Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Windows 8 Will Have Same System Reqs as Win 7

By - Source: PCAdvisor | B 93 comments

That Vista PC will run Windows 8 just fine.

The jump in system requirements going from Windows XP to Windows Vista was significant. The move from Windows 7 to Windows Vista, however, wasn't anything of the sort. In fact, Windows 7 ran better than Windows Vista on modest systems.

Even though Windows 8 isn't set for release until 2012 at the soonest, Microsoft is targeting a similar set of minimum system requirements as the ones for Windows 7. By extension, this would mean that Windows 8 will have similar hardware requirements as Windows Vista – an operating system that could predate Windows 8 by three years.

Speaking at Microsoft's Worldwide Partner Conference in California, Window's corporate vice-president Tami Reller said, "In both of our Windows 8 previews, we talked about continuing on with the important trend that we started with Windows 7, keeping system requirements either flat or reducing them over time."

"Windows 8 will be able to run on a wide range of machines because it will have the same requirements or lower," she added.

"We've also built intelligence into Windows 8 so that it can adapt to the user experience based on the hardware of the user. So, whether you're upgrading an existing PC, or buying a new one, Windows will adapt to make the most of that hardware," added Reller.

System requirements for Windows 7 are:

1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor

1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)

16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)

DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver

Display 93 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 34 Hide
    apache_lives , July 17, 2011 4:55 AM
    The issue with Vista wasnt Vista is was companies like Acer etc that sold units with 512mb of memory and packed it with so much useless junk it just crawled, vista if properly setup was great, i would still take vista over XP any day, and windows 7 - its 99% vista.

    As for Windows 8, WHY IS IT NOT 64 BIT ONLY FFS

    KILL 32-BIT ALREADY
  • 16 Hide
    Anonymous , July 17, 2011 4:56 AM
    I dont get it.

    1;The move from Windows 7 to Windows Vista? Isnt this vise versa?

    2;By extension? What?

    3;Vista was first sold on 2007, and Windows 8 will on sale in 2012, so there will be 5 years, not three.
Other Comments
  • -6 Hide
    belardo , July 17, 2011 4:13 AM
    AmigaOS was better with upgrades.

    AmigaOS 3.0 used less memory and operated faster than AmigaOS 1.2 from 5 years before. And that is even with doubling the graphic abilities too boot.

    Someday, Windows will equal Amiga.
  • 7 Hide
    Thilindi , July 17, 2011 4:16 AM
    Belardo...

    I am with you. For its time, Amiga was heads and shoulders above what any other OS could do... that even came out 3 years after. Makes you wonder where we would be if that had been the adapted platform.
  • 0 Hide
    hp79 , July 17, 2011 4:23 AM
    "The move from Windows 7 to Windows Vista, however, wasn't anything of the sort."
    You prefer Vista?
  • 34 Hide
    apache_lives , July 17, 2011 4:55 AM
    The issue with Vista wasnt Vista is was companies like Acer etc that sold units with 512mb of memory and packed it with so much useless junk it just crawled, vista if properly setup was great, i would still take vista over XP any day, and windows 7 - its 99% vista.

    As for Windows 8, WHY IS IT NOT 64 BIT ONLY FFS

    KILL 32-BIT ALREADY
  • 16 Hide
    Anonymous , July 17, 2011 4:56 AM
    I dont get it.

    1;The move from Windows 7 to Windows Vista? Isnt this vise versa?

    2;By extension? What?

    3;Vista was first sold on 2007, and Windows 8 will on sale in 2012, so there will be 5 years, not three.
  • 7 Hide
    randomizer , July 17, 2011 5:11 AM
    Quote:
    "We've also built intelligence into Windows 8 so that it can adapt to the user experience based on the hardware of the user.


    I wonder if that's the same "intelligence" that they've been using since at least 2006.
  • 3 Hide
    JamesSneed , July 17, 2011 5:19 AM
    Quote:
    The issue with Vista wasnt Vista is was companies like Acer etc that sold units with 512mb of memory and packed it with so much useless junk it just crawled, vista if properly setup was great, i would still take vista over XP any day, and windows 7 - its 99% vista.

    As for Windows 8, WHY IS IT NOT 64 BIT ONLY FFS

    KILL 32-BIT ALREADY



    32 bit will live a good deal longer. Windows 8 will be put on tablets, netbooks, etc that wont have much if any need for a 64 bit OS.
  • -3 Hide
    amk-aka-Phantom , July 17, 2011 5:21 AM
    System requirements, what BS... the only people that'll NEED to upgrade is most likely only gamers - how much you bet they'll put their next DirectX 12 only on Win8? - and we've got the requirements overkilled. The rest of the folks can stay on Win7, if not XP.
  • 0 Hide
    itchyisvegeta , July 17, 2011 5:30 AM
    New version will work with older pcs? I have heard that before.

