Windows Vista.

[InsaneApache]

From an article in todays Times.

Windows revamp 'too advanced for most PCs'
By Elizabeth Judge

THE much-hyped next-generation of Microsoft software, Windows Vista, ran into controversy yesterday after analysts said that the system’s full range of tools would be available to less than 5 per cent of Britain’s PC market.

Details released on the website of the Seattle-based software giant showed that Vista, the upgrade to the ubiquitous Windows XP and Microsoft’s biggest product launch in years, would run in full only on super-advanced PCs.

Other users wanting to enjoy the full experience would be forced to buy new equipment.

Vista, which is scheduled to be launched for businesses at the end of this year and for consumers next year, had been expected to require more powerful hardware than that needed by Windows. Many businesses are already gearing up to make the necessary changes.

But although the minimum hardware specifications for the system show that it will run on most PCs sold over the past few years, users seeking to enjoy the full range of benefits will be forced to fork out for a more advanced computer.

Analysts predict that fewer than 5 per cent of UK households would have the PC capability to enjoy the full Vista experience.

Yesterday blogs and websites were filled with users dismayed to learn of the expense involved.

The product, the first new version of Windows in five years, is set to be the most visually enticing yet, including 3D and transparent graphics, with enhanced security features.

To enjoy the basic features, users will need at least an 800MHz processor and 512MB of RAM or memory. To enjoy all the benefits, users will require a 1GHz processor, 1GB of RAM and 128MB of dedicated graphics memory, along with a recent graphics processor that meets additional specifications.

David Bradshaw, principal analyst at Ovum, the technology and telecoms consultancy, said that while most modern PCs would have an 800Mhz processor and the requisite RAM, many users could come unstuck with the more advanced requirements. “The memory and dedicated graphics requirements are quite something,” he said.

Laptop users could also hit trouble with even the most basic requirements, he said. “The biggest problem will be with laptops, which tend to have smaller hard drives and less memory.”

One US analyst estimated that only around one third of laptops sold now would meet Vista’s basic features.

Controversy over Vista follows Microsoft’s worst one-day fall for six years, which came last month after it released third-quarter results showing that its future earnings would be hit by increased spending to fend off rivals such as Google.

A spokeswoman for Microsoft denied that current PC users would be unable to use Vista. “A recent analyst report states that nearly all PCs on the market today will run Windows Vista,” she said.

Only 5% of UK computers can run it? , there must be an awful lot of obsolete PCs out there.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/ar...188681,00.html

[manbaps]

Bull... it just means that only 5% will be able to use all the fancy graphical interfaces and that sort of thing. Microsoft are correct that most computers will be able to run Vista. I mean think about how many computers can run RTW with full graphics?

[_Martyr_]

Yeah, seems a bit off if you ask me. Im actually a little surprised at how LOW the specifications are. Looks like nVidia and ATI will do very well out of this though. Think how many low end 128mb dx9 GPUs they will ship once everyone needs that "to run windows".

[edyzmedieval]

This ain't news for me. I read in the PC magazines that Vista will require a ton of power.

[lars573]

Vista forcing people tp fork out for new gear is a good thing. M$ is really trying to bail out OEM's here, I work at one and they are hurting real bad. Gamers are the only thing keeping them a float half the time.

[BDC]

Microsoft might have messed up here. If companies look at the costs and bail completely to another platform which doesn't need the graphics stuff MS would be in serious trouble.

On the other hand I'm sure when Windows 95 came out lots of people said it'd never catch on because it needed a Pentium to run properly or whatever. I'm more worried it will just hog so many system resources as to make it pointless.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It needs a 1GHz processor to run the freaking OS, the thing that is supposed to run minimally in the background?! What a joke!

I wish more companies would make computers with Windows 98.

CR

[_Martyr_]

Well, no. It needs a minimum of 800mHz... that means essentially a pentium 3 era processor. I can live with that to be honest. The killer will actually be the memory imo. How many OEM PCs have been sold in the last 4 years with 1gig RAM or more. A tiny percentage. Although at the end of the day it is very easy to upgrade RAM (slot it in...), the average joe wont have a clue which type of RAM he needs to buy so that it will work with his current system. At least with a GPU, the only 2 possibilities are AGP or PCIe. With RAM there is a host of stuff you need to know before you upgrade. Thats going to mean a lot of headaches!

[Xiahou]

Personally, I couldnt be less excited about Vista. Time will tell how successful it will be, but I'm hoping it leaves the door open for competitors (Linux, OSX, ect.) to gain some ground.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

And this is assuming Vista... works.

[orangat]

Vista will run DX10 while XP will not. Sooner or later every gamer will be forced to upgrade.

[Beirut]

The only reason I care about Vista is because two honking new flightsims are coded for it.

(By the time they are released, I will have the frangazeling PCI-E style rig Mr. Orangat so enthusiastically speaks of.)

[orangat]

The only reason I care about Vista is because two honking new flightsims are coded for it.

(By the time they are released, I will have the frangazeling PCI-E style rig Mr. Orangat so enthusiastically speaks of.)

lol it wasn't my fault you went with socket 754 and agp scarcely a year ago.

[Lemur]

Vista will run DX10 while XP will not. Sooner or later every gamer will be forced to upgrade.

Well, that's certainly the threat from MicroSoft, isn't it? They're going to have to find some way of forcing us into upgrades, and a Vista-only Halo 2 won't cut it.

Shame, really. I know people who are still using Win2K and having a lovely life, still able to play 99% of games. All of that will end.

[hoom]

At the bottom end Vista will look & perform largely like XP.
In the mid range you get directx9 flashy visuals.
At the top end is directx10 flashy visuals which probably won't differ much from the directx9 but this is the bit that article was referring to.

[Xiahou]

Well, that's certainly the threat from MicroSoft, isn't it? They're going to have to find some way of forcing us into upgrades, and a Vista-only Halo 2 won't cut it.

Shame, really. I know people who are still using Win2K and having a lovely life, still able to play 99% of games. All of that will end.

I suspect it'll be a long long time before you see that many DX10 only games. Game publishers want sales more than anything else- and they wont cut off a majority of their customer base just for DX10.

[orangat]

They don't have to. DX10 is touted to be much much faster than dx9 and have access to more hardware features. Gamers will inevitably gravitate towards dx10.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I hope Windows Vista will allow simpler graphical UI by a setting. In win 98, ME, 2000 and XP I always turn off animated menus etc., because they just lag (and if they don't lag the actual animation steals time) and slow down my work (or gaming ). Did I mention I also choose the "Windows Classic" theme for the desktop and windows in XP ?

[Ibn Munqidh]

We gamers will run that software easily, as for DX10, Im sure that will come, no more than 3-4 months after Vista is released. I also heard from my local PC guy that this new Vista will include a whole new type of firewall, internet security, and antivirus, so no need for the dang Norton anymore.

[hoom]

In win 98, ME, 2000 and XP I always turn off animated menus etc., because they just lag (and if they don't lag the actual animation steals time) and slow down my work (or gaming )

Vista has all that stuff running on your 3d card.
The reason its slow on versions before vista is that its mostly (there is limited graphics card acceleration) run in software on the CPU.

The performance difference between non accelerated XP desktop & accelerated Vista desktop should be like the performance difference between a software (CPU) rendered 3d game & a 3d card accelerated 3d game ie night & day win to the accelerated one.

[Lemur]

"Should" being the operative word in that post.

[Papewaio]

It will be awhile before most firms upgrade, they are more interested in apps and benefits then flashy animations that link you to your work program... security though is always of interest.