Microsoft Posts Detailed System Requirements for Windows 8

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]cryio[/nom]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][/citation]
No, it is nothing to do with software compatibility – it is because they haven't made changes that would justify a major version number increase. Win 95/98 and Win 2000/XP are completely different operating systems at the core: one is DOS based, the other is NT based. With XP to Vista, it was because of some of the many very significant changes, not the version number. Not to mention I'm not sure what problems you're talking about anyway.
 
"1 GHz or faster processor"

Boy, one of my friends is going to be so unhappy when he install W8 on his Pentium 4 1.3 (1.3 GHz) desktop computer.

[citation][nom]LaHawzel[/nom]"and 1366x768 for the snap feature."Stop lending legitimacy to that nonstandard screen resolution![/citation]

Tell the manufacturers of such monitors to kill such resolution. Not my problem if ASUS picked 1366x768 for their N61Jq and other laptops.
 
I'm all for change. But honestly, why do games and programs today insist on going to this simplistic icon style of solid colors with white text or symbols. It looks like something from 20 years ago it's so dull. Spice up that Metro UI with curved edges, gradient silver colors, shading, shadows transparencies and make it look futuristic. Solid color blocks look like shit.
 
I'm going to have to call Windows 7 the new XP here. The difference though is that I'm sure Windows 8 won't be that bad compared to how poorly Vista was out the gate. It's just simply that 7 is a solid OS to the point that there is and will be no compelling reason to ditch 7, and go purchase 8 when it's released.
 
I want it simplistic. I want the OS to use the absolute minimum resources needed, saving the vast bulk for my applications and games. And I want a lot more information on exactly what a given process is doing, unlike the collection of "svchost.exe" entries present in WinXP.
 
[citation][nom]cronik93[/nom]64-bit uses more RAM. I don't know why though...forgot.[/citation]It has to do with 64-bit using 64-bit pointers, while 32-bit uses 32-bit pointers. A pointer is basically an Integer, which contains a memory address
 
[citation][nom]cryio[/nom]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][/citation]
WTH are you on? What does changing a string has anything to do with compatibility. It's true that there were some issues between XP and Vista, but not because the number was upped from 5.1 to 6.0. There were issues because it was a completely new kernel. If the Kernel 6.0 had a version number of 5.1.1 all the problems would remain.
 
already tried the 8 install on Vbox. reduced the memory to 512, and guess what , it runs fine.
even after all the eyecandy running and IE running ihad the memory at 73%. now i am sure that doing more will require more memory, but this is just a proof that i can run the OS on my old net-book.
i am actually planning to run it on the Asus net book/tablet that i have received from Nvidia settlement.
it has touch screen so i should have most of the fuctionality. (though some features might not work as it is only 1024p. sad thing that). dual booting with android looks really viable now.

but if windows phone 8 is anything like this then you can bet your a** that my next xellphone upgrade is a windows phone.
 
OMG, it's BAD! I don't need a desktop OS to look like a mobile OS. Please! Why are both Apple and MS doing this? Mobile and desktop have different requirements. If they keep going like this, I will be forced to switch to Linux. MS, give me my start button back. Better yet, why don't you only release new versions of Windows when you can actually do something better? Your history should be only Win95, 2000, XP and 7. Vista and 8 definitely have nothing good to contribute, they only exists so that MS has something to sell!
 
[citation][nom]maddy143ded[/nom]already tried the 8 install on Vbox. reduced the memory to 512, and guess what , it runs fine. even after all the eyecandy running and IE running ihad the memory at 73%. now i am sure that doing more will require more memory, but this is just a proof that i can run the OS on my old net-book.i am actually planning to run it on the Asus net book/tablet that i have received from Nvidia settlement.it has touch screen so i should have most of the fuctionality. (though some features might not work as it is only 1024p. sad thing that). dual booting with android looks really viable now.but if windows phone 8 is anything like this then you can bet your a** that my next xellphone upgrade is a windows phone.[/citation]
Well, guess what? I've had Vista running in VB just fine with 256 MB RAM. Starter, admittedly.
 
