Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 28th Dec 2005 13:18 UTC
Windows Microsoft has published a set of guidelines on which decisions to make now, so that your computer will be ready to run Windows Vista. They claim that any mid-range AMD or Intel processor will do, and even low-end ones will pack enough power to run Vista. 512 MBRAM is advised, but for more advanced users, 1GB is recommended. As for graphics card: "If you are building or buying PC today, you probably want to avoid the low end of the current GPU range and make sure you get a GPU that supports DirectX 9 and has at least 64 MB of graphics memory." My take: I can confirm that the Windows Vista December CTP, with all the effects turned on, runs more than fine on my aging AMD Athlon XP 1600+, 512MB SD-RAM, Ati Radeon 9000 128MB DDR-RAM (DirectX 8 compatible card, so not a DX9 card). Just so you know.
Thread beginning with comment 78972
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Highly doubt it
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 28th Dec 2005 13:22 UTC in reply to "Highly doubt it"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

You say I'm lying? I am willing to make a video for you, but first, answer my question. Are you saying I'm lying in front of 120000 readers?

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 5

RE[2]: Highly doubt it
by halfmanhalfamazing on Wed 28th Dec 2005 13:26 in reply to "RE: Highly doubt it"
halfmanhalfamazing Member since:
2005-07-23

Whoa, Thom.... nothing personal. But we're all used to the bloatware. You're still on a beta. MS has alot of time to do what it does best.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1

RE[3]: Highly doubt it
by DKR on Wed 28th Dec 2005 13:27 in reply to "RE[2]: Highly doubt it"
DKR Member since:
2005-08-22

Agreed. I'm with halfmanhalfamazing on this one. Grab a cup of coffee and settle down.

Additionally, you shouldn't need those hardware requirements just to run a stupid OS.

Edited 2005-12-28 13:30

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1

RE[2]: Highly doubt it
by on Wed 28th Dec 2005 13:36 in reply to "RE: Highly doubt it"
Member since:

Hmmm..
Seems someone has a little stick up their @** today :-)
I guess when you write something that will be read by 120000 readers, you shouldn't take things so personal.
bleh.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 0

RE[2]: Highly doubt it
by Snifflez on Wed 28th Dec 2005 14:50 in reply to "RE: Highly doubt it"
Snifflez Member since:
2005-11-15

"You say I'm lying? I am willing to make a video for you, but first, answer my question. Are you saying I'm lying in front of 120000 readers?"

Dude, that was just plain unprofessional. In front of 120,000 readers, I might add. I mean, essentially, you've just posted a benchmark without explaining your methodology. No wonder people started questioning your results. And stop being so defensive, for crying out loud. Contrary to what you might think, throwing a hissy fit won't improve your credibility. Explaining your methodology, on the other hand, might.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 5

RE[3]: Highly doubt it
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 28th Dec 2005 14:58 in reply to "RE[2]: Highly doubt it"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Yes, but where did I say this was a scientifically performed 'benchmark'? All I said was: on MY machine, with the FOLLOWING specs, it works FINE. I never said it was a well-performed benchmark, or that my findings confirms whatever MS says.

And yes, I DO get irritated when people say that I am lying, just to cope with their own cognitive dissonance.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 5

RE[2]: Highly doubt it
by on Wed 28th Dec 2005 19:47 in reply to "RE: Highly doubt it"
Member since:

'You say I'm lying? I am willing to make a video for you, but first, answer my question. Are you saying I'm lying in front of 120000 readers?*

yes ;)

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 0