Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Windows 7 system requirements! (get the popcorn, this is hilarious - but not in favor of MS...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 08:26 PM
Original message
Windows 7 system requirements! (get the popcorn, this is hilarious - but not in favor of MS...
Edited on Sat May-02-09 08:31 PM by Deja Q
or their quality programming team...)

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=2643

When Microsoft released the Beta of Windows 7 in January, it released a set of recommended system requirements for the Beta (which its officials noted were subject to change). On April 30, concurrent with the beginning of the delivery of the Release Candidate, Microsoft released the final system requirements for Windows 7.

Here are the minimum Windows 7 requirements Microsoft offered in January when it released the Beta:

* 1GHz processor (32- or 64-bit)
* 1GB of RAM
* 16 GB of available disk space
* Support for DirectX 9 graphics with 128MB of memory (for the Aero interface)

Here are the minimum Windows 7 system requirements Microsoft released on April 30 when it made available the Release Candidate to MSDN and TechNet testers:

* 1 GHz processor (32- or 64-bit)
* 1 GB of RAM (32-bit); 2 GB of RAM (64-bit)
* 16 GB of available disk space (32-bit); 20 GB of avaiable disk space (64-bit)
* DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver

Note: If you are planning to run Windows XP Mode along with Windows 7, Microsoft is recommending a PC with a minimum of 2GB of memory and 15 GB of additional disk space. In addition, Windows Virtual PC requires a PC with Intel-VT or AMD-V enabled in the CPU, as it takes advantage of the latest advancements in hardware virtualization, according to company officials.


Dang. 2GB RAM for 64-bit version (MINIMUM)... add another 2GB if you're going to use "XP Mode" (aka the b.s. emulation)...

Slop-artists. Pig flu indeed... Is it possible for computers to get the swine flu? Windows has been coughing it up for the better part of a decade and now we're all getting sick of it. :P :D

In the past, Microsoft's minimum requirements should always be multiplied by a factor of 4.

You know: NT4 minimum = 32MB so 128MB was ideal... Win2k minimum = 64MB therefore 256MB is the realistic minimum... XP was 128MB minimum therefore 512MB is its sweet spot... Vista was 512MB so 2GB is its sweet spot... if this law still applies, 64-bit users of Win7 will want 8GB of RAM for Vista on its own. 4GB for 32-bit users of Win7, which means there's sod all left for pointless crap like... BUSINESS APPLICATIONS?

The sad part is, how much of this is my being over the top and how much of this is stone cold reality remains to be seen. But why keep buying into a new OS and need new beefier hardware just to make it crawl as a result... !&@^&#%$ that. Not to mention any bugs and how long those get fixed...



Why oh why did DU get rid of the :flippy: emoticon? I want it back!!! :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
CatholicEdHead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. Wow, that sucks
I have heard that Netbooks will get the Starter edition, which can only open 3 apps at a time.

I know there will be those out there that are going to try to run anything on the Atom platform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Ah, the Starter Edition -- cheap crippleware, which I doubt will run any faster either.
Does anyone at Microsoft really look at hardware? Or just assume "Ah, there's more, no need to worry about keeping efficiency" - or, in other words, "the usual"...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatholicEdHead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. They are tyring to take a page out of Apple's playbook
When they put OS 9 into OS X when they launched it. Of course the hardware standards were not as cheap.

Once this gets out to businesses, then Windows 7 will wait a while as they have no money to upgrade and XP is still just fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Never knew that factoid - thanks!
:)

And, true, XP is still fine...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatholicEdHead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. YW, just Google MacOS 9 Carbon for more
Microsoft is trying to catch up compatibility wise, but they will loose on the hardware requirements to run it.

Eventually businesses will upgrade, but their replacement cycle is quite a bit longer in this down market. A 3 year cycle could easily turn into a 6 year cycle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Their long term strategy is interesting; eliminating the Win32 API in favor of .NET apps.
Which I think is partly why this "XP Mode" was developed... so it's not all bad. :) I'll miss Win32,,,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatholicEdHead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Their ideal revenue model makes Windows Azure the preferred platform
That makes everything cloud computing and you can charge for everything.

