NEWS: Vista's video requirements may be too much

[CrayonEater]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196131,00.html

Microsoft Lays Out System Requirements to Run Vista

The software maker's Windows Vista Premium Ready PC specifications call for a 1GHz processor, 1GB of RAM and 128MB of dedicated graphics memory, along with a fairly recent graphics processor that meets several additional specifications, so as to ensure a PC can run Aero. The machines must also have at least a 40GB hard drive or 15GB of free space and an internal or external DVD-ROM drive.
...
PCs based on ATI Technologies' Radeon Xpress 200 and Intel's 945, popular in consumer-oriented desktops and notebooks and among businesses, respectively, meet the minimums, their manufacturers say. But many other older chip sets do not.
But, even if they meet the minimums, some question remain about just how well PCs with integrated graphics chip sets and 1GB of RAM will run Vista features such as Aero.
One PC industry executive, who asked not to be named, said chip sets such as ATI's Radeon XPress 200 and Intel's 945G will deliver adequate performance for business users when paired with 1GB of RAM. Of course, 2GB would deliver greater performance, the insider said.

It's looking like Vista will be a record-breaking resource hog. I wouldn't use it anyway because of the TCPA/DRM/phone-home crap, but now it's looking you like you have to have a pretty high-end machine just to meet the minimum requirements. 1 GB main memory for "adequate performance"??? Will there be any memory left to do actual work like encoding? Come on!

[bunginuts]

no kidding, time for linux to become more user friendly, this is their chance to play catch up

[thecoalman]

but now it's looking you like you have to have a pretty high-end machine just to meet the minimum requirements. 1 GB main memory for "adequate performance"??? Will there be any memory left to do actual work like encoding? Come on!

Guess that depends on your definition of high-end machine. My machine met those requirements 3 years ago. With the exception of the RAM most machines being sold, even the cheap ones, meet those requirements. It seems the minimum that most people suggest for an encoding machine is 512 and the max being 1 gig for encoding now. If you expect to encode HD those numbers are going to rise.

[whitejremiah]

my main thing is this, it's not even nessacerily video encoding that im too concerned about, but these type of video and ram requirements will make gaming take a massive hit.........people will basically be REQUIRED to have 4gb for gaming...right now, 1gb is starting to become like the standard for gamers (im not talking minimum system specs to get the game running, im talking about what people ACTUALLY run) so that will jump to at least 2gb...and that's also provided the games dont get any more ram intesive than they are right now (not very likely) i really think that this may be a complete and total disaster for MS.....im personally not gonna buy DRM in a box...er...vista until it's absolutely forced down my throat.....

[thecoalman]

The same argument I applied to encoding can be applied to gaming. I'd imagine Vista would be able to readily handle Quake2 with the requirements but people don't want Q2 they want better detailed games with dynamic light, more textures etc. Guess it's speculation until it's released but higher requirements for machines is inevitable as the market demands features that need them.

[ROF]

Is running Aero really that important? I think there are much more important Vista features that a typical business or personal machine will want to utilize. Some people may even find Aero annoying.

[SilverBlade]

I perfer performance over apperance. On my current XP system I have my computer set to 'best performance'. IF I am forced into buying Vista, I'll do the same on that so I can use the system resources for *real* processing.

[disturbed1]

These were the exact same compliants everyone had about Windows XP. It's also the main reason OEMs push new versions of Windows. It sells new machines.


I feel sorry for the consumer and the sales people. The sales people attempting to explain the differences between all of the version of Vista, and the consumer being able to understand what they need/want. XP was a huge step forward, remember it's been out for 5-6 years now

A build-your-own PC for roughly $250-$300 would easily meet Vista's specs. OEMs shouldn't have an issue building new PCs with Vista, while retaining their current price points.

[whitejremiah]

i dont even CARE about aero personally, in my opinion, they shouldnt even have that garbage on the install disc....the huge problem for me, is that every version of windows, the minimum system requirements grow almost exponentially.....particlarly for the jump from 2k to xp....that was a very noticeable system requirement jump.....and anyone that's tried to run winxp with the barebones system requirements, especially the ram and processor requirements, will be able to tell you outright that it's completely unuseable...heck even XP is relatively useless until you hit somewhere between 256mb and 512mb ram and around a 500-800mhz processor...if that same trend continues, you will probably NEED a 2ghz processor (not particularly hard) and 2gb of ram and a 256mb vid card for it to run SMOOTHLY

[disturbed1]

i dont even CARE about aero personally, in my opinion, they shouldnt even have that garbage on the install disc....the huge problem for me, is that every version of windows, the minimum system requirements grow almost exponentially.....particlarly for the jump from 2k to xp....that was a very noticeable system requirement jump.....and anyone that's tried to run winxp with the barebones system requirements, especially the ram and processor requirements, will be able to tell you outright that it's completely unuseable...heck even XP is relatively useless until you hit somewhere between 256mb and 512mb ram and around a 500-800mhz processor...if that same trend continues, you will probably NEED a 2ghz processor (not particularly hard) and 2gb of ram and a 256mb vid card for it to run SMOOTHLY

Exactly

Yesterday I worked on an old Compaq PC. OEM XP Home, AMD 1700XP+, Savage onboard graphics, and 128mb of RAM. Saying it was slow is an understatement.

