Will Your PC Be Ready for Longhorn?

J

jai

Contributor
Microsoft isn't offering up many concrete specs for Longhorn PCs. But company officials are making some strong 'suggestions' as to what PC makers should be providing.
Click to expand...

And look at this:

At last year's WinHEC, developer sources said that Microsoft was going to recommend the "average" Longhorn PC feature a dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz; a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM; up to a terabyte of storage; a 1 Gbit built-in, Ethernet-wired port and an 802.11g wireless link; and a graphics processor that runs three times faster than those on the market.
Click to expand...

Jeez, man, dual-core CPUs? 2 gigs RAM? 1 TB storage? To run an OS? This is becoming worse and worse.

Go here to find out more about whether your rig will handle Longhorn, come 2006.

Microsoft Watch
 
Is this a microsoft abuse site. :bleh:
Even in two years I dont see normal users going in for that king of stuff. although high end users might land up there but LONGHORN is not a game it is just a OS.
 
I think this is from the same story.

At this year's WinHEC, Microsoft offered up only the most basic of guidelines as to what PC makers should do to make their PCs "Longhorn-ready." During a session at this week's show, Mark Croft, a group product manager in the Windows product management group, told PC makers that most existing mainstream 32- and 64-bit CPUs from mainstream manufacturers should run Longhorn.
Click to expand...

While dual-core CPUs will run Longhorn better, "Longhorn does run on mainstream processors," Croft said.
Click to expand...

The only other Longhorn PC requirements that are set in stone are 512 MB or better of RAM and, support for the new Longhorn Display Driver Model (LDDM) in order to handle the operating system's new graphical features.
Click to expand...

(Comparatively, Microsoft suggests that users have a 300-MHz CPU and 128 MB of RAM to run Windows XP.)
Click to expand...

You can read the full story HERE
 
Sheesh ... system requirements have gone up by probably 20 times in the past 10 years, and functionality hasn't moved an inch :(

If microsoft is sensible, they will keep Longhorn's requirements close to that of XP/2000 (500Mhz, 128MB RAM), else if people had to upgrade just to keep their PC's supported by Microsoft, they would look for alternatives.

Unless MS provides free PC's with the purchase of Windows 2006 :bleh:
 
More likely it will need a 2ghz cpu and 1GB of ram with a DX9 card.And I don't think it will need very good shader capability so even a fx 5200 should be fine for the longhorn 'experience'.
 
Sheesh ... system requirements have gone up by probably 20 times in the past 10 years, and functionality hasn't moved an inch
Click to expand...

Roger that, there was a huge argument at Slashdot regarding the same. MS are forgetting the basics of an OS, its just an interface to run the application, but now its more like one big application itself.
 
Well.. Necessity is the mother of invention .. Dont you think the cost of hardware has come down drastically since late ..? I dont think its gettting worse .. I think its getting better .. People like eyecandy on their system .. thats why coders add it .. if it wasnt for them cr@ppy software like WinBlinds wouldve gone so much earlier .. and when the hardware can support what is wrong in adding features users want .. People who dont want it can always keep using old systems .. People still use Windows 98 .. Dont they ..?
 
Hmm.. Windows 98 was targetted for different audience .. Thats why they continued NT series to W2K ... And till 2000 MS realised that now is the age of convergance .. thats why they added most support to XP ... You can see they added native wireless support to XP with SP2 ..

My point is when you got money you 'll spend it on the best .. Every market exploit that behaviour .. So why not MS ..?

Btw .. I aint MS supporter .. I too critisize some of their policies .. but I still consider Gates a great entrepreneur ... He knows where to put money .. and grow ..
 
Yes true, those who have the money will try and get the best out of their system, and will want eye candy. But if the system requirements of Microsoft's OS's keep increasing at this rate, people will start looking at alternatives like Linux or NetBSD or any other OS. How many people will be willing to spend money on computer hardware more than once in their lives? And not many like to be stuck with old and unsupported software.

