PDA

View Full Version : Vista requirements


Saurus
05-19-2006, 01:05 AM
Vista requirements (http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/software/windows-requirements-then-and-now-174839.php)

Vista-Capable PCs require at least an 800 MHz processor, 512 MB of RAM, a graphics processor with Direct X 9.0 support and at least a 20 GB hard drive.

Premium-Ready PCs up the specs just a bit, requiring a 1 GHz processor, 1 GB of RAM, a graphics processor that not only is compatible with Direct X 9.0 but has at least 128 MB of memory to power a resolution of no more than 1920x1200 and 256 MB to power more than the aforementioned 1920x1200, and a 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 gigabytes free.

CupOWonton
05-19-2006, 01:41 AM
You can still buy 800mhz processors?

williamsburroughs
05-19-2006, 02:01 AM
We're running and developing for the Vista platform @ work, and honestly, it's pretty freaking cool.

Microsoft just needs to get it out and into the people's hands. :)

CupOWonton
05-19-2006, 02:35 AM
We're running and developing for the Vista platform @ work, and honestly, it's pretty freaking cool.

Microsoft just needs to get it out and into the people's hands. :)

So you mean the crapy non functional Vista demo people were getting is actualy fixed up and running efficiently now? Thats good news. I was getting worried that the minimum was going to be 1.5 gigs and a 3ghz processor. Is there anything you can state about the functionality of Vista in its current state?

ambient-whisper
05-19-2006, 02:56 AM
theres a difference between requirements to be able to run it, and recommended hardware to run it comfortably. its like when people constantly ask if their computer will be able to run maya, modo, xsi, etc. if your computer was made within the last 6 years or so youll be able to run them. how well/fast is a different matter.

Beamtracer
05-19-2006, 03:49 AM
So Microsoft suggested requirements for Vista are:
# 800 MHz Intel-compatible processor
# 512MB of RAM
That's with the 'Aero' interface (transparent windowing feature) switched off.

When you switch Aero on, it seems the suggested requirements rise to:
# 1 GHz Intel-compatible processor
# 1GB RAM

So, can we deduce from this that the Aero interface alone takes up half a gig of RAM, and 200MHz of your processor cycles?

If that is true, then I suggest disabling it before doing any 3D rendering.

poly-phobic
05-19-2006, 04:01 AM
So you mean the crapy non functional Vista demo people were getting is actualy fixed up and running efficiently now? Thats good news. I was getting worried that the minimum was going to be 1.5 gigs and a 3ghz processor. Is there anything you can state about the functionality of Vista in its current state?

if you dont know the funtionality of vista in its current state, how do you know about crappy versions people were running...

why do you have to say something asinine and negative in every single post you make.

instead of hitting reply, just hit the back button on your browser,

Bonedaddy
05-19-2006, 04:16 AM
if you dont know the funtionality of vista in its current state, how do you know about crappy versions people were running...

why do you have to say something asinine and negative in every single post you make.

instead of hitting reply, just hit the back button on your browser,

Not that posts like this are exactly setting a good example, but... ;) Yeah, CupOWonton, you seem a little high strung, from your posts. Maybe chillax a little?

CupOWonton
05-19-2006, 04:19 AM
if you dont know the funtionality of vista in its current state, how do you know about crappy versions people were running...

why do you have to say something asinine and negative in every single post you make.

instead of hitting reply, just hit the back button on your browser,

The vista beta was running crapily for a lot of people, but it was pretty obvious it wasnt even close to an RC. So I was HOPING what he had his hands on was much closer to the final OS.
Why do you have to alwayse jump the gun on your replies? I was asking if it was running better than the beta was. It was bogging down a 3 ghz machine with plenty of ram and a new video card, so something had to have drasticly changed since then to even be able to run it on an 800mhz with 512mgs of ram.
I dont know how it currently functions because it was quicky removed after being used and getting nowhere with it. So I wanted to know how it was CURRENTLY DOING for someone who's developing for it assuming its an updated version from the original beta release.

Is that long elaborate paragraph too hard for you to read now?

DestyNova
05-19-2006, 05:29 AM
These specs for Vista are not realistic...just look at the requirements for XP



Here's What You Need to Use Windows XP Professional

•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

•CD-ROM or DVD drive

•Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device

GoranNF
05-19-2006, 05:30 AM
I think that if you turn off the fancy interfaces,that it will require much less right?Because this really requires a very good PC which I don't have.