True, eventually everything has to go 64bit, but there is already a 64bit version of XP which should hang around a while. People want faster computers and not to have the extra horsepower sucked up by lots of needless code. The newer versions are not that encouraging for any upgrade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. In principle, I'm a skeptic of 'cloud computing' or SaaS...
One is relying on someone else totally. EULAs may allow legal hijacking of copyright ownership, the right to read data, et cetera...

64-bit is a good thing, no argument from me on that... I do recall XP64 and opting to keep Vista64 because the latter has multimedia features XP64 does not have.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatholicEdHead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #9
19. Same here, but the higher ups want the revenue model
that comes with charging you for every app you open and bandwidth you use. While Azure is still in beta right now, I do not see it taking off. When you think of Microsoft you think about the desktop/sever model, not the dumb client/server model (ok, maybe thin client, as dumb client works ;) ).

It is still cheaper in the long run to host your own secure data on your own managed servers than to give in to any form of Cloud Computing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. More higher ups need to understand the delicacy of IT.
Fraud is a problem. Stolen data is another. These aren't trifles; these are major issues. Especially in the cutthroat corporate world, just how far does trust go? How far can it go?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatholicEdHead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. Then the liability side needs to be presented with real $$$ values
The more expensive lost or stolen data are the quicker the highest management will run away from it. The Cloud needs to be seen as a dark thunderstorm or raging hurricane.

The problem is the higher up you go you often hear more from sales people than the IT people as your hands rarely get dirty at that point with much of the actual technology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Even 'private clouds', which try to be a compromise, are risky...
Over the internet, that's what makes it risky. Distributed computing adds complexity and more hurdles to overcome. Cloud computing, even 'private clouds', just require one hurdle: The direct defenses for the server.

Oh, I see the potential and promise in cloud computing - but for data security on its own, it's a big risk. Then add licensing, if a cloud provider goes under, and my favorite: Hidden clauses in SLAs that allow the cloud provider to take (some if not all) ownership of the data. In other words, legalized copyright theft. If intellectual property truly is something to be taken seriously, like how the MPAA, RIAA, BSA, and others regularly bleat and mewl over, then they might be creating a double standard with the cloud.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no name no slogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #5
20. 6 years is not unrealistic these days
I work for the state, and we still have quite a few Win2K desktops running. I work in IT, and I just upgraded to XP myself about 18 months ago.

We currently have a moratorium on new hardware purchases on non-server machines, and they are all running XP. There are no plans at all to upgrade anybody to Vista, much less Windows 7.

Even on the server side, we have lot of stuff still running Windows 2003. Our applications run fine and there is little reason to upgrade, other than to for out more money to MS. Same goes with the latest Office upgrade, as well. It doesn't add enough functionality to make it worth the effort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatholicEdHead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. That sounds reasonable
It also depends on the nature of the business and just how much horsepower you really need. If everything is stable, you replace a couple parts here or there that go bad (MB, RAM, HD, etc...) you come out ahead in the end.

On the server side, Windows Server 2008 R2 is just coming out with a few upgrade features. The insides of 2008 are almost the same as Vista so it will take quite a bit of horsepower to run and you will not gain very much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no name no slogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. I doubt we'll upgrade for a while then
We have a few three-year-old blades we're keeping in reserve for some of our system upgrades, but I don't know if they'd handle 2008 Server. Most government agencies (at least at the local and state levels) don't run the latest and greatest anything, and tend to be a generation behind the times on the client and server side (in fact, I knew a guy who was still running an NT4 workstation only three years ago).

Due to the budget situation, we're just maintaining for the time being. Instead of end-of-lifing stuff after three years, we just buy additional warranty coverage and keep running it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
6. ... yeah, I'm happy with mah XP.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TommyO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. I'm happy with mah XP too
Of course, it's running on a Mac Pro using Parallels for the two Windows applications I can't live without. XP gets no access to anything that it doesn't need, including network access, so I suspect I'm safe for now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueJazz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
10. I've been using Windows 7 for a few months. I rather like it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #10
21. my son has been trying out 7 and he thinks it`s very good
he thinks it is the next xp. vista was another stupid stop gap for microsoft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sebastian Doyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
12. What the Hell is up with this "XP Mode" thing anyway?
Why the hell would anybody want to run a virtual Windows machine.....within Windows???

