [chipset with integrated graphics] you're likely to be running in more of a legacy mode," said Dean McCarron, an analyst with Mercury Research Inc. "Quite honestly, that shouldn't be all that surprising."

Built-in graphics have improved in performance over time and are generally good enough for most everyday uses. But they were created mainly to help shave costs in desktops and have been adopted widely in notebooks as part of efforts to improve battery life and help save space. Given those aims, built-in graphics generally lag the performance provided by discrete graphics boards, which are inserted into more expensive desktops and notebooks.

Thus, even without the final word from Microsoft it appears that, at a minimum, a high-end graphics card will be required to show the advanced UI, according to Michael Cherry, an analyst with Directions on Microsoft.

"Often this requirement is expressed in terms of support for Microsoft's DirectX. But the real issue may be: Do motherboards with integrated video chips in them have the resources for the new Longhorn Avalon [or its Windows Presentation Foundation] subsystem?" Cherry wrote. "Typically the leading edge support is in the add-in video cards, but as more and more organizations are looking at upgrading desktop computers, which could take an add-in card as an upgrade, to laptops, which really are stuck with whatever video they ship with, the problem will be if you buy a laptop today, is the built-in video adequate? Do the chips that provide this video have the resources to run Longhorn?"

Thus, to be safe, buyers interested in the full view of Windows Vista "should look for systems with external graphics chips, most of which will offer the capabilities they need," McCarron said.

The drawback is that PC models that come from the factory with discrete graphics are generally more expensive. Forward-looking buyers should, at a minimum, ensure that a desktop they are evaluating has a free AGP or a PCI-Express slot, which can accommodate the latest graphics. Many but not all desktops that ship with integrated graphics chip sets offer the extra slot.

Notebooks will present a trickier decision. The vast majority cannot be upgraded with graphics, as most portable machines use either integrated graphics or discrete graphics chips, which are fixed on to their motherboards. Those with discrete graphics cost more, but have better graphics performance, making them more likely to be able to run Windows Vista's advanced user interface, analysts said.

Buyers should ask themselves, "How important are the new features?" McCarron said. "If they are important, then [people] need to take that into consideration and not buy the cheapest notebook they can find."

Over time the graphics issue may work itself out.

Although discrete graphics chips always push the limits of performance, integrated graphics may eventually reach the proper level for the Windows Vista's advanced user interface. Intel, the largest seller of integrated graphics chip sets for desktops and notebooks, rolls out new chip sets roughly once per year, giving it a spin or two before Windows Vista hits the market.

Ultimately, "It's not that anything's broken," McCarron said. Windows Vista "is much more forward-looking in terms of the capabilities it can make use of than the previous [Windows] offerings."

It just might take a while for PC models to catch up.

Editor's Note: This story was updated to correct information about graphics cards in desktop PCs and notebook PCs.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1843945,00.asp?kc=ewnws080505dtx1k0000599

[yoda313]

Hi,

Cool a 3d interface. But I probably won't upgrade to vista until I buy a 64bit processor. (which won't be anytime soon)

Kevin

[MOVIEGEEK]

An ATI 9600 or higher and all ATI PCIe videocards support DX9.
An nVidia 5600 or higher will support DX9.
I don't plan on upgrading to Vista....unless a future software requires it.

[yoda313]

Hi,

An ATI 9600 or higher and all ATI PCIe videocards support DX9.

I have an ati 9250 and I'm 99.99999% positive I have directx9 loaded (I can play doom 3 fyi).

Kevin

[Xylob the Destroyer]

i've got AIW 9000Pro and Direct X 9.x works fine for me

[ViRaL1]

i've got AIW 9000Pro and Direct X 9.x works fine for me

I've never been all that clear on the whole DirectX thing. I have a 9000Pro myself (non-AIW). ATI's site says DirectX 8.1 support. I know I don't have any problems with 9, but I don't believe it's DX9 native.

[hrlslcbr]

You can install DirectX 9 with the ATI 9250, but the card won't use the features of that version (Pixel Shaders 2, for example).

[edDV]

DirectX 9 is more than just a display API these days, it also allows applications to access hardware and registered software accelerators in various parts of the system including display cards, tuner/interface cards and audio dsp.

You may find that high end software applications require DirectX 9 for internal use even when the display card doesn't support it.

[nelson133]

Given the history, why would anyone pay any attention to the pre- release hype about any Mircosoft product? I wouldn't consider a Microsoft OS release until it's been out a year and i know what's really in it. Nyah Levi

[MOVIEGEEK]

You can install DirectX 9 with the ATI 9250, but the card won't use the features of that version (Pixel Shaders 2, for example).

