Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 1st May 2009 13:27 UTC
Windows Along with the release of the Windows 7 release candidate came new system requirements for Microsoft's next operating system. This updated set of requirements has been declared final, making them the official system requirements for Windows 7 final. Seeing Microsoft's rather... Dubious past dealings with minimum system requirements, let's take a look at Windows 7's.
Thread beginning with comment 361247
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by aahjnnot on Fri 1st May 2009 15:51 UTC in reply to "XP"
Member since:

The XP minimal requirements are just as ridiculous as that of Vista... unless all you do is play minesweeper.

To be fair to Microsoft - not something I say very often - XP originally ran pretty well with that specification. The problems only started when you added anti-virus software; and remember that when XP was launched many home PCs weren't connected to the internet so antivirus wasn't a necessity.

Of course, after several years of service packs, XP is now barely usable with 512MB of RAM. But a fully patched copy of XP is hugely different from the 2003 version.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: XP
by bannor99 on Fri 1st May 2009 16:00 in reply to "RE: XP"
bannor99 Member since:

As far as I can find, MS never updated the minimum / recommended specs when they released service packs
which was a huge disservice to their XP users.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: XP
by Kroc on Fri 1st May 2009 16:53 in reply to "RE[2]: XP"
Kroc Member since:

Aye. I have a fully stripped down XP SP3 install on my netbook that boots up using 137 MB of RAM. There is no way you could run XP-SP3 out of the box in 128 MB of RAM, it’s just not possible. 512 MB at least when you add apps.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: XP
by fretinator on Fri 1st May 2009 16:46 in reply to "RE: XP"
fretinator Member since:

To me, the worst minimum listed was the 4MB for Windows 95. It technically ran, but it might take 30 seconds to click a button (even after a fresh install)! The real minimum was 8MB.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: XP
by obvio.capitao on Sun 3rd May 2009 14:01 in reply to "RE: XP"
obvio.capitao Member since:

I'm happy to see that XUbuntu runs with less than 256Mb...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: XP
by jal_ on Mon 4th May 2009 08:46 in reply to "RE: XP"
jal_ Member since:

remember that when XP was launched many home PCs weren't connected to the internet so antivirus wasn't a necessity.

I'm not entirely sure whether to laugh or cry by this grossly uninformed statement. Appearently, some (young?) people actually think that before the internet, there were no virusses. Am I that old, I wonder?


Reply Parent Score: 1