True, eye candy in software has a place, many people want it, but requiring expensive hardware for a basic task is pointless, and would be called bloat.
 
Even though I have the hardware to run Windows XP with all its eyecandy and Mummy Papa features, I prefer the plain Windows 2000 interface anyday...
 
ujjwal said:
But if the system requirements of Microsoft's OS's keep increasing at this rate, people will start looking at alternatives like Linux or NetBSD or any other OS.
Click to expand...
If this were the case, it would have already happened many times over. With each release of a new OS from Microsoft, the system requirements to enjoy the full features have always gone up. And the hardware has always kept up with it and exceeded the requirements after at most an year. When Windows XP was released most of our systems would run it only to a basic degree. 128MB RAM was considered enough, but for WinXP 128 was minimum. Nowadays, 512MB seems to be the basic setup with 1 and even 2GB being commonplace.

Although Linux always ran on lower hardware, even it requires 128MB minimum if you want to use X Windows. Please note that I say minimum, not recommended. Would you rather go back to the command prompt, so that you need not upgrade your hardware?

Similarly for Longhorn. Microsoft has seen that 512MB basic today means that on a year or so everyone and his brother will be using at least 1GB RAM so they are coding to take advantage of that. Sound policy, if you ask me.

It is looking like I am doing an about turn on the issue, going by my first post but that article caught me by surprise. Now that I have had some time to think about it, it is perfectly logical.
 
And why are we talking about Windows only ..? The hardware requirements of latest games are so demanding that they make your rig obsolete in a year ...

Jai has pointed out what I wanted to say .. When I'll goto market to buy / upgrade my PC I'll get the best out of money .. And yeah ... If we were not to spend money then 64 bit computing will never become a reality for home users .. it looks a distant dream but wait 5 years .. 32 bit will become obsolete as 16 bit become ..
 
And why are we talking about Windows only ..? The hardware requirements of latest games are so demanding that they make your rig obsolete in a year ...
Click to expand...

Game is an application, OS is not. You dont need a game to run another application whereas you do need an OS for the same. I am not against Eyecandy but I maintain turn it off by default instead of the other way round I know thousands of ppl who have slow comp and it crawls with the default effects and themes in XP. What I meant was an Interface just requires the features eye candy is an addition, gimme the option to turn it on not turn it off.

Also the basic features do not require 1 GB its the extra eye candy which does, I am sure MS will provide an option to turn it off like in Windows XP, the argument is turn it off by default those who want have the option to turn it on.

Also if you ask the purist they yet prefer command line to GUI
 
Yesss.. ..Thats what I am talking .. Okay forget games .. what about new Mac OS .. Okay forget it too .. it is the users who want new search feature .. new file system .. new security features ..
Lol .. I feel like arguing .. I too use Command line more than GUI but try updating existing modules with msiexec .. its much easier with GUI .. Usually Command line is best suited for unattended operations .. You dont open a Word document with Start "winword C:\documents and settings\Administrator\mydoc.doc" ..
And yeah .. We have started a debate on something which hasnt arrived yet . .. We both got different views on which :p... I can see your point .. but that wont change my opinion .. :) ..
 
Jai said:
If this were the case, it would have already happened many times over. With each release of a new OS from Microsoft, the system requirements to enjoy the full features have always gone up. And the hardware has always kept up with it and exceeded the requirements after at most an year. When Windows XP was released most of our systems would run it only to a basic degree. 128MB RAM was considered enough, but for WinXP 128 was minimum. Nowadays, 512MB seems to be the basic setup with 1 and even 2GB being commonplace.
Click to expand...

Why do you see the vast majority of Indians using Windows 98? Even organisations use windows 98 on the multiple old systems they use, that is if they don't have inhouse unix expertise. But soon windows 98, and then even 2000 will go out of support. Newer applications will not support these platforms anymore, and then what do people do?

Although Linux always ran on lower hardware, even it requires 128MB minimum if you want to use X Windows. Please note that I say minimum, not recommended. Would you rather go back to the command prompt, so that you need not upgrade your hardware?
Click to expand...