Exactly,if you want to use the 3D features in Vista(or the latest PC games) you will have to get a DX9 videocard.

[johns0]

Video cards such as the ati 9250 are directx 9 compatible as long as they have drivers for it,they are not directx 9 capable,you can play games that use directx 9 but none of the directx 9 special effects will be used.

[lordsmurf]

Can it? Beats me, I don't care.
Will it? Hell no, what I have works fine for what I need.

[rumplestiltskin]

Nope. Tiger & Leopard for me.

Anyone who runs Windows Vista deserves it.

[TooLFooL]

by the time vista comes out, today's higher-end agp cards will be the cheap ones. everything's gonna be fine!

[alsyed]

upgrade now upgrade now read all about it!!


then when vista comes out, you'll find you were able to run it anyway. Anyway, to be quite honest, whats the point in being able to have transparency in windows and stuff on the desktop? i didn't hear the audience gasp and cheer when that was being demonstrated a few months ago. its just a gimic to tax the system obviously.

[NightWing]

Should not be a problem by then. They are even converting the virises etc for it already!

[whitejremiah]

Just another reason not to upgrade.........you know how much processing power that will be liable to chew up? that will up the system reqirements to play a game TREMENDOUSLY...id rather stick with an alternitive desktop anyhow..right now i use aston and it beats the SNOT out of windows built in desktop...i can store potentially 200-300 shortcuts on my desktop, how bout you guys running the standard windows desktop? didnt think so...and i dont see that the new windows will likely change anything at all in that area.

[guns1inger]

You need to upgrade to vista to get this anyway. All bets are on XP SE / XP 2 / XP SP 3 / call it what you will that will add the graphics sub-system and the key .net changes to existing XP installations.

And if this is all Vista has to offer, I can't see any reason to move off XP.

[gadgetguy]

I'm still looking for a reason to move to XP...

[mbellot]

Should not be a problem by then. They are even converting the virises etc for it already!

Cool. A 3D virus.

Next on M$'s list will be 3D SPAM.

[handyguy]

By the time it comes out Ill be ready for a new Dell computer.

[ROF]

I'm still looking for a reason to move to XP...

Exactly. My mother uses Windows 95, my mother-in-law uses Windows 98. They have no need for anything else. It doesn't what they need to accomplish. (surf the web. email, etc.)

I will upgrade because it's those features that microsoft doesn't tell you about that I always find myself using and appreciating. Fancy graphics is just icing and nothing more. I'm glad to see microsoft implementing more software functionality from Apple OSs. That's what made me switch some of my network over to XP.

I just wish they'd charge more for the upgrade and drop support for those who steal their OS and those who rip off customers by giving them unlicensed copies.

[Wile_E]

I hope they change the stupid name, before it is released. Vista is stupid. XP 64-Bit should be the future, not Vista. I'm tired of this bloated O/S game. Microsoft needs to do what they did with DirectX, make it mean and lean. Before DirectX, we had that stupid WinG, which was a joke. Then MS listened to developers and made a slick and fast DirectX. They need to do the same with the O/S.

It's time for O/S engineers to start optimizing their code. How I wish for the days of instant-on boot times, that I used to have with my old computer. It stored it's O/S in 64k ROM. Tandy/TRS-80 Color Computer.

[D.A.R.J.R.]

I think I'll wait and see how many bugs are in Vista before I install it on my system.

A 3.2ghz p4, a radeon 9250, and 2gb ram should be able to run it, shoudnt it?..lol

[SatStorm]

I use w2k and I see no reason to move to winXP at the time being.
When AMD64@4Ghz dualcore CPUs became affordable (that is about 150 euro...) I'll upgrade and I'll consider of what to use for OS.

[vitualis]

Vista will do basically what MacOS has done with it's GUI -- that is, use the power of your GPU to actually do something useful for 99% of the time. This is a good change.

And just like the Mac version, if you don't have the hardware, the GUI will not use the GPU accelerated features (i.e., GUI ala WinXP/2K).

Regards.

[D.A.R.J.R.]

I know this is off topic but does anyone have a screenshot of the "3D" vista desktop? I am really curious.

[bazooka]

Yes, my systems will run Vista.

[BobK]

i can store potentially 200-300 shortcuts on my desktop, how bout you guys running the standard windows desktop?.

I can store everything I need on my desktop and have room to triple that. 200-300 shortcuts would just be 250-275 things that got in the way of what I need.

[lpn1160]

DOS 9 sounds good to me!!