Microsoft Posts Detailed System Requirements for Windows 8

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
IMO, its very hard to create a OS that has many uses (pc, mobile...). I think thats the reason this windows is not going to be better thatn Windows 7.
The shown screenshot is a clear example, theres NO WAY i want that in my desktop pc.
Simplier doenst mean better or quicker, neither does good looking or fun or whatever.
 
The 1GHz minimum makes sense if you are only planning to use Notepad. The higher memory requirement for 64-bit seems odd; seems to imply significantly greater overhead as compared to 32-bit.
 
[citation][nom]jhansonxi[/nom]The 1GHz minimum makes sense if you are only planning to use Notepad. The higher memory requirement for 64-bit seems odd; seems to imply significantly greater overhead as compared to 32-bit.[/citation]

64-bit uses more RAM. I don't know why though...forgot.
 
[citation][nom]jhansonxi[/nom]The 1GHz minimum makes sense if you are only planning to use Notepad. The higher memory requirement for 64-bit seems odd; seems to imply significantly greater overhead as compared to 32-bit.[/citation]

Win7 64-bit used a noticeable ammount or RAM more than 32-bit as well. I have an old laptop with 1.5GB RAM that has had both Win7 32 & 64-bit versions at different times, and the 64-bit booted the OS, and programs/games slower than 32-bit. Especially loading new zones in MMO's, there was significantly more HDD swapping required on the 64-bit install.
 
That pic of the desktop ain't bad. You could do that in windows 7 with rainmeter and some of the things people done to there desktop (including this pics icons) are amazing, if M$ allows us to customize it I can't see it being a bad at all.
 
I will stick to my Windows 7 and pass on this. They are releasing "new" versions of Windows a bit too frequently (considering that they are all Windows v6.xx since Vista).
 
[citation][nom]alvine[/nom]20gb for a 64bit OS...Really?[/citation]

That doesn't mean it uses all 20gb once the install is finished... but recent windows installations typically copy the entire contents of the installation media to the hard drive as the "pre-install" step. Factor in the typical installation requirements for software that big and Windows creating a paging file pretty much right away (and normally the equivalent of your installed ram - i.e. mine is 8gb) and yeah, 20gb sounds about right.
 
[citation][nom]rohitbaran[/nom]I will stick to my Windows 7 and pass on this. They are releasing "new" versions of Windows a bit too frequently (considering that they are all Windows v6.xx since Vista).[/citation]

You know that they all are v6.x to maintain compatibility for the software, right? If they would change the string again, to 7.x, it would be the same mess that happened when they changed from Windows 95/98 [4/4.1] to 2000/XP [5/5.1] and again from XP [5.1] to Vista [6.x]
 
Windows 8 64-bit takes up around 13GB of space.

The desktop works just like Win7 and is still great. The new metro interface makes it easier to do simple things. It is more of an app hub.
 
[citation][nom]rohitbaran[/nom]I will stick to my Windows 7 and pass on this. They are releasing "new" versions of Windows a bit too frequently (considering that they are all Windows v6.xx since Vista).[/citation]
I had consitered to upgrade from Win7 before I previewed 8, now I think I'll also pass on this. I can milk XP, Vista and 7 for as much support Microsoft will give them.
 
As long as you can disable the Metro i/f fully and have a normal desktop. I played with the beta for a little while up till about a month ago and the Metro thing is dreadful in a non touch screen scenario. Bang on a few applications and I struggle to see how much of an improvement it is, just end up with screens full of squares making it more difficult to find what you want. I think they could do with some decent feedback on this one.
 
[citation][nom]Lord Captivus[/nom]IMO, its very hard to create a OS that has many uses (pc, mobile...). I think thats the reason this windows is not going to be better thatn Windows 7. The shown screenshot is a clear example, theres NO WAY i want that in my desktop pc. Simplier doenst mean better or quicker, neither does good looking or fun or whatever.[/citation]

It should be the next "experimental" version for M$, DOS->(e)Win95, Win98->(e)WinME, WinXp->(e)Vista, Win7->(?)Win8.

I expect them to push it with an enforced next version of DX or something, but when it comes to gaming, only if consoles come with superior DX hardware there will a need to upgrade, if not, and prolly will not, it's pretty stay on win 7 for a couple of years more.
 
I would like the see microsoft raise these requirements and add more things instead of making it run on the lowest possible machines. They might be able to raise the performance and better utilize the UI if there were more requirements.
 
I hope they get rid of that stupid annoying losing focus bug. when gaming or even just using any application like surfing the web, windows 7 would random give focus back to the desktop. it's really annoying as hell. it does sometimes go away on my computer after I wake it up from sleep. But it comes back if I need to restart it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom