Windows 8 Will Have Same System Reqs as Win 7

[Marcus Yam]

That Vista PC will run Windows 8 just fine.

Windows 8 Will Have Same System Reqs as Win 7 : Read more

 

[belardo]

AmigaOS was better with upgrades.

AmigaOS 3.0 used less memory and operated faster than AmigaOS 1.2 from 5 years before. And that is even with doubling the graphic abilities too boot.

Someday, Windows will equal Amiga.

 

[Thilindi]

Belardo...

I am with you. For its time, Amiga was heads and shoulders above what any other OS could do... that even came out 3 years after. Makes you wonder where we would be if that had been the adapted platform.

 

[hp79]

"The move from Windows 7 to Windows Vista, however, wasn't anything of the sort."
You prefer Vista?

 

[apache_lives]

The issue with Vista wasnt Vista is was companies like Acer etc that sold units with 512mb of memory and packed it with so much useless junk it just crawled, vista if properly setup was great, i would still take vista over XP any day, and windows 7 - its 99% vista.

As for Windows 8, WHY IS IT NOT 64 BIT ONLY FFS

KILL 32-BIT ALREADY

 

[Guest]

I dont get it.

1;The move from Windows 7 to Windows Vista? Isnt this vise versa?

2;By extension? What?

3;Vista was first sold on 2007, and Windows 8 will on sale in 2012, so there will be 5 years, not three.

 

[randomizer]

"We've also built intelligence into Windows 8 so that it can adapt to the user experience based on the hardware of the user.

I wonder if that's the same "intelligence" that they've been using since at least 2006.

 

[JamesSneed]

The issue with Vista wasnt Vista is was companies like Acer etc that sold units with 512mb of memory and packed it with so much useless junk it just crawled, vista if properly setup was great, i would still take vista over XP any day, and windows 7 - its 99% vista.

As for Windows 8, WHY IS IT NOT 64 BIT ONLY FFS

KILL 32-BIT ALREADY

32 bit will live a good deal longer. Windows 8 will be put on tablets, netbooks, etc that wont have much if any need for a 64 bit OS.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

System requirements, what BS... the only people that'll NEED to upgrade is most likely only gamers - how much you bet they'll put their next DirectX 12 only on Win8? - and we've got the requirements overkilled. The rest of the folks can stay on Win7, if not XP.

 

[itchyisvegeta]

New version will work with older pcs? I have heard that before.

I totally agree that Windows 8 should be 64 bit only.

 

[JOSHSKORN]

Windows 8 should be 64-bit only. I'm sure some will be using a docking station with their tablets and be in situations where use of 4GB of RAM and above would be nice, and the ability to recognize a hard drive bigger than 2.2 GB.

 

[wintermint]

This reminds me of AMD because we don't need to get a new board every time they release a new CPU cough cough.. intel.. cough

 

[nitrium]

There are many peripherals that don't have 64bit drivers - some of these are multi-thousand dollar devices. Why would customers want to buy a new version of Windows, that by extension of driver in-availability, do not support their expensive equipment? Further their are COUNTLESS older laptops, computers, and netbooks that have 32bit CPUs. Last time I checked, Microsoft was a business that wants to make as many SALES and consequently as much PROFIT as possible. How does NOT catering for literally millions of users remotely meet that goal?

 

[apache_lives]

[citation][nom]wintermint[/nom]This reminds me of AMD because we don't need to get a new board every time they release a new CPU cough cough.. intel.. cough[/citation]

i dont see how having a crappy motherboard and top of the range everything else will do the system any good, motherboards are cheap!

and AMD is as bad as intel for this

upgrade path is BS

 

[apache_lives]

[citation][nom]JamesSneed[/nom]32 bit will live a good deal longer. Windows 8 will be put on tablets, netbooks, etc that wont have much if any need for a 64 bit OS.[/citation]

Atom is 64-bit but next to impossible to actually have ~4gb of ram with it, and tablets are a whole different architecture/subsystem etc, for x86 based it should have been 64-bit only

 

[alidan]

so its not de bloated, or vastly improved.

 

[SteelCity1981]

Nothing looks to be like it's going to change with the OS itself that will require more hardware to support it. So why not just bundle all of what Windows 8 has and make it a big service pack update for Windows 7. Wait I forgot it's M$ nevermind.

 

[hp79]

[citation][nom]hp79[/nom]"The move from Windows 7 to Windows Vista, however, wasn't anything of the sort."You prefer Vista?[/citation]

I get -2 vote for pointing switched back words in the article?
The author switched Windows 7 and Vista up in that sentence.

 

[apache_lives]

[citation][nom]nitrium[/nom]There are many peripherals that don't have 64bit drivers - some of these are multi-thousand dollar devices. Why would customers want to buy a new version of Windows, that by extension of driver in-availability, do not support their expensive equipment? Further their are COUNTLESS older laptops, computers, and netbooks that have 32bit CPUs. Last time I checked, Microsoft was a business that wants to make as many SALES and consequently as much PROFIT as possible. How does NOT catering for literally millions of users remotely meet that goal?[/citation]

old equipment + old os = fine
new os + new equipment = fine
new os + old equipment = BAD

pentium m's (~core duo), pentium 4's and athlon xp's were the last 32 bit only cpus (with exceptions), - none of these should be running anything more then xp - thats fine for OLD stuff

even the most basic low end cpu's these days have 64-bit capability - Celeron's and Atoms, Athlons etc

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]System requirements, what BS... the only people that'll NEED to upgrade is most likely only gamers - how much you bet they'll put their next DirectX 12 only on Win8? - and we've got the requirements overkilled. The rest of the folks can stay on Win7, if not XP.[/citation]

im a gamer, the only way i would get 8 is if the rumor that it can play 360 games is true, which i highly doubt. would love to get rid of my 360.

but unless thats true ill stick with xp.