But such is the way of technology. Upgrade, upgrade, upgrade.

BTW, Aero is not available with all versions of Vista. For Vista without Aero

A Windows Vista Capable PC includes at least:

* A modern processor (at least 800MHz1).
* 512 MB of system memory.
* A graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable.

1Processor speed is specified as the nominal operational processor frequency for the device. Some processors have power management which allows the processor to run at lower rate to save power.

[JAB285]

.... I wouldn't use it anyway because of the TCPA/DRM/phone-home crap. ........

What exactly is this?

[Cobra]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4754462.stm

Some interesting reading.

[Cobra]

Moved to Computer forum - not video-related news.

[yoda313]

I can meet VISTA's requirements though I'd need 1gb ram instead of 512mb and I'd probably have to get a 256mb RADEON 9250 if it supports vista. My 128mb 9250 probably wouldn't cut it. Though I may have to get a new motherboard with a agp/pci-e slot to make it up to the full premium vista. Not to mention a new case to fit the motherboard

[disturbed1]

Incase no one has seen this yet, here's the Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/upgradeadvisor/default.mspx

[Faustus]

Is running Aero really that important? I think there are much more important Vista features that a typical business or personal machine will want to utilize. Some people may even find Aero annoying.

I think its ugly. The real question is: Is Vista that important? At this point I say Nay.

[ROF]

Is running Aero really that important? I think there are much more important Vista features that a typical business or personal machine will want to utilize. Some people may even find Aero annoying.

I think its ugly. The real question is: Is Vista that important? At this point I say Nay.

I tend to disagree. I would like to now have a new Operating System. I like all that Vista offers including the Aero desktop, I just don't see that as a key feature. In my opinion, Aero would be similiar to trying to sell Windows XP because of it's "theme" packages. Sure they look neat, but do they really add anything to the Operating System? In Vista, I like the new searches, the new Windows Explorer or whatever it's called, and some of the new security options. Windows XP still works OK on my systems, but so does Windows 98 and 2K. It's just time I spent a few bucks and got something new rather than the same old Operating System week after week to install.

[MOVIEGEEK]

I can meet VISTA's requirements though I'd need 1gb ram instead of 512mb and I'd probably have to get a 256mb RADEON 9250 if it supports vista. My 128mb 9250 probably wouldn't cut it. Though I may have to get a new motherboard with a agp/pci-e slot to make it up to the full premium vista. Not to mention a new case to fit the motherboard

I recommend at least a Radeon 9550 or nVidia 5500 to use Vista,Windows Media Center or view HD video.I have a HTPC with a ATI 9250(128MB) and it barely handles HD video...not to mention modern games.I have the same problem:9550/5500 only come in AGP 8x and my mobo is only 4x.

BTW...when buying a videocard look for "Memory Interface: 128-bit" and at least "4 pipelines".

[yoda313]

.I have a HTPC with a ATI 9250(128MB) and it barely handles HD video

Actually I have a fusion hdtv 3 gold t capture card and it plays beautifully on my system. The pic is clear and crisp.

[CrayonEater]

The fundamental problem with Vista (and Microsoft OS', and *nix' X, etc.) is that the O"S should not be a resource hog. The OS exists to support the applications running it; it is not supposed to be an application unto itself.

JAB285-

What I was referring to is now called "Trustworthy Computing". That's Microsoft's name and also the name of the group that is establishing the standards. The short-term goal is supposedly tamper-proofing software. That's a severe problem for security analysts like me as well as software developers if we can't see what software is doing and/or doing wrong. The long-term goal is that what is run or done on a person's computer is controlled by product vendors through authentication and licensing schemes. Eventually (in theory), people will not be able to run anything but authenticated and licensed code. In theory that's also supposed to provide extra security as unsigned code cannot run. Of course, there are numerous problems with this, not the least of which is that this sacrifices security by requiring an internet connection (most security-conscious folks, including me, keep sensitve data on non-networked machines) and that it removes control of the computer from the end-user/owner and places it squarely in the hands of product vendors. Yet another problem with authenticated software is that it gives people a false sense of security; look at the spyware problem - nearly all the ActiveX-based malware is certificated and, therefore, will automatically download in Internet Explorer if the default settings are left enabled.


Notice that TCA dovetails with the trend in application development towards web-based software. From a purely business perspective, the long-range goal of TCA may be less to prevent piracy or to provide consumer assurance, and more to establish subscription-based software licensure. As it stands, today, consumers can buy most software once and use it for as long as they like; with subscription-based access, consumers will have to pay regular (monthly?) fees and may also be forced to upgrade computers as vendors decide to "upgrade" their software products. There are also many who feel that another reason for TCA is to force out small software developers (or at least open-source/freeware); small vendors may not be able to afford the certificates required to run on TCA platforms.