Geta-Ve
05-19-2006, 05:56 AM
other than looking glossy/glassy and bubbley/roundy what does the aero interface do for ME, the user?

if nothing than it is getting shut off 5 minutes after I use it. I have the classic MS skin in winxp since I have gotten winxp... who actually uses that beveled skin anyways? Takes up more space in my opinion.

Fede
05-19-2006, 06:21 AM
Quite honestly, if i spend cash on 2 gigs of ram and a new processor i'd like to use it for my apps and not for the os as that is the place i spend 98% of my time while on the PC.

Who cares about the fancy menu, things like that get old quickly.

I would really like a barebone windows, no games, tour win XP or any other crap, useless and space hogging feature.

ShadowHunter
05-19-2006, 06:25 AM
other than looking glossy/glassy and bubbley/roundy what does the aero interface do for ME, the user?

if nothing than it is getting shut off 5 minutes after I use it. I have the classic MS skin in winxp since I have gotten winxp... who actually uses that beveled skin anyways? Takes up more space in my opinion.
Well it offloads rendering from the CPU (software rendering in XP) to the GPU (hardware rendering in Vista). That means that the UI will remain responsive even if the CPU is utilized to its fullest (ever notice how moving windows in XP start to become unresponsive and draw in parts when there is a CPU intensive task running?) Your 3D software will run just as well as it does on XP as long as you're not moving windows around and playing video etc at the exact same time as you are modeling/animating. Think of it another way, most of the time the CPU is running near full capacity while the GPU sits idle, so why not utilize it? All the eyecandy comes naturally with the hardware, and there is little difference whether the GUI is transparent or not; the GPU will render in the same number of passes anyway.

Vista has become much more stable since beta1, and I've seens some insane developer tools that'll allow you to create amazing content for the OS almost effortlessly. Of particalar interest might be vector interfaces, which should open up more positions for 3d artists.

CupOWonton
05-19-2006, 06:50 AM
Another thing I noticed, is its talking about DX9, but everyone knows DX10 is what people are realy going to need. So are they saying DX9 video cards will be able to run DX10 to its fullest when implemented?

Peddy
05-19-2006, 07:05 AM
Another thing I noticed, is its talking about DX9, but everyone knows DX10 is what people are realy going to need. So are they saying DX9 video cards will be able to run DX10 to its fullest when implemented?

do you realise you just asked if microsoft is going to create an entirely redundant new version of direct x? i think you can answer your own question =]

jbo
05-19-2006, 08:29 AM
These specs for Vista are not realistic...just look at the requirements for XP



Here's What You Need to Use Windows XP Professional

•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

•CD-ROM or DVD drive

•Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device

i've run xp on an identical system except for the hard disk. it runs. not well. but it works.

I don't see what people are complaining about. the vista specs seem totally reasonable. the only thing on the list that isn't bare minimum, is the ram and video card. ram is cheap right now, and what do you expect for the video card? if you want to offload the interface to the gpu, then of course you're going to have to have a gpu that isn't a total piece of crap.

tciny
05-19-2006, 10:29 AM
I'm just really not that worried about the Vista specs. I expect that those requirements given are not just what the OS requires to run Aero or so, but whats required to run Aero alongside your usual apps. Should you really care about the performance you can still turn it off...
There's the little things I'm looking forward to, like the start menu's search bar. OS X screwed that up imho. If you use spotlight to search for apps theres just a few button presses too much until it launches. Hail Quicksilver.
And of course the security aspect of things. MS seems to have invested quite some money into securing the OS from its user, hope it helps. I had some pretty experiences when I tried to re-install XP-SP2 on some machines and they were instantly flattened by viruses before I could even download the patches.

Tlock
05-19-2006, 01:41 PM
Something i find very interesting is that Vista's fancy interface, which is suppose to be working directly off the video card (Video Card with DirectX support) requires an additional 200MHz of CPU power. This makes absolutely ZERO sense. In OSX all the paint and fancy interace stuff is done by OpenGL, and doesn't require additional CPU usage. Can someone explain this to me? This is another example of why i am considering to buying a Mac over Windows, i like the future of OSX over Windows, but i would still build a dual boot system.

tciny
05-19-2006, 01:45 PM
This is another example of why i am considering to buying a Mac over Windows, i like the future of OSX over Windows, but i would still build a dual boot system.
That's what I was about to say... with the mac you get the best of both worlds... especially with Leopard, when dual booting will be an integral part of the OS.

mustique
05-19-2006, 02:05 PM
There were issues, when 2 transparent areo windows on top of eachother
made things look horrible. Wondering how that is gonna be solved.

