Vista recommended spec: 256MB+ PCI-E

well i guess you are right, but even though the Vista is noit scheduled until late 06, not many will have an awesome 256mb card and over 2gb of ram, well all [H] will, but not others.
 
Is PCI-E teh standard now??? or is AGP still teh main teh standard?
 
PCI-E would have to be... almost everything you would buy off of the shelf nowadays would be PCI-E.

QJ
 
QwertyJuan said:
PCI-E would have to be... almost everything you would buy off of the shelf nowadays would be PCI-E.

QJ
Click to expand...

NVIDA still hasn't spoken of the 78000series going AGP.
And now even the lastest rumours about the R520 seris speaks of no AGP versions...

Terra...
 
MaXimus666 said:
Is PCI-E teh standard now??? or is AGP still teh main teh standard?
Click to expand...

AGP is the old standard. PCI-Express is the new standard. Everything will transition to PCI-E eventually.
 
jmanlp said:
256mb vid card to run an OS...

Hey guys check out these benchies:

67fps in Windows Vista 2006 fly-by
59fps in Windows Vista 2006 bot match
Click to expand...

shouldn't that be Windows Vista Bootup and Windows Vista App-load
 
LMAO. 2GB of DDR3 to browse the internet? And i thought XP was bloated... They say it's because of the 64-bit support, but somehow the 64-bit linux distros (or even XP64) don't need anywhere near this much RAM. :rolleyes:

And why would you need a 256MB video card to run an OS!?!? That's more than GAMES require. If it takes that kind of hardware just to run the OS, think of how much of a FPS hit it'll give to games...

Seriously, what REAL advantages is Vista going to provide? I seem to be doing just fine with XP, and 2000 was sufficient too (i just like the msconfig utility :), and XP is about 5-10% faster for games). They say it'll be faster too, how can it be faster than XP? Everything opens up instantly in there. Do they mean menus will open in 0.01sec instead of 0.02?

And worst of all this new OS seems to be nothing more than a giant bloated piece of spyware. If I PAY for an OS i should be able to do anything i please with it, not have the micronazis telling me what i can or can't do. I don't want MS spying on me. My current OSs (XP and RH9) do everything i could possibly hope for, i just really can't see any good reason to get Vista. I wouldn't get it if it was FREE, so trying to sell it to me just isn't going to happen
 
drizzt81 said:
shouldn't that be Windows Vista Bootup and Windows Vista App-load
Click to expand...
No, it's supposed to be the FPS of the Start Menu scrolling down, and dragging windows around on desktop.
 
Waaaaa!! My computar can't run Windows fast enough!!! Windows is teh bloated!!!!


Meh. Get over it and upgrade. I know I will. Besides, if your PC doesn't have the stones to run in eye candy mode, then don't. You can turn off the 3d UI, and I'm sure the system requirements for non-eye-candy mode won't be much more than XP.
 
If you have a computer that currently runs Windows XP then it will run on Windows Vista. If you have a computer that has the recommended requirements like PCI-E, 256MB video card with DVI, SATA with NCQ, 2GB of RAM, and dual core CPU then you will get the BEST experience out of Vista. Pretty vector graphics and HDCP and whatever else they are doing. If you don't what what Vista has to offer then stick with XP. It won't be discontinued for a while.

Some people say they are running XP on 300MHZ systems which may be fine for them. However, I tell people to get a 2GHZ CPU, 512MB RAM, and a 64MB video card. Those are my requirements to run XP well without waiting for the OS to catch up with what I'm doing.
 
jebo_4jc said:
Waaaaa!! My computar can't run Windows fast enough!!! Windows is teh bloated!!!!


Meh. Get over it and upgrade. I know I will. Besides, if your PC doesn't have the stones to run in eye candy mode, then don't. You can turn off the 3d UI, and I'm sure the system requirements for non-eye-candy mode won't be much more than XP.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't run it in "eye candy mode" even with a really fast computer. I want some good solid innovative features if i'm going to buy this, not pretty graphics. (*cough* DOOM3 *cough*). Call me old fashioned, but 2d GUIs and command lines are working great for me :) To each his own though.
 
travbrad said:
To each his own though.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I will say this though: the only thing keeping me away from an alternative OS is software support. I like being able to run 99.9% of all software. I like running games without emulation. I like having drivers for almost all hardware readily available. Otherwise, I would be jumping ship too. MS will get my money though because I like upgrading, and I like pretty pictures.....
 
I wish my OS would only require like a 386 and 16MB of RAM, in all honesty, I want my Applications to make use of my Processing power, not my OS.
Click to expand...

i truely agree, i want games and even just doing my normal multitasking (WMP, Firefox, and AIM) to use all my hardwaer, not taking FOREVER to load the TASKBAR at the top!
 
travbrad said:
LMAO. 2GB of DDR3 to browse the internet? And i thought XP was bloated... They say it's because of the 64-bit support, but somehow the 64-bit linux distros (or even XP64) don't need anywhere near this much RAM. :rolleyes:

And why would you need a 256MB video card to run an OS!?!? That's more than GAMES require. If it takes that kind of hardware just to run the OS, think of how much of a FPS hit it'll give to games...

Seriously, what REAL advantages is Vista going to provide? I seem to be doing just fine with XP, and 2000 was sufficient too (i just like the msconfig utility :), and XP is about 5-10% faster for games). They say it'll be faster too, how can it be faster than XP? Everything opens up instantly in there. Do they mean menus will open in 0.01sec instead of 0.02?

And worst of all this new OS seems to be nothing more than a giant bloated piece of spyware. If I PAY for an OS i should be able to do anything i please with it, not have the micronazis telling me what i can or can't do. I don't want MS spying on me. My current OSs (XP and RH9) do everything i could possibly hope for, i just really can't see any good reason to get Vista. I wouldn't get it if it was FREE, so trying to sell it to me just isn't going to happen
Click to expand...
true this.

dont take this guys specs seriously. given that technology might be where it needs to be by then, dont forget the specs they originally had for longhorn. dual cores at 4+ GHz, 1 TB storage, etc. etc.

the systems today will handle vista just fine, id put my money on it.
 
This is probably what it recommends for the Maximum Performance Possible.

The Beta works just fine on my Athlon XP 2400+ / 1GB DDR333 / 9700 Pro Box... just perfectly fine, even with the cool transparencies etc.

But it works even better on my X2 4400+ OCd / 2GB DDR400 / 7800GTX
 
XP runs PEFECT on a

1GHZ machine
512MB Ram
7200RPM HDD

Maybe 2Ghz as the above poster said, if it's a Celeron or something.

QJ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top