Vista Hardware Requirements

[o_bubbles]

Oh come on now. Microsoft still releases updates for win98 regularily. I was even able to update an old NT

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

Originally Posted by Bubbles

Oh come on now. Microsoft still releases updates for win98 regularily. I was even able to update an old NT

I don't believe that's true actually. There have been a few that were Win98 specific but most of the patches that were "released for Win98X" were actually for applications that ran on Win98X. Anyway, that's actually beyond the support schedule they originally published and planned for.

Even a casual examination of Secunia.org will point out a number of items that remain unpatched. Why? Perhaps because MS doesn't deem them system critical and thus they will never be addressed. In any case, how long should a company be expected to maintain an obsolete program or package? If the source for Win98 were available then 3rd parties could continue patching. Alas, this is a MS product and not open source.

[o_zippy]

i think ill be sticking too xp

[o_frenchtoast]

Indeed, unless new games will require it.

[o_ghost]

Which some of them will. I believe Crysis is going to require Vista. Same with Halo2.

[o_frenchtoast]

Well, I'll be fine without Halo2...

[o_mooga]

I just realized that there probably isn't a laptop on the market that can run vista well...

[o_ghost]

Yea, because there aren't laptops out now that have P4/M/Core Duos/AMD 64 or video accelerators......

[o_vertical]

All of this is the very reason I said a while back that I would not be updating any component on my computer until at least 6 months or so after vista is released (6 mos estimated, depends on what products and prices turn out to be) This alll due to the fact that Vista requires such an enormous amount of hardware upgrades to make it run "optimal" that we will likely see a large number or products emerge to accomodate it, and prices for those products will fall fairly quickly after release (it will take a bit though because of the large demand, unless multiple products lines are released competitively within the same time frame.) One way or the other I'm going to wait until I can run Vista on high performance with no shuddering/sluggishness.

I'd like to wait for:

- GeForce xxxxx 512 or 1024MB graphics memory. Must Support DirectX10 (I believe it will come sooner than you think, especially after Vista's release)
- AMD/Intel (Preferably Intel since MS & Intel are closer) 4.0 or so with the best supporting features I can find (HT, 1200Mhz or 2600Mhz FSB)
- I'll likely use my existing sound card since I doubt sound will change much, but if it does I'll likely wait for the newer version.
- RAM minimum for me will be 2GB of the best RAM i can find for the price. Corsair or OCZ perhaps.
- Motherboard must support all of the newest requirements of the above as well as some very nice supporting features.

I'm planning on buying a whole new system specifically for vista for the "next-gen" OS. Just because there are so many features exclusive only to new hardware, "Implanting" it on an existing system just doesn't work for me.

No, I don't care what the new system costs to build as long as its under say... $3,000 or around it. (Of course I would prefer to make the cost as low as possible because everyone has other things they need money for heh)

[Jiggles]

I don't think Vista's requirements will be a big deal for most people on this board.

[o_vertical]

Well my current computers specs are

Intel P4 2.4Ghz @ 800Mhz FSB w/HT
1024MB Kingston Non-ECC Unbuffered RAM
60GB HD, 120GB HD (80% or so of it is used) [All of it up to 3GB was used yesterday til I deleted a bunch of stuff.]
GeForce 6800GT 256

The problems with these specs are as follows...
2.4 is hardly a fast processor anymore, especially for Vista/Gaming.
800Mhz FSB is fine and all, but with some having up to 2600 its horribly slow.
My ram is 3-3-3-8 CAS speed. SLOW. Plus its only the recommended for Vista, 2GB of fast RAM would be much more benificial.
My graphics card, at the time I bought it was the 2nd best out. When Vista comes out it will be way out of date, not to mention it doesn't support DX10 or PCI-E (It's an AGP 8x card, got it right before PCI-E got big.)

So quite a few problems, which I think warrants a totally new system. Not to mention after I fried my MB, i've had nothing but constant problems from this computer. (ALOT of BSOD's)

[o_mooga]

Originally Posted by Vertical

All of this is the very reason I said a while back that I would not be updating any component on my computer until at least 6 months or so after vista is released

This is why I just said "Screw Vista, I'm going XP and *Nix

[o_bubbles]

Originally Posted by |404|Innoc-TPF-

I don't believe that's true actually. There have been a few that were Win98 specific but most of the patches that were "released for Win98X" were actually for applications that ran on Win98X. Anyway, that's actually beyond the support schedule they originally published and planned for.

I think they were security updates, but I'm not sure. It was specifically for Win98 though.

[o_ghost]

Originally Posted by Mooga

This is why I just said "Screw Vista, I'm going XP and *Nix

You can say "Screw Vista" for only so long until a game comes out that you want to play that is Vista only. Unless of course you don't care that much about PC gaming (odd because you are here) in which case yea you can say "Scew Vista"

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

Originally Posted by Bubbles

I think they were security updates, but I'm not sure. It was specifically for Win98 though.

You can actually see what was released and what was not released on a watchdog site like secunia.org. I actually double checked my recollection against the site before continuining after I typed "I don't believe that's true". By and large the updates for "Windows 98" were not Windows itself but applications running on Win98 and/or Internet Explorer vulnerabilities.

If the rumor mills turn out to be true about Vista and the recoding that's supposed to be in progress actually is I predict that Vista will be as big a chinese fire drill as MS has ever initiated...

[o_mooga]

Originally Posted by GhOsT

You can say "Screw Vista" for only so long until a game comes out that you want to play that is Vista only. Unless of course you don't care that much about PC gaming (odd because you are here) in which case yea you can say "Scew Vista"

Vista will be so hosed that any game that is "Vista Only" will run so slow (on even the most poweful computers) that it will be pointless.
They dont make powerful enough hardware to run Vista well yet.
I'm hoping they fix Vista up so that it's actualy usable on a computer which was bought resently and even a few years ago.

Fat chance

[o_gamecockfan]

Originally Posted by GhOsT

Which some of them will. I believe Crysis is going to require Vista. Same with Halo2.

wrong. Crysis runs fine on xp and DX-9 which is what is was run on at E3 you just need vista for DX-10 gameplay. Vista is going to be a joke its nothing more than a bloated windows xp with a fancy GUI.

[o_frenchtoast]

Indeed, but if it is true that games will require it, unless someone finds a way around it people are going to fork over the money.

[o_gamecockfan]

Originally Posted by FrenchToast

Indeed, but if it is true that games will require it, unless someone finds a way around it people are going to fork over the money.

It would be really unwise for the gaming companies to try and force you to a new OS. Technically Half-Life 2 can run on DX7 granted it looks like crap compared to DX9 but still shows games are usually pretty backwards compatable. I havent seen many games running on DX10 for reference but DX9 looks pretty darn realisitic.

[o_frenchtoast]

Well one would have to weigh spending money on a not-so-great OS to get performance, or have XP, which is itself not-so-great and reduced performance. I'm sure people'll go both ways, but eventually make the switch if they game a lot.