Windows 8 Will Have Same System Reqs as Win 7

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.


I know bugs carried across from Vista to 7, and i know its not perfect, as for crashing - Nvidia caused just about all of the issues there. A properly installed/setup Vista will crash or cause far less issues then XP.

XP no matter what hardware (quad core, 4gb etc) you have its still stale and slow (even the 64-bit with 8gb - feels the same as the 32-bit with 1gb), hangs in the same places and is just pure junk - its days are over.

When ram is so cheap, why not 2-4gb - im using 16gb, same as my work machines - when its $50 for 4gb WHY THE HELL NOT
 
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]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[/citation]
First not all Atoms support the 64 bit instruction set, and the ones that do have a physical address extensions of 32 bits. People that put 4gb on their atoms found out that the hardware can only address 2.75GB, even if you're running a 64 bit OS.

So if the hardware can't address more than 32 bit, what is the point of running a 64 bit OS?

Also since most applications are 32 bits and 32 bit applications under windows 64 bits are run using WOW64, an x86 emulator, which usually makes them run slower than on a windows 32 bits. On a more powerful hardware this is a bit irrelevant, but on an underpowered atom the difference can be great.
 


Atoms are for basic internet - since when does performance matter? if it did you would buy something half decent, right?

Atoms are here running windows as a uniform platform - WINDOWS, 64-bit should also be a uniform thing, a modern hardware platform, also saves companies for software/hardware hell even microsoft from having to write software/hardware for both 32 and 64 bit platforms.

As for 32 apps+ 4gb limit - take a look how many 32-bit applications are running on your system - with 8-16gb of ram, it gives each of those 32-bit apps more ram, if your running ~2 heavy 32-bit apps then atleast there getting ~4gb EACH (more then a 32-bit system with 4gb max shared between windows and all its apps)
 


I call BS on the Xbox 360 native emulation aswell - its like shooting themselves in the foot
 


1) Good boards start at $120. $200 is a solid board. If you're looking at anything that costs more than $200, that's either ROG or Gigabyte G1 boards, which are overpriced toys for extreme, very rich gamers.

2) You're not a gamer. At least not in my sense. I meant PC gamers - they need DirectX 11 (which is why we upgraded to Windows 7), latest graphic effects, etc. Xbox 360 doesn't count here, because it doesn't require Windows to game, so you shouldn't care whether you're running WinXP or Win8. Advice: throw that junk out and start playing real games on decent hardware.

3) Back to topic: it's a bit sad that Microsoft wants Win8 to run on tablets, smartphones and other pseudo-computers - that means the new OS won't focus on PCs sharply and we won't see a lot of innovation, such as abandoning 32-bit. And don't even start about people "who still use an x86-based system" - those do NOT need an upgrade to Win8. Who uses x86? Offices? Seniors? They'll do just fine with XP or 7.

Good thing they're getting rid of legacy code, though. And I won't be so quick to call BS on 360 support rumors - by that time MS might release a new console (720?) and makes sure Win8 supports 360 games, but NOT 720. And whoever mentioned system requirements being higher because of 360 support - why? Minimum requirements will assume you're not going to do that, they include just the specs you need to run the OS itself. Otherwise, following your logic, system requirements for Win7 equal those for Crysis, because Win7 supports Crysis. And besides... Xbox 360 uses outdated hardware: 512 MB RAM, 3.2 GHz triple-core CPU and a lame graphics card... just how high can these "requirements" get? 😉

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

Probably one of the reasons why Sandy Bridge shreds Phenom pretty much in every task. Old socket = old limitations, old problems. Don't see a point of getting a new CPU all the time, anyway - just get the most powerful thing available and use it for 2-3 years, then sell the whole PC and get a brand-new one. I know people who're still kicking with Core 2 Quad, because it was the best a few years back and still works great in modern games. If, however, you upgrade every time a new CPU comes out, you're losing way more money for a small increase in performance. Example: if you've got a Core i7-950, it's useless to upgrade to Sandy Bridge, you'll have to spend at least $400 for the new CPU and mobo, and you won't see a huge increase in performance. If, however, you're upgrading from Celeron to SB, it's totally worth it.