I do hope though that this aero thing,
can be used in a meaningfull way with new application/game UI's.
If not, it'll get shut down immediately without a question.

As for system specs, I guess the system will get less stressed with the uber-eye-candy aero UI by the time DirectX10 cards become standart.

Vista will also help those nasty 256 and 512 RAM dimms to disappear from the marketplace and 2 GB RAM dimms will begin to be available widely in a short amount of time at last. Good time to invest in memory makers:D

mech7
05-19-2006, 02:35 PM
I used the tool on my my laptop and it says i can run it and it only has 512mb ram.. though i am suspecting ms that the tool will say almost always yes lol :p

Saurus
05-19-2006, 05:28 PM
I very anxious about Sideshow...it's like having a PDA and a laptop in all in one.

LINK (http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=2713)

http://www.notebookreview.com/assets/8860.jpg


http://www.notebookreview.com/assets/8855.jpg


http://www.notebookreview.com/assets/8856.jpg



http://www.notebookreview.com/assets/8854.jpg

Koogle
05-19-2006, 06:00 PM
I think you'd have to be crazy to upgrade to Vista if your current system specs are anywhere near those recommended specs... crazy I say

Personally I won't upgrade to Vista until a fully featured Dx10 card come out thats worth purchasing, and I think that will only happen a few months after Vista has been out. Not only that but I'd get a fastest hard drive thats out after Vista release. I don't think the boot time for Vista is going to be anything less than the current XP load time so it makes sense to save up for better hardware before upgrading the software.

tciny
05-19-2006, 06:13 PM
Saurus (member.php?u=7050):
I'm not sure I got this right, but... couldn't you just as well close the lid of the notebook and open it again if you need something?! I mean... can you use that thingie to play music/watch videos/etc. while the notebook is turned off completely, or does it still need to be bootet first?

pixelmonk
05-19-2006, 06:17 PM
That's what I was about to say... with the mac you get the best of both worlds... especially with Leopard, when dual booting will be an integral part of the OS.

that's the funny thing about apple. They've been reduced to their OS, and no longer the whole package. You can run OSX on a PC right now, with the right patches and it isn't any slower than a Mactel (provided you have close to the right hardware) I'm not all warm and fuzzy about the whole "Mac experience".. I use them on occasion at work and for me they get the big finger twirl. woopie? Linux would be the free (OS) and cheaper (hardware) alternative.

Saurus
05-19-2006, 06:22 PM
Saurus (http://member.php/?u=7050):
I'm not sure I got this right, but... couldn't you just as well close the lid of the notebook and open it again if you need something?! I mean... can you use that thingie to play music/watch videos/etc. while the notebook is turned off completely, or does it still need to be bootet first?

You dont need to go through boot process to use Sideshow. This is what the MS Vista page has to say:

"Windows Vista SideShow technology enables laptop manufacturers to include a secondary or auxiliary display in future laptop designs. This display can be used to easily view the critical information you need, whether the laptop is on, off, or in sleep mode. The convenience provided by these auxiliary displays will save time and battery life by allowing you to quickly view meeting schedules, phone numbers, addresses, and recent e-mail messages without having to start up your laptop."

tciny
05-19-2006, 07:06 PM
So these things actually have their own storage and so forth too? I dont suppose they can just turn on the HDD, network adapter etc., can they? It'd explain the big buldge on top of the notebooks displays shown...
So if I have the notebook turned off, will it still recieve new Email or just display what was there, last time I checked?

Tlock
05-19-2006, 08:20 PM
All i have to say about SideShow is that is a silly little feature i probably would absolutely NEVER use, that is why most ppl have pda's (probably also bloats the price of laptops). So instead of have to carry your whole laptop with you simply buy a pda, the name is BlackBery or Palm. Also this technology would be better if Microsoft got off their butts and made EFI support. EFI should have been in Windows for a while now just like DirectX gui, but neither will be fully implimented in Vista. Not to piss anyone off, i will say that they will have very BASIC DirectX gui support, if they have had full support, AREO would have virtually zero impact on the CPU requirements.
They can't even get away with this by saying "oh it's the video drivers and the lack of DirectX 10 support", when we all know that DirectX 9 has all the functionality needed to implement every single feature they want from Areo.
It will take Microsoft the release of another OS just to be at the same level of OSX, with regards to implementing new technologies.

westiemad
05-19-2006, 09:23 PM
personally I'm not looking forward to this, so just as well I use linux at work I guess, time to install gentoo...

jbo
05-19-2006, 09:26 PM
All i have to say about SideShow is that is a silly little feature i probably would absolutely NEVER use

awesome use of "probably" and "absolutely NEVER" in the same sentence.

kaiser_pro
05-20-2006, 04:18 PM
the thing that i really cant under stand is this; why does it need 128 megs of Vram for an sxga display?

