Vista requirements........................

[JohnnyWalkerBlackLabel]

These are the requirements for Microsoft Longhorn aka Vista; just so you all know whats coming in the near future so you can start putting money aside for upgrade parts or a new pc

A Tech Strategist within Microsoft, Nigel Page, has gone on record to discuss the hardware requirements for Windows Vista, due out next Christmas.

What he's said is kind of shocking.



System breakdown

Graphics: Vista has changed from using the CPU to display bitmaps on the screen to using the GPU to render vectors. This means the entire display model in Vista has changed. To render the screen in the GPU requires an awful lot of memory to do optimally - 256MB is a happy medium, but you'll actually see benefit from more. Microsoft believes that you're going to see the amount of video memory being shipped on cards hurtle up when Vista ships.

CPU: Threading is the main target for Vista. Currently, very little of Windows XP is threaded - the target is to make Vista perform far better on dual-core and multi-core processors.

RAM: 2GB is the ideal configuration for 64-bit Vista, we're told. Vista 32-bit will work ideally at 1GB, and minimum 512. However, since 64-bit is handling data chunks that are double the size, you'll need double the memory, hence the 2GB. Nigel mentions DDR3 - which is a little odd, since the roadmap for DDR3, on Intel gear at least, doesn't really kick in until 2007.

HDD: SATA is definitely the way forward for Vista, due, Microsoft tells us, to Native Command Queueing. NCQ allows for out of order completions - that is, if Vista needs tasks 1,2,3,4 and 5 done, it can do them in the order 2,5,3,4,1 if that's a more efficient route for the hard drive head to take over the disk. This leads to far faster completion times. NCQ is supported on SATA2 drives, so expect them to start becoming the standard sooner rather than later. Microsoft thinks that these features will provide SCSI-level performance.

Bus: AGP is 'not optimal' for Vista. Because of the fact that graphics cards may have to utilise main system memory for some rendering tasks, a fast, bi-direction bus is needed - that's PCI express.

Display: Prepare to feel the red mist of rage - no current TFT monitor out there is going to support high definition playback in Vista. You may already have heard rumblings about this, but here it is. To play HD-DVD or Blu-Ray content you need a HDCP compatible monitor. Why? Because these formats use HDCP to encrypt a video signal as it travels along a digital connection to an output device, to prevent people copying it. If you have just standard DVI or even an analogue output, you're going to see HD scaled down to a far-less-than-HD resolution for viewing - which sucks. This isn't really Microsoft's fault - HDCP is something that content makers, in their eternal wisdom, have decided is necessary to stop us all watching pirated movies. Yay.

p.s. there will never be a way to completely stop pirating..................

[Castor_Troy05]

I've run it already on a far less powerful machine than that, these figures always do the rounds every so often, MS would never have requirements that high as to maximise sales they need to aim for the lowest common denominator, so it'll probably work on most current pc's and of course perform better on higher spec ones.

[Ecstatic]

I haven't run Vista yet--not that much of an early adaptor, lol. But I have heard similar req's discussed. I agree with you, Castor_Troy05: to actually require these high marks, M$ would be undercutting its own sales tremendously. I just dropped $1400 on a new laptop (something I've resisted for years, but finally decided was essential for me as a webmaster/developer): it's like learning to type with all thumbs!

Anyway, I'm a little confused about the vector graphics: rastered images (bitmaps) and vector graphics are two different species entirely. How is that going to work? Is Vista going to redraw every photographic image and other rastered image as a vector graphic on the fly? That would certainly be memory intensive, and I don't see how it's actually possible (photographs are not vector graphics).

signed, confused and loving the UNIX command line

[UckedFup]

I have it sitting here in my MSDN wallet.

This is the first Windows operating system I am going to boycott. I can see the desktop advantages of XP; and I still think 2000 on the desktop is more than adequate for developers, and is still capable of running datacenters as is 2003.

Where I work we are digging in trenches, much like when a P166 MMX w 32MB was the standard capable of supporting a business for years. Back then it was word processing, spreadsheets and custom applications. Today, it's word processing, speradsheets and custom applications: why in the flying fuck do I need at least P4 with 512MB of memory to do the same shit I've been doing for five years?

[JohnnyWalkerBlackLabel]

I'll download it tonight in it's beta format

[Castor_Troy05]

yes it pretty much will do it all on the fly, hence it'll use the system GPU to do such operations, making them happen fairly quickly. It'll also introduce various new technologies, such as Avalon, to accomplish this :)

[Ecstatic]

I still don't see how the OS can render a rastered photo as a vector graphic: the mathematical computations to account for all the image detail (millions of colors never mind size or alpha channel) would be immense. I guess I'll believe it when I see it.

[Castor_Troy05]

it renders it as a 3d object, so in essence, it's just the image, mapped onto a 3d surface, like a texture, quite easy really

[Ecstatic]

Fascinating. I'll have to see it, as I said, because it's hard to wrap my head around the idea that you could preserve all the image quality of a high res 24-bit color photo as any kind of vector graphic, at least not without incredible amounts of calculations involved. (For reference, I've been working with Photoshop for 13 years as well as with various other imaging software, both raster and vector.) It seems to me to be analogous to digital sampling vs. analog recording: in terms of pure audio quality, no digital recording method can (or has yet to) equal analog recording simply because an analog recording preserves the entire sound wave, whereas digital encoding samples the waveform at strategic points. Supposedly, the human ear can't distinguish the difference, but that's not quite true, and a trained ear (say, of a classical violinist in a symphony orchestra) will readily detect the difference. Likewise, I wonder if this mapping to a 3D surface can possibly preserve all the data of a high res image, as opposed to creating the illusion that it has done so. And the 3D is an illusion anyway, since it's being viewed on a 2D surface (the monitor). Of course, if you're using a PC with a plasma flatscreen, well, you're already viewing far less detail than on a high end CRT (particularly noticable in animation where the LCDs don't change state nearly as quickly as a CRT does).