 
It's the same reason an i5-2500k OC'd to 4.2 GHz will last years on end, and be an overkill the entire time.


We're at a point where unless you're gaming, you won't need extremely beefy hardware to do general tasks.
 
[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]1) Good boards start at $120. $200 is a solid board. If you're looking at anything that costs more than $200, that's either ROG or Gigabyte G1 boards, which are overpriced toys for extreme, very rich gamers.2) You're not a gamer. At least not in my sense. I meant PC gamers - they need DirectX 11 (which is why we upgraded to Windows 7), latest graphic effects, etc. Xbox 360 doesn't count here, because it doesn't require Windows to game, so you shouldn't care whether you're running WinXP or Win8. Advice: throw that junk out and start playing real games on decent hardware.3) Back to topic: it's a bit sad that Microsoft wants Win8 to run on tablets, smartphones and other pseudo-computers - that means the new OS won't focus on PCs sharply and we won't see a lot of innovation, such as abandoning 32-bit. And don't even start about people "who still use an x86-based system" - those do NOT need an upgrade to Win8. Who uses x86? Offices? Seniors? They'll do just fine with XP or 7.Good thing they're getting rid of legacy code, though. And I won't be so quick to call BS on 360 support rumors - by that time MS might release a new console (720?) and makes sure Win8 supports 360 games, but NOT 720. And whoever mentioned system requirements being higher because of 360 support - why? Minimum requirements will assume you're not going to do that, they include just the specs you need to run the OS itself. Otherwise, following your logic, system requirements for Win7 equal those for Crysis, because Win7 supports Crysis. And besides... Xbox 360 uses outdated hardware: 512 MB RAM, 3.2 GHz triple-core CPU and a lame graphics card... just how high can these "requirements" get? Probably one of the reasons why Sandy Bridge shreds Phenom pretty much in every task. Old socket = old limitations, old problems. Don't see a point of getting a new CPU all the time, anyway - just get the most powerful thing available and use it for 2-3 years, then sell the whole PC and get a brand-new one. I know people who're still kicking with Core 2 Quad, because it was the best a few years back and still works great in modern games. If, however, you upgrade every time a new CPU comes out, you're losing way more money for a small increase in performance. Example: if you've got a Core i7-950, it's useless to upgrade to Sandy Bridge, you'll have to spend at least $400 for the new CPU and mobo, and you won't see a huge increase in performance. If, however, you're upgrading from Celeron to SB, it's totally worth it.[/citation]

Totally agree here
 
Or you could just dump the entire microsoft bullshit and get a real operating system like Linux or Mac OSX :)
 
This article freaks me out.

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

By extension, this would mean that Windows 8 will have similar hardware requirements as Windows Vista – an operating system that could predate Windows 8 by three years.

Does the author of this horrid article realize that Windows Vista came out in 2006 before Windows 7? There is evidence in this article that this guy actually thinks Windows Vista is newer - Vista predates Windows 8 by 3 years? You mean 6? This is like my Grandma writing an article on technology.
 
I hope there'll be a Windows Experience Index on both x86 & ARM versions of Windows 8. Nothing detailed, just a way to promote OC'ed ARMs & get a new performance-per-watt-per-$ thing started ;-)
 
Only way ill ever use win 8 is if i can play xbox 360 games on it an hellz im not paying to unlock the feature hell ill go to some hack site an download it lol.and if thats the case a mac will suck even more lol
 
There should be no reason what so ever Windows 7 won't support DX12. Hell there should be no reason why Vista shouldn't support DX12 either, although if you are a gamer and still gaming on Vista, then I feel sorry for you.
 
Will Windows 8 be as bloated as Windows 7?

The job of the OS is to run applications, not to force people to buy your partner Intel's latest hardware, as Windows has traditionally done.
 