XGL for example i can happly use accros both my screens(both sxga) without a problem, what does earo do that need so much ram?

DevilHacker
05-20-2006, 05:52 PM
Vista requirements (http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/software/windows-requirements-then-and-now-174839.php)

Vista-Capable PCs require at least an 800 MHz processor, 512 MB of RAM, a graphics processor with Direct X 9.0 support and at least a 20 GB hard drive.
Sounds like the original Xbox’s Specs. (With some more ram/hard drive space added for other programs and the OS to run in the background)… Come on people… It is so obvious. I have been saying this for a good year now; Microsoft is not updating the list of backwards compatible games for the original Xbox on the Xbox360 because they plan to drop the backwards compatibility support entirely…. And place it on Vista! What better way for people to upgrade their computers to a new OS than to give them an platform to play their original Xbox Games on? That, plus Microsoft can then stop making the original Xbox’s hardware (which they are loosing more money on than the 360’s) and still support the past platform.

Who else is looking forward to an Vista ready MMC in your living room?
:D

DevilHacker
05-20-2006, 06:20 PM
do you realise you just asked if microsoft is going to create an entirely redundant new version of direct x? i think you can answer your own question =]
Judging from your comments I can deduce:

You have no clue what you are talking about.
You have some short of restarted hatred towards Microsoft, so therefore do not care if you are wrong.
You are just joking. (which I hope)
Because this is anything but an copy, or redundant in any nature. Microsoft is planning great things with DirectX 10 and it shows. For one, DirectX 10 is completely written from the ground up as a new API. Maybe you should go read up on it a little. Here (http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTA0NSwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==) is a nice basic article without to many technical terms…

tciny
05-20-2006, 08:06 PM
What better way for people to upgrade their computers to a new OS than to give them an platform to play their original Xbox Games on?The XBox games require those specs without an OS like Vista running alongside it, so if you were to really have those games run on a PC you'd have to increase those specs quite a bit because of the ressources vista eats up itself.

DirectX 10 is completely written from the ground up as a new APII think the authors of the article overstated the changes. Just like Vista was called a complete re-write of the Windows platform, this ist most likely the same case with DX 10. I understand they threw out a lot of the old stuff they've been carrying around and re-wrote most of the API, but I don't think you can call that from ground up, as that'd in fact mean just that. Dump all the old code and begin from scratch.

kaiser_pro
05-20-2006, 08:14 PM
might not be a total re-write, but directx 10 is significantly diffrent from directx 9.

for a start its not backwards compatable (well kind of) any graphics card that sypports direxctx 10, will support all its features, not just a few. all the compatablitiy bits that directx9 had has been mostly removed, so hopefull will be faster.

dalmanna
05-20-2006, 08:23 PM
Judging from your comments I can deduce:

You have no clue what you are talking about.
You have some short of restarted hatred towards Microsoft, so therefore do not care if you are wrong.
You are just joking. (which I hope)
Because this is anything but an copy, or redundant in any nature. Microsoft is planning great things with DirectX 10 and it shows. For one, DirectX 10 is completely written from the ground up as a new API. Maybe you should go read up on it a little. Here (http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTA0NSwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==) is a nice basic article without to many technical terms…


i think you got the wrong end of the stick there, he was saying that its unlikely they would do that, coz some other guy was worried about current graphics cards not using it to it's full potential......i think, maybe i got the wrong end of it:shrug:

t-man152
05-20-2006, 11:14 PM
other than looking glossy/glassy and bubbley/roundy what does the aero interface do for ME, the user?

if nothing than it is getting shut off 5 minutes after I use it. I have the classic MS skin in winxp since I have gotten winxp... who actually uses that beveled skin anyways? Takes up more space in my opinion.

when your in a 3d program your computer will go faster. right now when you use maya, or 3dsmax, or XSI your viewports have 3d objects, while your sidebars are 2D although 2D is less demanding on your videocard than 3D is your videocard is constantly switching back and forth between 2D and 3D mode which slows the computer down alot. with everything running in 3D the gpu can stay in 3D mode. plus since everything isbeing rendered in real time you can change the size of everything (text, Icons,start bar, and everything else) with no jagged edges.

danniesanchez
05-21-2006, 05:21 AM
damn you! support my 30" ACD

Wongedan
05-21-2006, 06:03 AM
Vista requirements (http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/software/windows-requirements-then-and-now-174839.php)
...... at least a 20 GB hard drive.