My personal opinion, though, is that, although there's no question TCA would be the end of open-source and freeware, I don't think that it will necessarily shut out all small businesses.

Here's a little more info:
http://www.againsttcpa.com/
(Anti-TCA, but excellent and fairly simple descriptions)
https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/home
(The homesite of the consortium that is developing TCA - rather technical, but useful)
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
(Basically good pro/con site if you're not into the technical stuff)

[DereX888]

Is running Aero really that important? I think there are much more important Vista features that a typical business or personal machine will want to utilize. Some people may even find Aero annoying.

right on.
I find it VERY annoying.
I dont even setup wallpapers for many years, all i care is that the game/software/whatever i'm running on my pc must run correctly and as fast/good as it should.
I dont give a rat's ass what color is my 'start' button etc lol
Leave it to children and those who just got their first computer - thats usually what they do: customize n tweak the appeariance (because thats all whst they know how to do for now).

SPecs themselves are not that high, come on.
As someone else said - my main computers meet these requirements long time ago as well.
Obviously it won't run on that old Pentium some of us still keep, but its not a reason to bash it.
Would anyone say i.e. MayaII is bad because it won't run on 486? c'mon...

[DereX888]

Incase no one has seen this yet, here's the Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/upgradeadvisor/default.mspx

[Cobra]

As I said over on another forum, an operating system should be exactly that - an OPERATING SYSTEM. I would rather that Microsoft get that running fast, stable, secure and efficient. They seem to think that an OS should be able to do everything the average user needs right out of the box. Do they know about these funny little things we call "installers"? You download them, and when you run them they add functionality to your operating system! Thus, users can individualise their systems. Microsoft should concentrate on getting the core of their system right first, then the little features later.

Perhaps Microsoft should also take something from Apple - when installing some of the earlier MacOS systems (haven't ever installed MacOS X) you could pick and choose, using a GUI, what got installed and what didn't. Don't want WMP? Scrapped. Don't want Aero? Scrapped, and so on, until you have a really lean install.

Sorry, guys. Rant over!

[disturbed1]

Perhaps Microsoft should also take something from Apple - when installing some of the earlier MacOS systems (haven't ever installed MacOS X) you could pick and choose, using a GUI, what got installed and what didn't. Don't want WMP? Scrapped. Don't want Aero? Scrapped, and so on, until you have a really lean install.

Sorry, guys. Rant over!

Windows 98 and everything before used to have some of these options. Don't remember if ME did or not. But I know 2000 and XP don't.

[MOVIEGEEK]

Is running Aero really that important? I think there are much more important Vista features that a typical business or personal machine will want to utilize. Some people may even find Aero annoying.

From what I understand Aero is an integral part of Vista and I don't think the user can turn it off,from what I've read Aero is the main problem the developers are having.

[waheed]

From what I understand Aero is an integral part of Vista and I don't think the user can turn it off,from what I've read Aero is the main problem the developers are having.

As far as im aware, not all 6 versions will have Aero. I think Vista Starter do not come with Aero.

[Dv8ted2]

Is running Aero really that important? I think there are much more important Vista features that a typical business or personal machine will want to utilize. Some people may even find Aero annoying.

From what I understand Aero is an integral part of Vista and I don't think the user can turn it off,from what I've read Aero is the main problem the developers are having.

There has to be a way to turn that off. Microsoft has said that if your computer is not up to snuff, then you would not be able to run aero. You can probably disable it like you can turn the eye candy off in XP.

[ROF]

Is running Aero really that important? I think there are much more important Vista features that a typical business or personal machine will want to utilize. Some people may even find Aero annoying.

From what I understand Aero is an integral part of Vista and I don't think the user can turn it off,from what I've read Aero is the main problem the developers are having.

That is incorrect. Aero can be turned on or off just as easily as you turn on and off screen savers. It looks really cool though, but when it comes to an operating system functionality is what counts. Aero is just window dressing for those with machines capable of handling it's decorations.

[JAB285]

What I was referring to is now called "Trustworthy Computing". That's Microsoft's name and also the name of the group that is establishing the standards. The short-term goal is supposedly tamper-proofing software........

CrayonEater

Thanks for the info and the links.

JAB285

[EAO]

One of the many things that bugs me about Vista is that the majority of one gig of ram is needed to make it operate smoothly and quickly. That is sucks resources away from being used on your programs shows it to be poorly designed.

It's a freakin O/S. Not an application that people use in the traditional sense of the word.. An O/S should be designed to get you to your applications not use up your resources and force you to use 4 gig's of memory to do what XP could with 2 gig of memory.

Vista is useless to me until it does something a whole lot better than XP.