Will Windows 8 be as bloated as Windows 7?

The job of the OS is to run applications, not to force people to buy your partner Intel's latest hardware, as Windows has traditionally done.

Oh yeah? I had Vista Home Basic and Win 7 Ultimate running smooth on a 6-year old 1.8 GHz single-core Celeron M laptop with 1 GB RAM. I'd say that proves you wrong - you don't need latest hardware to run Windows. Common silly belief, just like all other myths about Windows - you won't believe how much $h!t I've heard about Windows from Linux geeks, yet Win 7 still runs better on my netbook than Ubuntu 10, and is more stable. So stop accusing Microsoft and go find out what you're doing wrong.
 
Some more tools to let windows self diagnose the quality of graphics drivers would be neat.
Think benchmarks that show a performance and error index.
 
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]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?[/citation]

the 64 bit version got a bad rap, but its not as bad as most people think, that said, i'm not using it.
being limited to 4gb of ram is the only hard part, though i have considered setting up a ram drive as a swap disc, which would effectively give me as much ram as i damn well please, just not as efficient. i can easily eat 6gb of ram on the pc i have with 7, but i rarely use it.
being tied to dx9, as a gamer, im VERY proud to say that graphics mean nothing to me. sure pretty graphics are nice, but i don't care, to me, gameplay > everything else. there are so few games that require 10+ only, now, how many of those games cant be done in dx9, as in the game play required dx10 or 11 to even function? i honestly wish people would stop using dx because microsoft will use it again at some point to try and push gamers to a new os that no one likes, or at best, push us to a more refined version of windows 7 that will cost 170+$ to get the version that doesn't suck.
i dont use ie for anything so it doesn't bother me that microsoft is trying to get me to upgrade by not giving me 9.
i also dont use windows live for anything, i wanted to, but parts are so badly put together that its not an option for me, im looking at photo gallery when i say that, the taging system is almost unuseable.
not sure what you mean by 2gb video cards, i only have a 1gb hd5770 that i can make play anything. i would love to keep every program i use open while playing games, but i close some of them to get 2gb of head room,
i have had 6 harddrives fail over a 3 month period of time. i will NEVER trust large harddrive with ANY of my data even if i have redundancy.
i really dont mind having more steps to set up a hdd, i set it up once and can largely forget about it.
ill be honest and say i have no idea what ahci is. and wiki didnt help me.
outlook express, yea, i use gmail, i never liked outlook because how many viruses ran automaticly just by opening up an email?

really there are only 2 things that windows 7 has that entices me at all.

dx11 - though i wish people would use opengl, its not that far behind and you could make a game that ran on EVERYTHING that way, making linux a viable option
better ssd support - granted right now this means nothing to me, but when ssds drop to sub 1$ a gb, it will challenge what os i have top boot from.
 
[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]1) Good boards start at $120. $200 is a solid board. If you're looking at anything that costs more than $200, that's either ROG or Gigabyte G1 boards, which are overpriced toys for extreme, very rich gamers.2) You're not a gamer. At least not in my sense. I meant PC gamers - they need DirectX 11 (which is why we upgraded to Windows 7), latest graphic effects, etc. Xbox 360 doesn't count here, because it doesn't require Windows to game, so you shouldn't care whether you're running WinXP or Win8. Advice: throw that junk out and start playing real games on decent hardware.3) Back to topic: it's a bit sad that Microsoft wants Win8 to run on tablets, smartphones and other pseudo-computers - that means the new OS won't focus on PCs sharply and we won't see a lot of innovation, such as abandoning 32-bit. And don't even start about people "who still use an x86-based system" - those do NOT need an upgrade to Win8. Who uses x86? Offices? Seniors? They'll do just fine with XP or 7.Good thing they're getting rid of legacy code, though. And I won't be so quick to call BS on 360 support rumors - by that time MS might release a new console (720?) and makes sure Win8 supports 360 games, but NOT 720. And whoever mentioned system requirements being higher because of 360 support - why? Minimum requirements will assume you're not going to do that, they include just the specs you need to run the OS itself. Otherwise, following your logic, system requirements for Win7 equal those for Crysis, because Win7 supports Crysis. And besides... Xbox 360 uses outdated hardware: 512 MB RAM, 3.2 GHz triple-core CPU and a lame graphics card... just how high can these "requirements" get? Probably one of the reasons why Sandy Bridge shreds Phenom pretty much in every task. Old socket = old limitations, old problems. Don't see a point of getting a new CPU all the time, anyway - just get the most powerful thing available and use it for 2-3 years, then sell the whole PC and get a brand-new one. I know people who're still kicking with Core 2 Quad, because it was the best a few years back and still works great in modern games. If, however, you upgrade every time a new CPU comes out, you're losing way more money for a small increase in performance. Example: if you've got a Core i7-950, it's useless to upgrade to Sandy Bridge, you'll have to spend at least $400 for the new CPU and mobo, and you won't see a huge increase in performance. If, however, you're upgrading from Celeron to SB, it's totally worth it.[/citation]

