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 361282
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
512MB of memory would be better...
by spinnekopje on Fri 1st May 2009 19:38 UTC
spinnekopje
Member since:
2008-11-29

I don't think the mimimum requirements are that bad, it would just be nice to see that 512MB is sufficient. Other modern OS's run very nice with that amount, I think it should also be possible for Microsoft to do so. Maybe somebody can test?
In that case it only takes much more disk space, maybe for a next windows version?
Anyway I'll stay with ubuntu, but my next might be an Apple.

Edit: already tested... ;)

Edited 2009-05-01 19:41 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Other modern OS's run very nice with that amount,


Ubuntu on 512MB? Or worse yet, Mac OS X on 512MB?

You must have pretty low standards. You can get a functional Linux desktop out of 512MB on a Linux machine with some careful software choices and no Firefox/OO.o, but Mac OS X? Good luck. Even on 1GB of RAM OS X always feels sluggish. It doesn't become as snappy as W7 or Ubuntu until you hit 1.5-2GB.

So, to say "other modern OS's run very nice"on 512MB is simply not true. It requires lots of work (Linux) or it's impossible (Mac OS X).

Reply Parent Score: 2

broch Member since:
2006-05-04

Arch linux with KDE
memory used after boot: 90MB (it can go down to ~78MB)

Reply Parent Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Ubuntu on 512MB?

You've just described my eeepc 701. And it does just dandy on 512MB and 530MHz-900MHz cpu. It came with 256MB and locked at (I think) 630MHz with Xandros, and I don't recall that being too terribly bad.

Besides, the OP was talking about it being nice if the minimum requirement were 512MB.

Edited 2009-05-01 20:33 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Moredhas Member since:
2008-04-10

No work required - I've been using Ubuntu (and Mint) for years, and it runs perfectly with my 512MB of RAM. Sure, double that would be nice, but it's running a hell of a lot better for me than XP did on exactly this machine; and XP's minimum was what, 128?

Reply Parent Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

You can get a functional Linux desktop out of 512MB on a Linux machine with some careful software choices and no Firefox/OO.o

Don't lie. I have myself two computers running complete GNOME desktops, one has 256MB RAM and the other has 512MB, and hell, I have Apache, FireFox and web-development utilities running all the time on the latter one. There was absolutely no reason to carefully select software.. I just installed the freaking default GNOME desktop on Mandriva.

So, to say "other modern OS's run very nice"on 512MB is simply not true. It requires lots of work (Linux)

What you are saying simply is not true. I have several computers proving you incorrect.

Reply Parent Score: 3

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

"Other modern OS's run very nice with that amount,


Ubuntu on 512MB? Or worse yet, Mac OS X on 512MB?
"

Kubuntu 8.10, with KDE 4.2.2 installed, runs just fine on an Asus eeePC 701 (900 MHz Celeron, 512 MB RAM, no swap, 4 GB disk). Including OpenOffice.org and Firefox 3. This is my media jukebox (Amarok 2) and school work computer.

I've also run Xubuntu 8.04 with XFce 4.x on a P3 450 MHz laptop with 256 MB RAM. Didn't have OpenOffice installed as it was our media centre (video-out to the TV), but it did run Firefox 2.x just fine, along with Kaffeine for watching video, streamed over a wifi connection using smb4k.

You must have pretty low standards.


You must have extremely high standards. ;)

So, to say "other modern OS's run very nice"on 512MB is simply not true. It requires lots of work (Linux) or it's impossible (Mac OS X).


And that's a bald-faced lie, to say the least. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2