Windows IT Pro is the authoritative and independent resource for windows nt, windows 2000, windows 2003, windows xp. Features a collection of resources and magazines for windows IT professionals.
  
  
  Advanced Search 


March 29, 2006

Finally, Microsoft Releases Windows Vista Hardware Requirements

RSS
Subscribe to Windows IT Pro | See More News and Analysis Articles Here | Reprints | Or get the Monthly Online Pass—only $5.95 a month!

Over the years that Windows Vista has been in development, I've been asked one question more than any other about this next-generation OS: What hardware will it require? Microsoft has always been pretty vague about the requirements. A few years back, it specified that Vista systems would require a DirectX 9.0-compliant video card to provide the best experience--that is, to use Vista's Aero Glass UI--but since then, I've heard nothing. I eventually wrote my own guide to buying a Vista-compliant PC, "Buying a Windows Vista PC Today," which you can find at the URL below.

But this week, Microsoft finally, if quietly, revealed its own requirements and recommendations.

According to a page on the Microsoft Web site, "There is no reason to wait till Microsoft launches Windows Vista before you deploy PCs." The company then lays out the following guidelines for what constitutes a Vista-capable PC:

- A "modern" Intel, AMD, or VIA Technologies CPU

- 512MB of RAM or more

- A DirectX 9-class 3D graphics card

Such a system will provide what Microsoft calls a "good" experience with Vista, though it might not provide you with the high-end Aero Glass UI. For a better experience, the company recommends a graphics processor that supports the new Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) technology. Such systems will enjoy "enhanced graphics stability, multi-application performance, and monitor hot-plugging" when compared to Windows XP, Microsoft says. For the best experience, Microsoft recommends DirectX 9-class graphics hardware that supports WDDM and Pixel Shader 2.0 technologies, and 64-256MB of dedicated video RAM, depending on screen resolution. (For resolutions up to 1280 x 1024, 64MB of video RAM is appropriate; 128MB is fine for resolutions of 1920 x 1200 or less; and 256MB is required for higher resolution displays.)

Links

Buying a Windows Vista PC Today (Connected Home)

Windows Vista Capable PC Hardware Guidelines (Microsoft)

End of Article



Reader Comments
well after it has taken this long those requirements are no longer even high. even less next year.

guruguru March 29, 2006 (Article Rating: )


I'm genuinely curious, what about Windows Vista requires 512MB of RAM to run?

I hate to bring Apple into this, but OS X runs on 256MB of RAM with all its graphic effects enabled, and XP runs on 256MB as well if you don't try to run multiple large apps simultaneously.

bonch March 29, 2006 (Article Rating: )


Sorry, bonch, but 512MB of RAM was woefully inadequate on my XP box (Pentium 4 processor). I upgraded it to 2MB, and THEN could I run multiple apps--even then it's objectively (not SUBjectively) less capable of doing so than my PowerBook. Still, it does an adequate job.

But 256? My God. Forget about it. 512 was painful enough.

lotsamystuff March 29, 2006 (Article Rating: )


"I hate to bring Apple into this..."

Who are you kidding? You guys can't stop comparing Windows with OS X. So, lotsa..., you say that an XP PC with 2 GB memory is not as good as a PowerBook with 256MB memory?If that was the case, so many people wouldn't be using XP today.

shark47 March 29, 2006 (Article Rating: )


"Sorry, bonch, but 512MB of RAM was woefully inadequate on my XP box (Pentium 4 processor). I upgraded it to 2GB [sic], and THEN could I run multiple apps--even then it's objectively (not SUBjectively) less capable of doing so than my PowerBook. Still, it does an adequate job."

Um, I've had machines with 512MB and with 1GB and have been able to run multiple large applications simultaneously with good performance on machines with old Athlon XPs. Saying it requires 2GB of memory to work efficiently sounds a lot like your trying to spread FUD which might be a little easier if XP hadn't been around for 4 years already.

orion.adrian@gmail.com March 29, 2006 (Article Rating: )


I have to agree with Adrian, XP doesn't require particularly large amounts of RAM to run. In fact I found it usable on a machine with 64MB, though I wouldn't have recommended anyone else try it with so little memory.

Benn21uk March 29, 2006 (Article Rating: )


Bonch's point is one of system requirements set by the company's who designed the systems, not our personal experiences with them. So before we all start talking about "my system" and "my experience with it" keep in mind that the comment was more so a fact rather than oppinion. The system requirements for OS X set by Apple for OS X 10.4 Tiger is 256MB ram:

http://www.apple.com/macosx/techspecs/

Windows Vista requires twice that as Paul just stated in the article with the links he provided.

What's implied is that OS X can enable high end graphics engine capabilities that in many analysts oppinions out-do Vista's engine on only 256MB of memory. That being Quartz Extreme, Core Image which creates the water ripple effects and niceties(sp) on OS X requires a high end graphics card for the needed boost.