I came on this web site to look for some real concerns, will my system 7 software work with system 8 software? Not thinking that users of 7 year old computers were going to do most of the issue making, I have not seen a post of windows 7 logo user here yet, wait I am one. CPU speed 2.10 Ghz./64 bit. 300 GB/64., WDDM/8.15, screen 1600X900. Do a simple up grade, or just buy a new used computer from a good source with warranty plan if needed, or pay for a few months. If your internet connection is very fast like mine you need to upgrade and see the difference, watch four movies at the same time on four different browsers. Have fun.
 
[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]
The version number really means little aside from compatibility. Windows95, 98, 98SE and ME....were all version 4.x....and all released within a 5 year period.

[citation][nom]matt_b[/nom]I'm going to have to call Windows 7 the new XP here. The difference though is that I'm sure Windows 8 won't be that bad compared to how poorly Vista was out the gate. It's just simply that 7 is a solid OS to the point that there is and will be no compelling reason to ditch 7, and go purchase 8 when it's released.[/citation]
You must have missed the WindowsXP release.....

Initially, WindowsXP was the most unstable OS ever released by MS. It took numerous patches to finally get it stable.
 
I'm looking forward to seeing how this runs on my HTPC box. The simple and large interface should make for a more interesting experience with my remote.
 
[citation][nom]JackFrost860[/nom]Whats with all this complaining about ram? 8GB costs less than $100 FGS. Upgrade or shut up![/citation]

The manufacturers of pre-built laptops and desktops will complain if they can't install less than 8 GB. It makes sense to cut corners, even if it means hurting your customers a little.
 
[citation][nom]A Bad Day[/nom]The manufacturers of pre-built laptops and desktops will complain if they can't install less than 8 GB. It makes sense to cut corners, even if it means hurting your customers a little.[/citation]

Not everyone has a machine that can upgrade RAM and we don't want to upgrade what shouldn't need an upgrade just to run an OS. For example, my laptop has 2GB of memory and maxes out at 4GB. Do I want to upgrade? No. I can have hundreds of tabs open in a Firefox browser while I have a 512MB VM running if I have XP or Windows Server 2008r2 (I have 2008r2 and it's awesome).

[citation][nom]JackFrost860[/nom]Whats with all this complaining about ram? 8GB costs less than $100 FGS. Upgrade or shut up![/citation]

Besides that, using more RAM means that there is more bloat, among other things, that slow down the computer because it also means more wasted CPU time. Do I need to upgrade my CPU to compensate for software developers getting lazy? I'd rather not, it's a pain in the @$$ to upgrade a laptop CPU and mine doesn't have much of an upgrade path anyway.

A lot of users don't want to need to do extra work and spend extra money just for their computers to work right. Do you want more bloated OSs? How about another Vista, see how that works. XP was great, but it doesn't have support for many things that newer OSs do so I had no choice but to move on. Should I spend hundreds of dollars just to replace the hardware on top of replacing the OS? I shouldn't need to do that until my hardware is a lot older.

[citation][nom]A Bad Day[/nom]The manufacturers of pre-built laptops and desktops will complain if they can't install less than 8 GB. It makes sense to cut corners, even if it means hurting your customers a little.[/citation]

How is making a more efficient OS hurting customers at all? Sorry, but I assumed better, more efficient products mean helping the customer. Now Metro is definitely not helping the customer, but many of the under the hood changes help a lot. Windows 8 wastes less memory and CPU time than Windows 7 does. That is nothing to complain about, but it is something to praise.

Thanks to Windows 8, instead of being forced to upgrade my computer's hardware, all I should need to do is upgrade my OS to Windows 8 Server when it comes out and I'll have some more free resources than I have now. Granted, it will take a lot of setting up and customizing, but I always spend several hours, days even fixing up a recently installed machine before using it much. I like to know that every little bit of performance that I can get (within reason) is gotten, but I'm a little OCD about not wasting.
 
[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]You must have missed the WindowsXP release.....Initially, WindowsXP was the most unstable OS ever released by MS. It took numerous patches to finally get it stable.[/citation]
You must have missed what XP became, Vista never seemed to fully recover. Point being, XP was solid for a long time, and Vista was not the answer for an upgrade. Windows 7 is solid and again, 8 is not necessary nor is it going to be a worthwhile upgrade. There just doesn't appear to be anything game-changing offered this go-round.
 