[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]i dont see how having a crappy motherboard and top of the range everything else will do the system any good, motherboards are cheap!and AMD is as bad as intel for thisupgrade path is BS[/citation]

a good motherboard is 200-400$ thats not cheap in my book, now if you are looking at budget 30-50$ motherboards i can see why you are confused.

besides, its nice not needing to completely rebuild a computer from ground up just to use a newer processor.

 

[apache_lives]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]im a gamer, the only way i would get 8 is if the rumor that it can play 360 games is true, which i highly doubt. would love to get rid of my 360. but unless thats true ill stick with xp. a good motherboard is 200-400$ thats not cheap in my book, now if you are looking at budget 30-50$ motherboards i can see why you are confused. besides, its nice not needing to completely rebuild a computer from ground up just to use a newer processor.[/citation]

XP?

You still use that festering piece of crap?

Your not serious are you?

?

What motherboard cost 400?

 

[jimmysmitty]

[citation][nom]JOSHSKORN[/nom]Windows 8 should be 64-bit only. I'm sure some will be using a docking station with their tablets and be in situations where use of 4GB of RAM and above would be nice, and the ability to recognize a hard drive bigger than 2.2 GB.[/citation]

32bit is not what limits the system from recognizing a HDD over 2.2TB. Its the BIOS. The BIOS is a old system and when it was started, 2.2TB was an insane amount. Now its very common.

What will make larger than 2.2TB HDDs recognizable is UEFI, which is in most modern (P/H67 and Z68) motherboard. Some make it look like BIOS others, Asus, take a more modern approach.

As for the 64bit, I think that Windows 8 should be 64bit only on for servers and desktop computers. Make the 32bit version for tablets and ARM.

At my work we build all kinds of machines and even our lowest end machine with just 2GB of RAM has 64bit so it can easily be upgraded to 4GB without the need for a OS install. Plus memory is so cheap, 4GB of DDR3 is under $50 bucks in most cases. Add to that KPP (Kernal Patch Protection) and I see no reason why anyone would go for 7 32bit.

 

[apache_lives]

im a gamer, the only way i would get 8 is if the rumor that it can play 360 games is true, which i highly doubt. would love to get rid of my 360.

but unless thats true ill stick with xp.



a good motherboard is 200-400$ thats not cheap in my book, now if you are looking at budget 30-50$ motherboards i can see why you are confused.

besides, its nice not needing to completely rebuild a computer from ground up just to use a newer processor.

In a $200AUD mainboard is decent (ASUS P8P67 Pro - Umart price as of 17th July 2011)

XP means either your using the 64-bit version which is rubbish, that or your limited to less then 4gb, DX9 (official spec/100%), Internet Explorer 8, you cant install the latest windows live suite, 2gb video cards mean your system memory is next to nothing, 3+ tb hdd's cause you issues, newer hdd's with 4k sectors require more steps to setup, AHCI isnt nativly supported and takes effort to get working/installed, outlook express has the french bug and is useless.

do i need to say more?

 

[belardo]

[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]The issue with Vista wasnt Vista is was companies like Acer etc that sold units with 512mb of memory and packed it with so much useless junk it just crawled, vista if properly setup was great, i would still take vista over XP any day, and windows 7 - its 99% vista.[/citation]

Vista was crap when it came out, it still crap today. It was SOLD by MS as 512mb or higher... but it was PURE CRAP with 1GB. Why do you think so many people wanted 4~8GB Vista boxes? Nowadays, most people are FINE with 2~4GB for Win7 because it doesn't have the crap MEMORY usage that Vista has.

Win7, while based off the core that was vista, is not 99%. And the faults of Win7 is the same crap that carried over from VISTA. Win7 aint perfect.

At it time, especially - vista offered nothing over XP... other than slower crappy crashing systems.

 

[apache_lives]

32bit is not what limits the system from recognizing a HDD over 2.2TB. Its the BIOS. The BIOS is a old system and when it was started, 2.2TB was an insane amount. Now its very common.

What will make larger than 2.2TB HDDs recognizable is UEFI, which is in most modern (P/H67 and Z68) motherboard. Some make it look like BIOS others, Asus, take a more modern approach.

As for the 64bit, I think that Windows 8 should be 64bit only on for servers and desktop computers. Make the 32bit version for tablets and ARM.

At my work we build all kinds of machines and even our lowest end machine with just 2GB of RAM has 64bit so it can easily be upgraded to 4GB without the need for a OS install. Plus memory is so cheap, 4GB of DDR3 is under $50 bucks in most cases. Add to that KPP (Kernal Patch Protection) and I see no reason why anyone would go for 7 32bit.

Second that, every machine we build and sell at my shop is 64-bit, even reinstall's on client machines are installed with 64-bit for older machines where possible - no one notices, no one complains.

The only exception i know for 32-bit is a crappy old unit i use as a server for remote access/backup and thats my old Core Duo (Yonah) laptop - no 64-bit.