Windows 8 Will Have Same System Reqs as Win 7
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
- Ubisoft Nuking Used Game Sales with Uplay
- Despite Reviews, DNF Was #2 Game in June
- Deals for July 15: DROID X2 from Verizon $53.99
- Spotify Goes Live in U.S. as Invite-Only Service
- Sony Launches ''World's Lightest'' 13-Inch Laptop
- Deals for July 14: 35% off Dell Studio 1080p LCD
- Intel Bug Causes Failed SSDs Turn 600GB to 8MB
- Overwolf Connects Gamers to Facebook, Twitter
- Intel: Notebooks, Tablets Eradicated in a Decade
- Deals July 18: 30% Off HP Envy 17 Core i7 $979
- Seagate Shipping Pulsar XT.2 Solid State Drive
- Valve Details Upcoming Improvements for Steam
- Sorry, No Call of Duty Elite PC Beta After All
- AMD: Xbox 720 to Have Avatar-level Graphics
- The Core i7 Laptop With Dual 17'' 1080P LCDs
- A Folding Farm PC Made of Lego
- Deals July 19: Dell XPS Core i7-2600 8GB $699
- Apple Releases Mac OS X Lion 10.7 as Download
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.
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.
"The move from Windows 7 to Windows Vista, however, wasn't anything of the sort."
You prefer Vista?
8 core i7 2600k at 4.5 ghz, 12gb ddr3, 2 x gtx 580s (3Gb versions) 2560 x 1600 res - naa Im not ready lol.
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
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.
I wonder if that's the same "intelligence" that they've been using since at least 2006.
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.
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.
New version will work with older pcs? I have heard that before.
I totally agree that Windows 8 should be 64 bit only.
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.
This reminds me of AMD because we don't need to get a new board every time they release a new CPU
cough cough.. intel.. cough
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?
This reminds me of AMD because we don't need to get a new board every time they release a new CPU cough cough.. intel.. cough
i 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 this
upgrade path is BS
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.
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
so its not de bloated, or vastly improved.
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.
"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.
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?
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
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.
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.
i 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.
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. 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?
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.
32bit is not what limits the system from recognizing a HDD over 2.2TB. Its the BIOS. The BIOS is a old system and when it was started, 2.2TB was an insane amount. Now its very common.
What will make larger than 2.2TB HDDs recognizable is UEFI, which is in most modern (P/H67 and Z68) motherboard. Some make it look like BIOS others, Asus, take a more modern approach.
As for the 64bit, I think that Windows 8 should be 64bit only on for servers and desktop computers. Make the 32bit version for tablets and ARM.
At my work we build all kinds of machines and even our lowest end machine with just 2GB of RAM has 64bit so it can easily be upgraded to 4GB without the need for a OS install. Plus memory is so cheap, 4GB of DDR3 is under $50 bucks in most cases. Add to that KPP (Kernal Patch Protection) and I see no reason why anyone would go for 7 32bit.
im a gamer, the only way i would get 8 is if the rumor that it can play 360 games is true, which i highly doubt. would love to get rid of my 360.
but unless thats true ill stick with xp.
a good motherboard is 200-400$ 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.
In a $200AUD mainboard is decent (ASUS P8P67 Pro - Umart price as of 17th July 2011)
XP means either your using the 64-bit version which is rubbish, that or your limited to less then 4gb, DX9 (official spec/100%), Internet Explorer 8, you cant install the latest windows live suite, 2gb video cards mean your system memory is next to nothing, 3+ tb hdd's cause you issues, newer hdd's with 4k sectors require more steps to setup, AHCI isnt nativly supported and takes effort to get working/installed, outlook express has the french bug and is useless.
do i need to say more?
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.
Vista was crap when it came out, it still crap today. It was SOLD by MS as 512mb or higher... but it was PURE CRAP with 1GB. Why do you think so many people wanted 4~8GB Vista boxes? Nowadays, most people are FINE with 2~4GB for Win7 because it doesn't have the crap MEMORY usage that Vista has.
Win7, while based off the core that was vista, is not 99%. And the faults of Win7 is the same crap that carried over from VISTA. Win7 aint perfect.
At it time, especially - vista offered nothing over XP... other than slower crappy crashing systems.
32bit is not what limits the system from recognizing a HDD over 2.2TB. Its the BIOS. The BIOS is a old system and when it was started, 2.2TB was an insane amount. Now its very common.
What will make larger than 2.2TB HDDs recognizable is UEFI, which is in most modern (P/H67 and Z68) motherboard. Some make it look like BIOS others, Asus, take a more modern approach.
As for the 64bit, I think that Windows 8 should be 64bit only on for servers and desktop computers. Make the 32bit version for tablets and ARM.
At my work we build all kinds of machines and even our lowest end machine with just 2GB of RAM has 64bit so it can easily be upgraded to 4GB without the need for a OS install. Plus memory is so cheap, 4GB of DDR3 is under $50 bucks in most cases. Add to that KPP (Kernal Patch Protection) and I see no reason why anyone would go for 7 32bit.
Second that, every machine we build and sell at my shop is 64-bit, even reinstall's on client machines are installed with 64-bit for older machines where possible - no one notices, no one complains.
The only exception i know for 32-bit is a crappy old unit i use as a server for remote access/backup and thats my old Core Duo (Yonah) laptop - no 64-bit.