[citation][nom]matt_b[/nom]You must have missed what XP became, Vista never seemed to fully recover. Point being, XP was solid for a long time, and Vista was not the answer for an upgrade. Windows 7 is solid and again, 8 is not necessary nor is it going to be a worthwhile upgrade. There just doesn't appear to be anything game-changing offered this go-round.[/citation]

Vista now is pretty solid, just still a resource hog. Vista SP2 is actually decent on machines with more than 2GB of memory and a decent CPU.

8 is something that I know I'm interested, or more accurately, Server 8. It should use fewer resources than Server 2008r2 and if it does, then I will move on to Server 8 and disable Metro and do a lot of other optimizations like I did with all of my computers.

However, I think that what M$ did to it's interface and making it difficult to disable Metro are definitely big enough problems to ruin the name of Windows 8 and it is coming in a time period when it is kinda unnecessary, but it is lighter than Windwos 7 and does bring along some important upgrades from 7. For example, it is supposed to have vastly improved wireless connection time and I would really like that for my laptop. Wireless connection times and a lighter OS are, as you said, not game-changers, but they are worth considering.

If someone still has XP, then 8 will offer a better experience than 7 on the same machine once Metro is disabled. Also, the awesome new task manager is, for me, a game changer.
 
I am a 7+ years IT Specialist. I have been testing and learning more from Windows since 3.11 which was my first Computer to learn from then I started to build them in 1998. I say that the option to change the OS with no Start Menu is a really bad idea for the Users who have laptops and desktops. Those who use tablets also it's a good idea to have the options that are shown in the beta to access programs a little easier but the problem is the start menu is something people are used to and like about Microsoft Windows. Removing the start menu is the worst idea ever in my personal opinion. If you are trying to make tablets like the Andriod Apple made I would suggest don't change the Windows OS by removing the Start Menu but add the option to have the Apps Program run by the user when they need/want it. This helps you give more options in the OS instead of making it a demand. With this problem happening more people will want to change to MAC (if they can afford it). I hope Microsoft gets wind of this and really considers my suggestions because this could cause millions of $'s with Microsoft not being able to sell this New OS they are trying to create. Another problem is the fact that the Start Menu is the trade mark of Microsoft since windows 95 and to remove a trade mark in a way makes it so that Microsoft should change their name from Windows to something else. Of course this is only my opinion but a very good suggestion because of the 2 Disasters Microsoft made with Windows ME and Vista.
 
@mrjcool32

I don't see many PC users switching to Mac over this, just sticking with Win 7 and XP until Microsoft makes something they like more. That is if they aren't able to spend a few minutes and disable Metro, although I also think it would be better if Microsoft would give us the option directly instead of us having to rely on a work around.
 
Just found out it won't run on my 2.66 GHz dell 8250, as it doesn't support Hardware DEP (NX)
 
The reason why you're going to want to upgrade to Win8 from XP/Vista is because it only costs $40 and you'll have the Win7 experience with the option to have a Win8 experience with touchscreen.

The reason why you're going to want to upgrade to Win8 from Win7 is if you have a touchscreen.

If you buy it new and not an upgrade you probably don't own a PC and you should just go buy a touchscreen 😀
 
[citation][nom]Win8 No Brainer[/nom]The reason why you're going to want to upgrade to Win8 from XP/Vista is because it only costs $40 and you'll have the Win7 experience with the option to have a Win8 experience with touchscreen.The reason why you're going to want to upgrade to Win8 from Win7 is if you have a touchscreen.If you buy it new and not an upgrade you probably don't own a PC and you should just go buy a touchscreen[/citation]

Or, maybe someone wants the extra performance and other improvements made in Windows 8 compared to Windows 7. The UI doesn't even need to be a factor.
 
when i tried to install windows 8 RTM via usb, i got it
"Your PC needs to restart.
Please hold down the power button.
Error Code: 0x0000005D
Parameters:
0x030F0209
0x756E6547
0x49656E69
0x6C65746E"

after googling i found that" To install Windows 8 , the processor (CPU) must support the following features: Physical Address Extension (PAE), NX, and SSE2."
if my processor is pentium 4 1.6Ghz then why microsoft says that processor requirement is 1 Ghz? my processor doesn't support pae,nx.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom