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

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

its a lie

 

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*

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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...

 

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.

 

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