I dont like this!! :(

John-S
05-21-2006, 06:36 AM
Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the OS taking a gig of ram or whatever but as far as the system requirements.....I don't think it sounds bad at all. Maybe I'm missing something and for those that have old systems and would rather not spend the cash on updating, remember that its probabley at least 8 months away and by then a new or updated hardware might not sound so bad. Otherwise, haven't most pc's for the past while met these requirements already? I guess the requirements just aren't a big deal to me since I plan on buying a new pc to intsall vista on anyways by then. I'm a little scared to upgrade my existing systems after XP came out and I had a bit of trouble with upgrading. A fresh system and a new OS is probably the safest way to go : )

CupOWonton
05-21-2006, 07:29 AM
Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the OS taking a gig of ram or whatever but as far as the system requirements.....I don't think it sounds bad at all. Maybe I'm missing something and for those that have old systems and would rather not spend the cash on updating, remember that its probabley at least 8 months away and by then a new or updated hardware might not sound so bad. Otherwise, haven't most pc's for the past while met these requirements already? I guess the requirements just aren't a big deal to me since I plan on buying a new pc to intsall vista on anyways by then. I'm a little scared to upgrade my existing systems after XP came out and I had a bit of trouble with upgrading. A fresh system and a new OS is probably the safest way to go : )

One of the problems is without a DX10 compatable hardware configuration you arent getting everything out of it. Though it does have a DX9L version for DX9 compatable systems, and I guess anyone running lower than that wont be able to use vista at all?
Theres a lot they arent realy explaining clearly which makes it kind if frustrating. But a lot of people using the newer releases of it are claiming it runs incredibly smooth. I suppose since its using the GPU enhanced desktop it's able to manage things a lot easier when it comes to the processor. And the resources it takes up isnt TOO scarry. 20gigs of space is nothing when you can find places selling good 120gig hard drives for $50. Ram however, especialy high quality ram, is not cheap.

NanoGator
05-21-2006, 08:20 AM
The question I have is whether or not these specs are to just get it operating, or if they mean 'use it comfortably'. It's hard to tell, really. I think it's safe to assume that the new graphical theme is going to eat up gobs of RAM. I really cannot tell if I like it or hate it.

Eh, I'm just going to wait until I've had time to tinker with it. I want a new fancy UI. I also want to be able to do my work. The latter's going to win. Hopefully Microsoft understands this. (wow I made myself chuckle just typing that.)

NanoGator
05-21-2006, 08:24 AM
the thing that i really cant under stand is this; why does it need 128 megs of Vram for an sxga display?

XGL for example i can happly use accros both my screens(both sxga) without a problem, what does earo do that need so much ram?

Aero, as I understand it (and by no means am I an expert), does a lot of vector based graphics. Chances are, they need to store those graphics in buffers to keep the screen all nice and flashy. The higher the resolution, the more RAM needed. It's possible (or at least possible in the sense that I just plain don't know any better) that the more RAM you have on the video card, the less you'll need in the machine. If they're targeting 64 meg cards, for example, then they'd need that much more stored in RAM somewhere because it's cheaper than rendering it.

I may not have gotten the reason correct, but it honestly doesn't surprise me they'd need that much RAM. Anything graphics intensive is memory hungry. If it's one thing MS is good at, it's filling memory.

John-S
05-21-2006, 08:40 AM
I really think memory ain' t much to worry about these days. You can get alot of it for cheap. Cheap compared to older prices at least. I use Crucial on the Mac and Kengston (spelling?) on the PC. I've not had the best experiance with the Kengston so far, any suggestions for different ram on the pc side?

Mahlon
05-21-2006, 01:11 PM
"I've not had the best experiance with the Kengston so far, any suggestions for different ram on the pc side?"

Crucial for the PC, too.

Mahlon

CupOWonton
05-21-2006, 05:03 PM
I really think memory ain' t much to worry about these days. You can get alot of it for cheap. Cheap compared to older prices at least. I use Crucial on the Mac and Kengston (spelling?) on the PC. I've not had the best experiance with the Kengston so far, any suggestions for different ram on the pc side?