If it does all that, and washes my car, then I'll buy into Vista. But I have my doubts.

[Castor_Troy05]

I think there may have been some slight miscommunication between us here Ecstatic, it won't be able to convert a bitmap to a vector and have lossless image resizing, I only now realise that is what you meant

[gaiseric]

I've read all the posts in this thread so far - I'm convinced you guys are talking in some arcane foreign language :shock: :shock:

[Ecstatic]

I think there may have been some slight miscommunication between us here Ecstatic, it won't be able to convert a bitmap to a vector and have lossless image resizing, I only now realise that is what you meant
Yes, that's what I was driving at. It would be awesome if it did--no dealing with Flash or vml to experience lossless auto image resizing when visiting a website at various screen resolutions. Still, it sounds impressive, though I do share UckedFup's reservations about the need for such performance (other than to drive sales).

gaiseric, I often find this language acrane myself!

[JohnnyWalkerBlackLabel]

figured I'd update this ancient thread......................

been using Vista for about 6 hours now, as an Apple OS X fan I barely used my windows machine much with the exception of browsing this forum, and chatting on yahoo or AIM

very interestingly my copy of XP Pro decided to stop functioning properly, little things I should have picked up on finally caught my attention when I walked away from either of my i-machines and paid attention to the windows machine....................

so I went out and picked up Vista Ultimate........................

waste of money? yes................. I should have gone with the Home Premium as the other options are merely a waste of time for me

better operating system? slightly.............. it's a bit more stable but I've managed to crash it twice tonight with searching or installing new software, not a big deal 2 times crashing on a windows platform is actually not bad, as many of you know

things microsoft could have included: a dedicated wallpaper cycling changer, I had to go download a very good one and then go to the home page and get the vista patch, but it is wonderful, I now have Allanah's left titty on one lcd, and her right titty on the other

I'm assuming most of you already have a version of Vista, so anyone with any tips I'm waiting to read.............

surprisingly my ipod and winamp work as usual on this thing, I'd heard otherwise, wonderful thing

[Beagle]

MS has lost me forever. Bought a MacBook and I'll never go back.

[Ecstatic]

I'm holding off at least until sp1.

[Minutemouse9]

there is more holes in it than swish cheese, and allot of software isnt compatible yet, like anti virus and firewalls.

only a fool would use it before sp1.

http://www.symantec.com/home_homeoffice/themes/freedom/index.jsp

http://www.trendmicro.com/en/home/us/personal.htm

http://us.mcafee.com/root/package.asp?pkgid=272

And CA's schedule
http://home3.ca.com/stcontent/vistaready/index.aspx

[Vicki Richter]

My system is totally ready:

Core 2 6600 overclocked to 3.2 Ghz
4GB of DDR2 6400 (800 RAM)
500GB 7200 RPM HD
8800 GTS 640 meg RAM DX10 baby!

However, everything I've read says Vista sucks for gamers - which I am. I might put it on my second system or laptop.

What exactly are the added benefits of the professional ultra super version? I haven't been paying attention. I plan to get a quad core processor in the next few months.

V

[partlycloudy]

http://i13.tinypic.com/4gegg92.jpg

[Vala_TS]

I am not getting Vista. It sounds like a huge money making scam to make you buy all new parts! 2GB RAM for optimal performance? That's crazy.

No offense to any vista lovers.

Vala,

[JohnnyWalkerBlackLabel]

lol, so I guess all of you XP loyalists will jump to OS X or Linux when Big M decides not to support XP anymore huh, LOL yeah right

I'm getting ready to put NFS: Carbon back on and see if it works with Vista, it was fine under XP

also

I read somewhere about opening up XP in a window under Vista, seems cool for backwards compatibility with those programs that won't work on Vista only on XP

I wouldn't call anyone stupid, dumb, etc. for making the Vista purchase. Truth be told I wouldn't have done it had my XP Pro reinstalled like it was supposed to, but it didn't, so I went out and picked up Vista. As far as SP1 goes, the same shit that was said negatively about Service Pack 2 for XP will probably be said for SP1 for Vista so waiting solely on that might not be the solution.................................

[muhmuh]

better operating system? slightly.............. it's a bit more stable but I've managed to crash it twice tonight with searching or installing new software, not a big deal 2 times crashing on a windows platform is actually not bad, as many of you know

i beg your pardon? ive yet to see xp crash for any other reason than thermal issues which is not xps fault


I plan to get a quad core processor in the next few months.

pretty useless unless you encode videos all the time or run scientific apps
better invest that money in faster ram a gtx or better cooling to push that processer past the 4 ghz mark (yes it can be done)


OpenGL is pretty garbage, performance wise. Due to driver development.

no its garbage because ms dropped the support for it completely... basically it runs on a d3d emulator as of now and card manufacturers have to write their own ogl implementations from scratch
well see how that pans out with all professional apps running on ogl


The OS also likes to gobble up memory for no apparent reason other than the fact the memory is available.

its called making use of the available memory... on an xp machine most of your 2 gigs is never even used at all... vista (like unix iirc) always tries to fully load your ram either with actual processes or with cached code of programms you run often