I wouldn't say the requirements sound high though, nor have I experienced- since we've been bringing up our personal experiences- what Vista can and can't do on those 512MB of ram. 256MB of Ram was all I had on my AMD Athlon XP 1700+ machine running XP Home and it ran just fine for average software that didn't require lots of ram. Obviously, if you need pro software you might want to upgrade beyond the minimal system requirements for any OS though.

shark47: "You guys can't stop comparing Windows with OS X." Nor can you resist making comparisons on every topic yourself. Proof is in your own comments. Maybe it wouldn't get brought up so much if this wasn't a Windows blog, you know how it goes. Many users using many operating systems are users here, it's nothing new, nor are comparisons between Windows and OS X. The comparisons might slow down some when Microsoft actually releases a mind blowing OS that is more advanced than OS X, otherwise it's kinda hard to shut up the technically inclined who generally bring up valid points regardless if you want to hear about it or not.

DerekTraver March 29, 2006 (Article Rating: )


Derek, you're apparently mistaken. When have I ever compared OS X to Windows? I've said this a hundred times before: I haven't used OS X and am not in a position to compare the two OSs.

My comment was just a response to Bonch's statement, "I hate to bring Apple into this." I don't think so. Whether valid or not, people keep comparing the two OSs. I also wanted a clarification from lotsamystuff as to what he meant when he said OS X with 256MB memory performs better than an XP system with 2GB installed memory

shark47 March 29, 2006 (Article Rating: )


I'm tired of the cop-out response from Microsoft about requiring a "modern CPU." How is that a measurable response for hardware requirements?

Meanwhile, no technical Windows user would be surprised that WinXP needs a lot of memory to run the latest apps. I started with XP on 256 MB of RAM. My latest machine has 1 GB, and sometimes it just grinds. Expected? Yes. Acceptable? No, as usual. Will WinVista be better? Most likely, not.

mwrisner March 30, 2006 (Article Rating: )


"Sorry, bonch, but 512MB of RAM was woefully inadequate on my XP box (Pentium 4 processor)."

I ran XP on 256MB of RAM for two years after its release with no issues, even running 3D Studio Max.

"Derek, you're apparently mistaken. When have I ever compared OS X to Windows? I've said this a hundred times before: I haven't used OS X and am not in a position to compare the two OSs.

My comment was just a response to Bonch's statement, "I hate to bring Apple into this." I don't think so. Whether valid or not, people keep comparing the two OSs."

OF COURSE they'll be compared, OS X has outpaced Windows in every way, and most analysts agree it is the superior of the two operating systems. Microsoft has allowed Windows to stagnate. I said I hated to bring Apple into this because I KNEW you'd chime in with some reactionary statement because someone dared compare your precious Windows to something else.

"I've said this a hundred times before: I haven't used OS X and am not in a position to compare the two OSs. "

Next time you're bashing OS X, I'll bring up this statement. If you used OS X for a day, you'd probably understand where a lot of us are coming from.

"I also wanted a clarification from lotsamystuff as to what he meant when he said OS X with 256MB memory performs better than an XP system with 2GB installed memory"

As stated before, OS X's system requirements are 256MB of RAM, while Vista's for some reason require 512MB of RAM. I bet all those bloated XML-based vector graphics will suck up system memory like you wouldn't believe.

bonch March 30, 2006 (Article Rating: )


 See More Comments  1   2   3 

You must log on before posting a comment.

If you don't have a username & password, please register now.




Top Viewed ArticlesView all articles
Command Prompt Tricks

One reader shares his tip for setting up the command prompt to reflect a remote path. ...

PsExec

This freeware utility lets you execute processes on a remote system and redirect output to the local system. ...

How can I stop and start services from the command line?

...


Related Events Configuration Manager SP1 and R2 Overview

Check out our list of Free Email Newsletters!

News and Analysis eBooks Business Process Automation - Managing Cost in Your Enterprise

Related News and Analysis Resources Become a VIP member of the Windows IT Pro community!
Get it all with the VIP CD and VIP access. A $500+ value for only $279!

Subscribe to Windows IT Pro!
Solve your toughest technical problems with our experts and access 10,000 + articles online. 30% off

Monthly Online Pass - Only $5.95!
Get instant access to 10,000+ articles from Windows IT Pro Magazine!

TechNet Virtual Labs
Evaluate and test Microsoft's newest products.


Windows IT Pro Home Register FAQ for Windows WinInfo News
Europe Edition About Us Contact Us/Customer Service Media Kit Affiliates / Licensing  
SQL Server Magazine Office & SharePoint Pro Windows Dev Pro IT Job Hound ITTV
IT Library Technology Resource Directory Connected Home Windows Excavator Windows SuperSite 
 
 Windows IT Pro is a Division of Penton Media Inc.
 Copyright © 2008 Penton Media, Inc., All rights reserved. Terms and Use | Privacy Statement | Reprints and Licensing