Windows 7 System Requirements Finalized

[FlayerSlayer]

[citation][nom]rooket[/nom]hmm 1ghz but do they even have a directx9 video card that is compatable with my pentium 3?[/citation]I think that's there for Atom processors in Netbooks, often at 1.6 GHz.

 

[Niva]

Great news, this means I can run windows 7 on my athlon XP with my elite radeon 9700 pro card!

Seriously, I'm VERY disappointed win 7 is not 64 bit only. Microsoft is shooting themselves in the foot by continuing to support a 32 bit operating system.

 

[Guest]

While it's good that the new requirements have really increased, it's still rather absurd that an OS just by itself should require so much.

The comments for the QOTD about switching to Linux got me interested in fooling around with it again. I have 32-bit and 64-bit installations of Arch+LXDE with all the apps needed minus games running in virtual machines with 256MB of RAM and 8GB of hard drive space, and everything is much faster than the respective XP and Vista host machines.

Don't get me wrong . . . I'm still going to get Windows 7 for gaming and because I'm used to Windows, but seriously they need to stop throwing efficiency to the wind - even if hardware is cheap.

 

[Guest]

Sorry, I meant "haven't really increased"

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]Belardo[/nom]Such weak requirements. They should be more realistic. Considering that entry level Vista PCs at $350~400 have 3GB of RAM and 250+GB HD as well as a dual core CPU of 2.0Ghz or better.When they post info like that, a novice user would actually try to run Win7 or vista on a 1.4Ghz P4 (UGH) with 1GB of RAM... (Aaaaaaaaay!)[/citation]
you are probably the biggest ideot on the planet!

And I disagree with the comment about the Atom performing lower than a 1,4Ghz Intel P3! CPU yes, but an atom system is faster than a P3 1,4Ghz system (appart from graphics); mainly thanks to it's 5X faster memory and FSB speed!

 

[Dax corrin]

DemonHorde665 continues his ham-fingered mashing of buttons that passes for spelling in his world. Proof read your entries, I'm getting Excedrin headache number DemonHorde665. [citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]i'm gomnmna update my ssytem for the 64 bit version of win 7 current specs :amd athy 64 x2 5000+ black ed (oc'ed 3ghz) 3 gb ddr 2 pc 800 nvida gf 9600 gt 320 gb HD when i get win 7 64 bit these will be my upgraded specs amd phenom x3 8750 black edition (oc to 2.9-3.1 ghz ???) 6 gigs of ddr 2 pc 800 ramati 4000 (or 5000 series if it is out by then) 1tb HD + 320 hd i have now sure my current system would mroe than ahndle 64 bit win 7 , but most these updates will shearly be fort eh sake of updating my PC after these updates i wont mess with this comp's config again and wills tart looking at building a new monster one to two years after these updates.[/citation]

 

[mamw93]

Like everything you need a MUCH better system to run Windows effectively.

 

[Guest]

Can windows 7 read my tv card as vista refuses to load any software
keeps telling me no tv card (winfast HD tv card)runs OK on XP records in HD and can burn same on disk if need be, I have all 9 digital tv stations. But without media center I can not link my XBOX .

 

[Guest]

this is funny because OS X 10.5.6 runs beautifully on 1GB of ram. For reference, the OS X is installed on an Acer Aspire A150 netbook with bottom-of-the-line integrated graphics card, 1GB ram, and a 1.6GHz single core Intel Atom processor. Have I compared it directly to Win7? No. It did, however, have Windows XP installed on it beforehand, and the difference is unbelievable. From video rendering (I assume because of Quartz) to general 'snappiness' of programs (I assume because of the Journaled format.) Even general usability -- the max resolution is 1024x600. On XP the bottoms of the windows would get cut off and it was not uncommon to not be able to click the OK button without using tab and *hoping* that I would hit the right thing. With OS X it was merely a matter of throwing a command in the terminal to change the display scale. At 0.8 everything is beautiful. I bought a Mac two weeks later.

Thought I would contribute my findings. If you don't believe that OS X is capable on a PC, google Hackintosh. You would be surprised at the number of new customers the exploit generates for Apple.

 

[Guest]

ToyeBoy, Looks like intel's marketing worked. I'm running a P3-S at 1.4 ghz fine with..gulp..512 megs of obsolete PC133 ram. I have much, much more expensive systems whose components I haven't even put togther yet since some of my older systems still function well enough for my tasks and yet I still go back to the P3. You probably don't know how to build your own system do you and probably go around to different forums asking advice on what to get built into your systems.

 

[hard_ware0wnz]

I have a Pentium III with 512 MB RAM and 1.1GHz speed and the requirements of Windows 7 are pretty much same like Windows Vista's.
I even have a Pentium 4 that runs on 2.66GHz speed and 1GB RAM and they both run on XP. The thing i didnt like about Windows 7 is that almost everything is exactly like Windows Vista. look at the system requirements, compare them, look at the aero theme and the transparency, compare them. They're pretty much the same 80% same as Windows Vista.
BUT i have one question, do you need DDR3 RAM or is it qualified the normal DDR-DDR2 RAM needed?

 

[hard_ware0wnz]

O my Pentium 4 has Direct X v10.0. but has 64MB Graphics i need to boost up and blaze my graphic card by replacing it with a better one.
My Pentium III has i think Direct X v8 or 9.0c with 32MB Graphic memory but they both run on XP. With Windows Vista and Windows 7 Transformation Packs that transform and integrate the transformation pack operating system into Windows XP.

 

[Guest]

I won't have a prob either... hardware is fairly cheap these days...

I'm running this setup:

ASUS M4A79 Deluxe (DDR2)
AMD Phenom II 940 3Ghz OC'd to 3.7 Ghz
8GB Corsair Dominator DDR2 1066 (4x2GB)
WD 75GB System Drive - 15k RPM
WD 1TB Data drives (2) in RAID
Radeon HD 4870 1GB GDDR5d
CoolerMaster Cosmos Full Tower
Windows 7 Ultimate x64

I can run anything and everything without ANY performance problems. It's so COOL. My Memory only cost me $100. If you can't upgrade to 8GB of RAM for $100 then i'm sorry, but go get a better job!

 

[rodyhoffer]

If you are thinking your PC can't handle Windows 7. then here's my sources about
the official requirement of Windows 7 to run on your PC

my sources:Windows 7 official suite: Why should you get it?

I fairly believe the specs are "low" comparing to Vista's high-end requirements.

 

[Guest]

I'm using 1.8ghz PC, with 1gb ram, 128mb graphic mem and a 40gb HD

Still its not working smoothly... Y is this sO??

 

[Guest]

Can hard disk space be used as the extra ram required. I have 3gb ram and a 512 mb graphics card with a core 2 quad 2.66 xeonon a motherboard that supports 4gb m ddr2.

 

[Guest]

My system configuration is
2.13 GHz Processor
1 GB Ram
& 40 GB hard disk
is it enough for windows 7?