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.
RE: XP
by aahjnnot on Fri 1st May 2009 15:51 UTC in reply to "XP"
aahjnnot
Member since:
2008-07-24

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:
2005-09-15

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:
2005-11-10

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:
2005-07-06

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:
2009-03-08

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z39n5Tleo0A

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: XP
by jal_ on Mon 4th May 2009 08:46 in reply to "RE: XP"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

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?


JAL

Reply Parent Score: 1