Kingston and Corsair are probably the best 2 to get in my opinion. And alwayse in matched pairs to ensure the best operability. Though, those new 2gig sticks look mighty nice; $600 for a matched pair though. =( You can get 2 matched pairs of 1 gig sticks for much much less.

mech7
05-21-2006, 05:14 PM
Btw does anybody know how 3d apps will handle on Vista, as I heard Open GL will not be available for it.. or perhaps some sort of emulated version or something. But allot of 3d apps use open gl instead of direct x.

John-S
05-21-2006, 05:16 PM
I wasn't getting Crucial for the PC because I was trying to find another brand that is comparable so I have my choice at some point : )

I wouldn't buy unmatching sticks. I'll try the Corsair though and see how that turns out. I haven't got any 2 gig sticks although I'm waiting patiently. I think they will still drop a little in price over the next 6 months : )

When I bought the G5 quad. In the morning I looked at Crucials website for pricing, two hours later it was 50 dollars cheaper when I went to purchase the ram on the website. Things are going down.....(that was the 1 gb sticks)

CupOWonton
05-21-2006, 05:44 PM
Btw does anybody know how 3d apps will handle on Vista, as I heard Open GL will not be available for it.. or perhaps some sort of emulated version or something. But allot of 3d apps use open gl instead of direct x.

I read reciently, here on CGtalk I believe, that Microsoft had already come out and said they would support the latest incarnations of OpenGL. Also, because of how Vista is set up, it should run a lot smoother between programs, especialy with 3d. Essentialy its going to be running in a 3d mode all the time, to keep it from switching back and forth between 2d and 3d modes.
Im not sure if this will kill a lot of emulators and older games though.

CupOWonton
05-21-2006, 05:46 PM
I wasn't getting Crucial for the PC because I was trying to find another brand that is comparable so I have my choice at some point : )

I wouldn't buy unmatching sticks. I'll try the Corsair though and see how that turns out. I haven't got any 2 gig sticks although I'm waiting patiently. I think they will still drop a little in price over the next 6 months : )

The price drop should happen, I believe DDR3 is what theyre working on producing, meaning the DDR and DDR2's should all drop in price... I hope.

mustique
05-22-2006, 10:38 AM
Actually having 3 different memory types on the market will only increase prices for everybody.

CupOWonton
05-22-2006, 01:12 PM
Actually having 3 different memory types on the market will only increase prices for everybody.
And that is because?

mech7
05-22-2006, 01:22 PM
Umm actually it is the other way around.. DDR 3 will become cheaper and DDR 2 will become more expensive as they will not be produced as much.

The price drop should happen, I believe DDR3 is what theyre working on producing, meaning the DDR and DDR2's should all drop in price... I hope.

DDS
05-22-2006, 02:08 PM
We've been complaining about microsoft productes and Microsoft as a company for a while, but I really think that they're using what's inside their cranial bones to make a decent operating system. Plus directx10 is totally insane.

In conclusion, I can't wait to test this out, those minimum or recommended specs don't scare me at all 'cause I (and most of the pros around) will be always buying the latest hardware because as a 3D artist I always need more speed ('cause everything is so slow). Having slow hardware like the minimum specs for vista for us would feel like playing a game at 5 fps during 12 hours a day.

mustique
05-22-2006, 05:04 PM
Having 3 DDR memory types would increase prices for everybody because:

- New DDR3 tech will be expensive to produce initially due to low demand.
- Old DDR2 tech will become more expensive because DDR3 divides the market.
- DDRI tech will become more expensive because it will become history by then.

Summing up: I don't think all 3 memorytypes won't be produced at same time.
There'll probably only be DD2 and DDR3 as DDRI becomes a second hand buy.
That said it'a all a lame cycle of uninteresting info anyway.

danniesanchez
05-22-2006, 05:13 PM
Who is has to buy a new monitor because thier current monitor doesnt support HDCP?

pixelmonk
05-22-2006, 05:22 PM
Who is has to buy a new monitor because thier current monitor doesnt support HDCP?


my grandma?

BigJay
05-22-2006, 05:23 PM
These specs for Vista are not realistic...just look at the requirements for XP



Here's What You Need to Use Windows XP Professional

•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

•CD-ROM or DVD drive

•Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device

I can vouch for this and have installed XP on an ancient PII 400Mhz laptop with 128MBs of ram and a 8GB HD. I should add that it borders on bringing me to the brink of smashing the laptop it is so slow. That is unless I go and use one of those optimization instruction pages to turn off all the services and remove all the flashy button and beveled window junk at which point, like Win2K, it works with only a little lag.

CGTalk Moderation
05-22-2006, 05:23 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.