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Shits and giggles?

I dunno. I have four different Linux virtual machines on my machine and two Windows machines inside it. I don't really know why, but I do.

:P

More seriously, there are a lot of actual reasons for it. The marketing you'll probably see will center on being able to use your good, old trusty Win32 apps with the new OS, and there's something to that, but it's more geared toward promoting enterprise adoption.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatholicEdHead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. Yes, it is aimed at Enterprise Adoption
I was at a TechNet seminar late last week and that was the crowd it was targeted too. It also did not go over very well as the presenter (fairly) did not have the hardware specs like we do here. Had that happened it would have gone over even worse. If you want better overall specs look at home machines, most enterprise hardware is way behind to run this. They refused for Vista and this is another large jump over Vista adoption.

Of course any upgrades would wait until at least Windows 7 SP1 before many enterprise customers dish out, and the bar is even higher in this down economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokerfan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:53 AM
Response to Original message
13. Ridiculous
All those horses just to run an operating system. Guess applications will have to fight each other for what ever is left over. Meanwhile, the minimum system requirements for Ubuntu are:

Processor................300 MHz (x86)
Memory...................256 MB
Hard drive capacity......4 GB

and it's free.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wapsie B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #13
27. I think a lot of people would love something like Ubuntu were it not for fear of the unknown.
Windows has made vast fortunes capitalizing on the concept of the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokerfan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Well, that seems to be changing
As I posted in the OpenSource group, I think the modern computer user is getting more and more adept at trying alternative software, whether it's a web browser, an antivirus application or an office suite. Linux has matured to the point where it's just as easy to switch operating systems.

I have to say that I'm very impressed with Ubuntu so far. To be fair, it had been years since I last looked at Linux. When I bought a new machine last month, I decided it was time to give it another look. I downloaded the Live CD and after running Ubuntu from the CD for an hour or so, I decided to install it and make my machine dual boot.

It pretty much just works out of the box. It has a nice list of applications too: OpenOffice, Firefox, multimedia, etc. And if there's something you want that's not on the live CD, well, there are 25,000+ applications available for download.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 01:26 AM
Response to Original message
15. You have to laugh ...

It's just getting silly.

My OS and all my application binaries and libraries consume 4.9 gigs. And this is not a barebones system I've got sitting here. I've even got the full source of three separate kernels sitting in there.

Data for configuration files takes up a bit more in my /home directory, but not *that* much more.

Now, let's see. I have the OS loaded with most of the bling turned on, which includes four desktop widgets doing their own thing, 3D effects, etc. I've got a two separate web browsers open, one with 8 tabs, a mail client, a 3D modeling app, a file system browser, a digital camera app, my DVD creator, GIMP, and a calculator.

And I'm using 533 MB.

O...kay.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yavin4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 01:39 AM
Response to Original message
16. Outsourcing Has Its Consequences
Outsourcing the manufacturing of socks is a whole lot different from outsourcing the manufacturing of operating systems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #16
25. Using real talent, and not farting around with money and then lying through one's teeth...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sammythecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 02:10 AM
Response to Original message
17. That's insane.
Like driving an M-1 tank that gets 1mpg back and forth to work. Why?

I'm just fine with XP. I'd probably have to get everything from a new motherboard on up just to upgrade to this thing and have performance equal to what I have now. Makes no sense to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #17
26. Granted, 64-bit Vista has a lot of multimedia niceties that 64-bit XP lacks...
And there are underlying managing controls for domains, but there's some in Vista that's just bloat... then I read how the minimum requirements have gone up again.

But with Win7, it's too much - and people were expecting reduced system requirements.

My PC desktop will remain 64-bit Vista, as it's my multimedia PC, but I won't be upgrading to Win7.

(Like in my OP, the "multiplication factor of 4" might not be entirely true for win7, but it has been proven true with NT4->Vista... this time I'm not an early adopter. Maybe down the road; I do like keeping up with technology all the same. It will keep me marketable. :) )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Nov 27th 2014, 09:10 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC