Microsoft announces Vista prices, specs (or, Wake up you dozy W******! pt. 2) - by oudeis
Scots Taffer on 12/9/2006 at 10:39
Quote Posted by d0om
Most laptops only have 60-100GB of HD space. No way I am going to take up half my harddisk with vista!
Its ridiculous how bloated windows installs have been:
Win95:~50meg
Win98:~500meg
WinXP:~2GB
Vista:~40GB
Its just absurd!
Holy shit, that puts it in perspective:
Win 95 -> Win 98: x10
Win 95 -> WinXP: x40
Win 95 -> Vista:
x300!!That's not a totally accurate representation but strewth! :o
David on 12/9/2006 at 10:55
Vista's install size is not 40GB, it is around 15GB. Why they put a 40GB drive I don't know, but Windows XP also 'required' a much larger drive than the install size.
Rogue Keeper on 12/9/2006 at 11:36
Quote Posted by d0om
Hopefully that means that games companies won't use DX10 as they know that not many people will have compatible computers.
Hopefully.
Nah that means the FINAL DEATH for PC gaming!!!
Or at least radical change in how MS dictates development of multimedia today.
They must change their approach in this, otherwise I think they would go against themselves.
d0om on 12/9/2006 at 11:45
OK, but 15Gigs is still a lot of my harddisk. I fail to see how they can possibly need that much space for an OS. Drivers shouldn't be installed on the HD until they are needed, asking for the Windows DVD etc.
TF on 12/9/2006 at 11:58
ummmmm so where are the stats for 'classical windows interface' mode, which should be pretty much xp level and not a problem for business and everyone who doesn't have a whole gig of ram
Bomb Bloke on 12/9/2006 at 12:06
Not sure what I think of the 128mb video card thing. My card is only 64mb. But then, it doesn't run many modern games anyway, unless 3D Analyser can rig things in my favour. And even then the frame rate isn't anything to brag about.
The drive space issue probably has a lot to do with swap files, system restore, temporary internet files, and the recycle bin. That wouldn't be much of a problem for me... I'm using two 120gb drives in my system, and thinking of upgrading again.
Hardware has been increasing in power and capacity exponentially over time, so it stands to reason that software requirements go up at the same rate to take advantage of that. I don't think 20gb desktop drives are even manufactored anymore, let alone anything below that.
At the end of the day, if you wanna play modern games, your computer is going to need to be Vista ready anyway. So what's to complain about? Those specs are going to be pretty much minimum for the likes of Spore, I would think.
With any luck the installer will ask you if you want a pretty computer, or a fast computer, and configure Vista accordingly. You have to turn the cruft off in XP manually.
As for DirectX 10, that all comes down to how good it really is. If Microsoft can build a version that allows developers to build code that will work on older DX's (so they can target the full Windows market), while giving them a big power advantage on Vista systems (hence encouraging gamers to upgrade), it'll catch on soon enough. If neither of those criteria are met there'll be some resistance.
The one real question I have is this: Which requirements are those? The minimum requirements? Microsoft has a track record of grossley understating those. The recommended requirements? That would mean lesser systems will run the thing. The preferred requirements? In that case, they wouldn't be asking much at all, because you want to have those sort of specs on a modern gaming machine anyway, regardless of OS.
It does have to be said, though, that Vista-tan is going to be extremely top heavy, and I wouldn't pay that much for an OS no matter what the specs were.
Vigil on 12/9/2006 at 12:31
Quote Posted by Legion of Zombies
Why would anyone want to upgrade to Vista anyway? From what I've seen from demonstrations it just looks like Win XP with a new skin and a gimmicky 3d program alt-tab feature, and it's a resource hog beast as well. Windows XP with SP2 is stable, runs all the apps and games I want, has good compatibility with hardware. That's all you need in an OS at the end of the day imho.
People said exactly the same things when XP itself came out.
Matthew on 12/9/2006 at 12:33
Those are the 'Vista Premium-ready' requirements. The absolute minimum requirements for a 'Vista-capable' machine are (from MS' site):
* A modern (sic) processor (at least 800MHz, 32-bit or 64-bit).
* 512 MB of system memory.
* A graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable.
* An SVGA capable GPU running at least 800 x 600.
* A 20Gb hard drive with at least 15 Gb free (hurrrrr).
* A CD-ROM drive.
Rogue Keeper on 12/9/2006 at 13:03
Quote Posted by Matthew
* A graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable.
* An SVGA capable GPU running at least 800 x 600.
So what do they actually want, 6800GT or S3 Trio?
Legion of Zombies on 12/9/2006 at 13:14
Quote Posted by Vigil
People said exactly the same things when XP itself came out.
Compared to what? 98SE and ME were about as stable as a hippo balancing on a tightrope. Win 2000 I've heard was stable, but since it wasn't originally intended for the mass-market it wasn't that great for multimedia/gaming purposes, hence why MS released XP.
So if XP is stable, runs everything I want, good compatibility etc. Why do I need to upgrade? From what I've seen Vista is not revolution, it's not even evolution, it's just a small, pointless incremental step designed for the purpose of sponging more money from customers.
