Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than that of XP

Discussion in 'Windows Vista General Discussion' started by kirk jim, Mar 24, 2007.

  1. kirk jim

    kirk jim Guest

    A survey in December by US IT services company Softchoice claimed that Vista
    will be the most power-hungry Windows desktop so far. The report claimed
    that at Windows XP's launch, for example, the minimum CPU requirements were
    75 percent greater than those for the operating system it replaced, Windows
    2000. Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than that of
    XP.

    http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/softwa..._Vista_offensive/0,130061733,339274460,00.htm
     
    kirk jim, Mar 24, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. kirk jim

    Mick Guest

    I am running a 5 year old Pentium 4, 2.0 Ghz CPU,in an old Packard Bell, 1
    Gig DDR Ram, 128 MB ATI Radeon Sapphire 9550 on vista home Premium, and it
    works just fine.
     
    Mick, Mar 24, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. kirk jim

    AlanRRT Guest

    And your point is? The same could be said about EVERY version of
    Windows. It's progress. I sure wouldn't want an OS that could run on
    an 8086 processer, it would do very little by today's standards.
     
    AlanRRT, Mar 24, 2007
    #3
  4. kirk jim

    kirk jim Guest

    My point is that a lot of stupid people here say vista is faster than XP
    on the same hardware.

    its a lie
     
    kirk jim, Mar 25, 2007
    #4
  5. kirk jim

    Shane Nokes Guest

    Once again it depends on the hardware.

    Putting XP on a 1GHz system will be faster than Vista on that system.

    Putting Vista on a new Dual-Core system with a ReadyDrive & a few GB of RAM
    and it will be faster than XP.

    View it this way.

    XP is faster than 2000 on equivalent hardware once you break about the
    1.4GHz barrier.

    *shock* *gasp*

    How can that be? *rolls eyes*
     
    Shane Nokes, Mar 25, 2007
    #5
  6. And Vista came out 6 years after XP. Windows 3.11 is faster than XP on
    my 486. Heck, it's faster on my P4 (and damn it's fun!).

    That's the one comparison you can't make. You can't update the software
    without updating the hardware. Hardware requirements are always going to
    be higher. They build the software to the current hardware specs. They
    aren't going to keep all the software in the stone age because they want
    it to still run on Pentium 75's. Run XP on a top of the line machine
    from 2001, and Vista on a top of the line machine from today. Vista
    wins. You can't say run XP on a top of the line machine from 2004 and
    expect Vista to be faster on the same machine.
     
    Dustin Harper, Mar 25, 2007
    #6
  7. kirk jim

    Robert Firth Guest

    Obviously, that report is misleading because Windows XP w/ SP2 does not
    perform well with its minimum requirements. Six years later, I should hope
    that our computers are more than 243% faster! (Moore's law: computing power
    doubles every 18 months...)

    Robert Firth
    http://www.winvistainfo.org
     
    Robert Firth, Mar 25, 2007
    #7
  8. dont know how old my cpu is,,
    but its a pentium 4 3ghz, and its atleast 3 years old..
    was soooooooooooooooooooooo exspensive. that i laugh at that price now..
    runs vista smoth, infact runs ewrything smooth, no plans to upgrade.

    Martin.
     
    Martin Vaupell, Mar 25, 2007
    #8
  9. kirk jim

    Travis King Guest

    Vista's requirements are a lot higher than XP, but at the same time, the
    length of time between XP and Vista is much greater than any other OS also.
     
    Travis King, Mar 25, 2007
    #9
  10. On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 09:05:23 -0700, "Shane Nokes"
    Prolly due to an awareness of later hardware. Each OS generation
    tends to be tailored for the chips of the time, and each chip
    generation may have features (Pentium pipelining, PPro/PII 32-bit
    optimizations, MMX, SIMD, HyperThreading, dual-core, EM64T) that older
    Windows versions may not use.

    The big resource demands were from Win3.yuk to Win9x, from Win9x to
    NT, and from XP to Vista - and every time it's been RAM, RAM, RAM.


    Tip Of The Day:
    To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...
     
    cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user), Mar 27, 2007
    #10
  11. kirk jim

    Noncompliant Guest

    Despite the disparity of XP's stated hardware requirements and actual.
    Despite all the hardware requirements of Vista.

    How much coal you burning to do all this?
    How much radioactive waste you giving your great (10X over) grandkids to get
    rid of?
    Have no doubt about it. MS is about condoning profits for energy
    consumption. There was a time when all PCs were actually turn off when done
    with use for the day. Intel and Dell, fall into line.
     
    Noncompliant, Mar 27, 2007
    #11
  12. On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:10:48 -0600, "Noncompliant"
    I've been wondering about this.

    I've switched from "leave it on overnight if it has something to do,
    like self-backup or answering the phone" to "switch it off overnight
    unless you need it on". Energy use is one reason, and the other is
    electrolytic capacitor failure, which I suspect will remain a problem.

    I've aslo wondered whether Intel's curbed-functionality products (e.g.
    chips made as Pentium 4 that have 3/4 of the L2 cache disabled to make
    them "Celeron") cut power to the circuitry that is denied to the user.

    It's bad enough having artificially-stunted products to beef up
    Intel's margins on the back of brand hype, but to uselessly power that
    aggregate bulk of circuitry for Intel's benefit is beyond the pale.

    I suspect Intel does not curb power to these areas, as Prescott
    Celerons seem as heat-happy as Pentium 4. To make a cooler-running
    chip would "add value", and the last thing Intel wants is for folks to
    prefer the goods that they mark down to crunch competition.

    OTOH, I never accepted the "let's switch of bits of the PC every few
    minutes" argument, especially for HDs. It goes...
    - startup and shutdown hurt the hardware
    - so leave your PC on all the time, it will last longer
    - but that uses more energy, which is Bad
    - so let's shutdown and startup the hardware every few minutes
    ....er, what's wrong with that picture?


    The most accurate diagnostic instrument
    in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
     
    cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user), Mar 27, 2007
    #12
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.