Vista was crap when it came out, it still crap today. It was SOLD by MS as 512mb or higher... but it was PURE CRAP with 1GB. Why do you think so many people wanted 4~8GB Vista boxes? Nowadays, most people are FINE with 2~4GB for Win7 because it doesn't have the crap MEMORY usage that Vista has.
Win7, while based off the core that was vista, is not 99%. And the faults of Win7 is the same crap that carried over from VISTA. Win7 aint perfect.
At it time, especially - vista offered nothing over XP... other than slower crappy crashing systems.
I know bugs carried across from Vista to 7, and i know its not perfect, as for crashing - Nvidia caused just about all of the issues there. A properly installed/setup Vista will crash or cause far less issues then XP.
XP no matter what hardware (quad core, 4gb etc) you have its still stale and slow (even the 64-bit with 8gb - feels the same as the 32-bit with 1gb), hangs in the same places and is just pure junk - its days are over.
When ram is so cheap, why not 2-4gb - im using 16gb, same as my work machines - when its $50 for 4gb WHY THE HELL NOT
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
First not all Atoms support the 64 bit instruction set, and the ones that do have a physical address extensions of 32 bits. People that put 4gb on their atoms found out that the hardware can only address 2.75GB, even if you're running a 64 bit OS.
So if the hardware can't address more than 32 bit, what is the point of running a 64 bit OS?
Also since most applications are 32 bits and 32 bit applications under windows 64 bits are run using WOW64, an x86 emulator, which usually makes them run slower than on a windows 32 bits. On a more powerful hardware this is a bit irrelevant, but on an underpowered atom the difference can be great.
First not all Atoms support the 64 bit instruction set, and the ones that do have a physical address extensions of 32 bits. People that put 4gb on their atoms found out that the hardware can only address 2.75GB, even if you're running a 64 bit OS.
So if the hardware can't address more than 32 bit, what is the point of running a 64 bit OS?
Also since most applications are 32 bits and 32 bit applications under windows 64 bits are run using WOW64, an x86 emulator, which usually makes them run slower than on a windows 32 bits. On a more powerful hardware this is a bit irrelevant, but on an underpowered atom the difference can be great.
Atoms are for basic internet - since when does performance matter? if it did you would buy something half decent, right?
Atoms are here running windows as a uniform platform - WINDOWS, 64-bit should also be a uniform thing, a modern hardware platform, also saves companies for software/hardware hell even microsoft from having to write software/hardware for both 32 and 64 bit platforms.
As for 32 apps+ 4gb limit - take a look how many 32-bit applications are running on your system - with 8-16gb of ram, it gives each of those 32-bit apps more ram, if your running ~2 heavy 32-bit apps then atleast there getting ~4gb EACH (more then a 32-bit system with 4gb max shared between windows and all its apps)
This probably kills the rumors of Windows 8 allowing users to play X360 titles which is good because if that was true,then the requirements were insanely high
This probably kills the rumors of Windows 8 allowing users to play X360 titles which is good because if that was true,then the requirements were insanely high
I call BS on the Xbox 360 native emulation aswell - its like shooting themselves in the foot
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.
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) Good boards start at $120. $200 is a solid board. If you're looking at anything that costs more than $200, that's either ROG or Gigabyte G1 boards, which are overpriced toys for extreme, very rich gamers.
2) You're not a gamer. At least not in my sense. I meant PC gamers - they need DirectX 11 (which is why we upgraded to Windows 7), latest graphic effects, etc. Xbox 360 doesn't count here, because it doesn't require Windows to game, so you shouldn't care whether you're running WinXP or Win8. Advice: throw that junk out and start playing real games on decent hardware.
3) Back to topic: it's a bit sad that Microsoft wants Win8 to run on tablets, smartphones and other pseudo-computers - that means the new OS won't focus on PCs sharply and we won't see a lot of innovation, such as abandoning 32-bit. And don't even start about people "who still use an x86-based system" - those do NOT need an upgrade to Win8. Who uses x86? Offices? Seniors? They'll do just fine with XP or 7.
Good thing they're getting rid of legacy code, though. And I won't be so quick to call BS on 360 support rumors - by that time MS might release a new console (720?) and makes sure Win8 supports 360 games, but NOT 720. And whoever mentioned system requirements being higher because of 360 support - why? Minimum requirements will assume you're not going to do that, they include just the specs you need to run the OS itself. Otherwise, following your logic, system requirements for Win7 equal those for Crysis, because Win7 supports Crysis. And besides... Xbox 360 uses outdated hardware: 512 MB RAM, 3.2 GHz triple-core CPU and a lame graphics card... just how high can these "requirements" get?
Probably one of the reasons why Sandy Bridge shreds Phenom pretty much in every task. Old socket = old limitations, old problems. Don't see a point of getting a new CPU all the time, anyway - just get the most powerful thing available and use it for 2-3 years, then sell the whole PC and get a brand-new one. I know people who're still kicking with Core 2 Quad, because it was the best a few years back and still works great in modern games. If, however, you upgrade every time a new CPU comes out, you're losing way more money for a small increase in performance. Example: if you've got a Core i7-950, it's useless to upgrade to Sandy Bridge, you'll have to spend at least $400 for the new CPU and mobo, and you won't see a huge increase in performance. If, however, you're upgrading from Celeron to SB, it's totally worth it.