    I totally agree that Windows 8 should be 64 bit only.
  • -5 Hide
    JOSHSKORN , July 17, 2011 6:05 AM
    Windows 8 should be 64-bit only. I'm sure some will be using a docking station with their tablets and be in situations where use of 4GB of RAM and above would be nice, and the ability to recognize a hard drive bigger than 2.2 GB.
  • 4 Hide
    wintermint , July 17, 2011 6:50 AM
    This reminds me of AMD because we don't need to get a new board every time they release a new CPU :p  cough cough.. intel.. cough
  • 5 Hide
    nitrium , July 17, 2011 7:10 AM
    There are many peripherals that don't have 64bit drivers - some of these are multi-thousand dollar devices. Why would customers want to buy a new version of Windows, that by extension of driver in-availability, do not support their expensive equipment? Further their are COUNTLESS older laptops, computers, and netbooks that have 32bit CPUs. Last time I checked, Microsoft was a business that wants to make as many SALES and consequently as much PROFIT as possible. How does NOT catering for literally millions of users remotely meet that goal?
  • 5 Hide
    apache_lives , July 17, 2011 7:56 AM
    JamesSneed32 bit will live a good deal longer. Windows 8 will be put on tablets, netbooks, etc that wont have much if any need for a 64 bit OS.


    Atom is 64-bit but next to impossible to actually have ~4gb of ram with it, and tablets are a whole different architecture/subsystem etc, for x86 based it should have been 64-bit only
  • -6 Hide
    alidan , July 17, 2011 7:56 AM
    so its not de bloated, or vastly improved.
  • -3 Hide
    SteelCity1981 , July 17, 2011 7:59 AM
    Nothing looks to be like it's going to change with the OS itself that will require more hardware to support it. So why not just bundle all of what Windows 8 has and make it a big service pack update for Windows 7. Wait I forgot it's M$ nevermind.
  • -1 Hide
    hp79 , July 17, 2011 8:02 AM
    hp79"The move from Windows 7 to Windows Vista, however, wasn't anything of the sort."You prefer Vista?


    I get -2 vote for pointing switched back words in the article?
    The author switched Windows 7 and Vista up in that sentence.
  • 1 Hide
    apache_lives , July 17, 2011 8:04 AM
    nitriumThere are many peripherals that don't have 64bit drivers - some of these are multi-thousand dollar devices. Why would customers want to buy a new version of Windows, that by extension of driver in-availability, do not support their expensive equipment? Further their are COUNTLESS older laptops, computers, and netbooks that have 32bit CPUs. Last time I checked, Microsoft was a business that wants to make as many SALES and consequently as much PROFIT as possible. How does NOT catering for literally millions of users remotely meet that goal?


    old equipment + old os = fine
    new os + new equipment = fine
    new os + old equipment = BAD

    pentium m's (~core duo), pentium 4's and athlon xp's were the last 32 bit only cpus (with exceptions), - none of these should be running anything more then xp - thats fine for OLD stuff

    even the most basic low end cpu's these days have 64-bit capability - Celeron's and Atoms, Athlons etc
  • -4 Hide
    alidan , July 17, 2011 8:05 AM
    amk-aka-phantomSystem requirements, what BS... the only people that'll NEED to upgrade is most likely only gamers - how much you bet they'll put their next DirectX 12 only on Win8? - and we've got the requirements overkilled. The rest of the folks can stay on Win7, if not XP.


    im a gamer, the only way i would get 8 is if the rumor that it can play 360 games is true, which i highly doubt. would love to get rid of my 360.

    but unless thats true ill stick with xp.

    apache_livesi dont see how having a crappy motherboard and top of the range everything else will do the system any good, motherboards are cheap!and AMD is as bad as intel for thisupgrade path is BS


    a good motherboard is 200-400$ thats not cheap in my book, now if you are looking at budget 30-50$ motherboards i can see why you are confused.

    besides, its nice not needing to completely rebuild a computer from ground up just to use a newer processor.

  • 1 Hide
    apache_lives , July 17, 2011 8:07 AM
    alidanim a gamer, the only way i would get 8 is if the rumor that it can play 360 games is true, which i highly doubt. would love to get rid of my 360. but unless thats true ill stick with xp. a good motherboard is 200-400$ thats not cheap in my book, now if you are looking at budget 30-50$ motherboards i can see why you are confused. besides, its nice not needing to completely rebuild a computer from ground up just to use a newer processor.


    XP?

    You still use that festering piece of crap?

    Your not serious are you?

    ?

    What motherboard cost 400?
Display more comments