How Much Oomph Does Vista Really Need?
|
Microsoft's slightly revised Windows Vista system requirements step forward, but they're not the leap they need to be. |
System requirements are a hot topic, because so many people are asking. I recently spoke to solution providers about what they're hearing from customers about Windows Vista. Top concern: Hardware requirements.
Microsoft hasn't exactly stormed out the information, either. The company's track record is abysmal, with Microsoft often understating a new version of Windows' realistic minimum hardware requirements. Windows 95 would boot on some 286 and 386 PCs, but booting didn't mean realistically usable.
Revised Windows Vista requirements more clearly demarcate Vista-capable from truly Vista-ready. According to a Friday post on Microsoft's Windows Vista blog, a Windows Vista-capable PC should have: "Modern processor (min. 800MHz); 512MB system memory; [and] DirectX 9-capable graphics processor." A Windows Vista Premium-ready PC would need: "1GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor; 1GB system memory; Support for DirectX 9 graphics w/ WDDM driver, min. 128MB graphics memory, Pixel Shader 2.0 [and] 32 bits-per-pixel; 40GB hard drive with 15GB free space; DVD-ROM Drive; Audio output [and] Internet access." The latter is need for product activation.
Are those requirements sufficient for a good experience? I would contend that they are not enough. For notebooks, anyway, I would strongly suggest IT organizations consider a dual-core processor and minimum 128GB graphics memory (much more would be better) for new notebooks running Windows Vista.
Yesterday, Scott Beale (aka Laughing Squid) blogged about getting a free, unsolicited Windows Vista laptop from Microsoft. Vista's Windows Experience Index rated as 2.8 (out of 5.9) a computer with 1.8GHz AMD Turion 64 (X2) with 1GB of DDR2 RAM and 160GB hard drive. Microsoft installed the 64-bit version of Windows Vista Ultimate, too.
Beale's Microsoft pre-configured notebook only rates a 2.8 with hardware configuration above Premium-ready. I assume that graphics capability greatly affects the system rating. According to Acer's Web site, the Ferrari 1000 ships with the ATI Radeon Xpress 1100 graphics accelerator, which meets Microsoft's minimum system requirements. The point: The stated minimum system requirements are stingy.
Microsoft would do better by overstating rather than understating system requirements. It's one thing for the operating system to run and another for it to provide a good experience. Apple does a great job of understating the performance of its iPods, such as song capacity and battery life, which typically exceed stated claims. The customer gets more than expected, which can create a good feeling about the company or its products.
Vista should be about the experience; otherwise what motivation will consumers or businesses have to upgrade? Enterprises need to make realistic evaluations of what will be required to adequately run Windows Vista. If performance is slower on newer or upgraded hardware than Windows XP, users will complain. No IT organization wants more hassle or extra support calls.
Windows Vista isn't a singular product, which is why the understated requirements are a problem. What happens when a user adds on other processing or graphics-hungry applications? Trouble.
Comments (9)
Joe, I don't think that restricting Vista to "high-end" PCs is the right answer. I for one am very excited about the security features in Vista -- that default accounts do NOT have administrator privileges, and that you need to enter the administrator password to do significant reconfigurations. This alone is reason to upgrade, even if I have to disable the gee-whiz Aero graphics.
Posted by Greg in San Francisco | December 27, 2006 4:19 PM
If you look at 98% of all products out there, you'll see their is a huge difference between being required and the recommended.
Why would overstating requirements be better? The statements given are true. If they overstated you'd be writing about how Microsoft doesn't know their own products or that they are gouging the computer industry forcing everyone to buy larger systems than they need.
Your point is weak and not well thought out. Minimum is just that - the minimum.
I look forward to reading a real story from you in the future. Something you should think about for your New Year's resolutions - the ability to write thought provoking, interesting articles instead of filler.
Posted by Thomas | December 27, 2006 4:19 PM
Re "The stated minimum system requirements are stingy."
I was quite surprised to see Microsoft giving away a computer with a marginal or worse Windows Experience Index of 2.8 as a review platform for Windows Vista Ultimate. Other Microsoft sources say 3.0 is the minimum to preload Windows Vista. See http://oakleafblog.blogspot.com/2006/12/microsoft-gives-bloggers-sub-aero-28.html for details.
--rj
Posted by Roger Jennings | December 28, 2006 11:32 AM
Thomas your comments are surprising. It appears that you weren't paying any attention to any of the previous Microsoft operating system releases since Win95. If you actually tried to use a system with the MS minimum requirements, you would noticed how incredibly slow the computer would perform or not perform at all.
Microsoft has a long tradition of understating the minimum OS working requirements. In reality, I have ALWAYS found that you need to 2x the minimum requirements in order to get a semi-working computer.
If you want to get a high level of performance out of a MS operating system, you need 4x the minimum requirements.
Take Windows XP for example; the minimum requirements are 233MHz CPU and 128MB RAM. Running XP on ANYTHING less than a 800 MHz CPU and 256 RAM is pointless.
For a decent XP system, a realitic minimum requirements are at least a 1GHz CPU and 512MB; while most gaming machines have 2.x GHz CPU, and 1GB RAM.
*Note: Video Cards were not necessary for Windows XP, but are required for Windows Vista.
If Microsoft minimum requirements' history is any indication, a decent gaming computer running MS Vista Premimum would have a Dual-Core CPU 2.x GHz, 4GB RAM, and 512MB Video RAM.
--J
Windows XP Minimum Requirements:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/upgrading/sysreqs.mspx
Posted by J J | December 28, 2006 4:43 PM
windows 95 would boot on "some" 286 pcs?
the 32-bit 286s?
goodbye credibility...
Posted by sab | January 3, 2007 6:55 AM
Windows 95 would boot on some 286
Not likely. Win95 required a minimum of a 386.
See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/138349
Posted by Swashbuckler | January 4, 2007 9:09 AM
perhaps it was the MS-DOS 7 bit that ran on 286's ;-)
Posted by ryo | January 11, 2007 1:20 AM
What about when you have graphics-hungry applications... I use SolidWorks, and autodesk Inventor. Inventor 10 and up require 1GB of RAM on Windows XP, and run much better with 2GB... did microsoft just obsolete almost every current computer because they max out at 2GB, for such applications?
Posted by Timm | March 20, 2007 9:59 AM
vista really only needs 512mb ram and a 3.2GHz P4 (that is what i have) and it runs faster than a 2.4GHz P4 with 2gb RAM and XP
Posted by Nick | November 27, 2007 10:55 PM