Sorry, you can run X Windows with 16 MB RAM. It is bloated environments like KDE and Gnome which have high requirements, you don't need to use them.

Similarly for Longhorn. Microsoft has seen that 512MB basic today means that on a year or so everyone and his brother will be using at least 1GB RAM so they are coding to take advantage of that. Sound policy, if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Sorry mate, you don't get my point. The people who buy their PC's in a few years time are fine, but what about those who bought their PC's now or a few years back? Most PC's in India ship with 128MB RAM. They just want a stable OS for browsing the internet, why should they have to upgrade their hardware?

Aces said:
Game is an application, OS is not. You dont need a game to run another application whereas you do need an OS for the same.
Click to expand...

Exactly, 3d games will continue to get more and more demanding, but you don't need to use them. And for those like me, there's always Breakout or Prince of Persia :ohyeah:

Now here we talk about an OS, and that too, the most popular one. Bloat showed its signs with Windows XP, I hope it doesn't take off with Longhorn, and all this needs is for proper, efficient coding, and for making eye candy optional, and not integrated into the whole systems functioning.

Also the basic features do not require 1 GB its the extra eye candy which does, I am sure MS will provide an option to turn it off like in Windows XP, the argument is turn it off by default those who want have the option to turn it on.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately turning off the eye candy may not result in a system as fast as windows 2000. Even with XP, it shipped with a hell of a lot more services than 2000, and took extensive tweaking to run as fast.

Also if you ask the purist they yet prefer command line to GUI
Click to expand...

Hehe ... I wonder where ~uNIx~ is ;)

Batty said:
Lol .. I feel like arguing .. I too use Command line more than GUI but try updating existing modules with msiexec .. its much easier with GUI .. Usually Command line is best suited for unattended operations .. You dont open a Word document with Start "winword C:\documents and settings\Administrator\mydoc.doc" ..
Click to expand...

Yep I use both command line and a GUI, both have their importance. I realise the importance, of say, a file manager in linux, as it is a bit tiring to always cd, ls etc.

I am in no way against GUI, but I feel that the essence of a GUI - to be a simple shell which eliminates the need to type reduntant commands - is soon being lost. A GUI is to speed things up, not slow em down.

And yeah .. We have started a debate on something which hasnt arrived yet . .. We both got different views on which :p... I can see your point .. but that wont change my opinion .. ..
Click to expand...

Hehe ... all I argue against is the bloating up of once good software, like Windows or KAV ;) I completely respect your view :thumb: I was just voicing mine.

Aces said:
Even though I have the hardware to run Windows XP with all its eyecandy and Mummy Papa features, I prefer the plain Windows 2000 interface anyday...
Click to expand...

I don't have the hardware, but yea I tend to switch to windows classic scheme whenever I use XP, regardless of who the machine belongs to :0
 
Lol .. I really hate that Classic scheme ..

Ujjwal said:
Sorry mate, you don't get my point. The people who buy their PC's in a few years time are fine, but what about those who bought their PC's now or a few years back? Most PC's in India ship with 128MB RAM. They just want a stable OS for browsing the internet, why should they have to upgrade their hardware?
Click to expand...
Lol .. Those users can continue using their existing systems .. their rig wont get obsolete unless the coders stop supporting their operating systems.. We still have programs for Windows 98 na ..? Btw .. I too got a humble system like you :p .. but when I consider upgrading I'll have dual processor in my mind .. :p ..
 
Those users can continue using their existing systems ..
Click to expand...

Yeah, but they won't buy the new version of Windows, so MS is at a loss, which was the whole point :ohyeah:

So after a period of time, MS products will be aimed at smaller and smaller sections of the computer user population, while linux and bsd will be usable for users of 386's to AMD 10000+'s.

We still have programs for Windows 98 na ..?
Click to expand...

Yes, but how long :(
 
Back
Top