i care far more about game play than i will ever care about graphics, hell i played more of terraria in the past few weeks that any other game put togeather. only reaon i have a 360 a ps3 and a wii is because they play games that will never come to a pc, outside of emulation, and im not waiting on emulation.

i have a little brother, who refuses to play any game that isn't 3d because "its old s***, f*** that game" and i cant consider him a gamer because of that.

and back onto the dx9 10 and 11, i would rather play games using opengl, but sadly thats not going to happen, even though its about equal to dx11, and until 11, it was better than dx anything, if i had opengl gaming, i could use linux as a viable option. now again, what did dx10 do that dx9 couldn't fake? sure it wasnt a native support in 9, but nothing dx 10 could do dx 9 couldent with some creative programing. its only with dx11 that something was introduced that isnt in 9, tessellation. but that is only limited to ambiance right now, when a full game world is enhanced from ground up with it, THAN we can talk about dx11 being king, but as of now, we dont even have close to the power to do that, hell most games when you turn on tessellation take about a 30-40% performance hit, and until crysis 11 patch, any game with it i had a hard time telling which screenshots were tessellation and which ones weren't.

ill miss out on battlefield 3, at least till it hits the wiiu, but thats kind of a trade off, because i can see so much interesting s*** they can do with the tablet, and dice is the kind of company to really take advantage of that.
 
I am always surprised by the intensity of the anti-slightly outdated technology (32-bit, XP, etc). Both sides make valid points, but its just the fact that this argument is always luring around a corner that shocks me.

Until I am out of grad school, I am going to be rockin' XP... because the price of a new OS is more than I want to afford. Its not surprising that Windows is trying to maintain/lower the min specs, they sell software, not hardware. Microsoft doesn't want/care if you upgrade your hardware, but software is a must! Blizzard does the same thing, bigger game in a smaller package, it makes sense.
 
Can't we dump the damn 32-bit version already? Look, most computers today support 64-bit OSes. Chances are the ones that don't are ready to be replaced anyway. Microsoft should spend their time doing things like reducing system requirements further or reducing startup and shutdown times.
 
livebriand: No. Microsoft still doesn't have proper 64 bit support together for most of their product lines, especially Office 2010. Check out Microsoft's official recommendation for pretty much not deploying 64 bit anything onto enterprise client (aka not-server) machines. 64 bit Windows may be good enough for home users who don't have reliance on 10 y/o Access databases and Excel spreadsheets, but MS' 64 bit platforms aren't nearly backwards-compatible enough for businesses.

Linux, on the other hand, has no problems with 64 bit, and almost no difference in capability or stability between 32/64bit platforms.
 
Upgrading my 3 year old, 1 GB of RAM netbook from XP to 7 actually made it run faster and more reliably. I wonder how they would compare on even slower machines.
 
I'm not gonna jump on the wagon just because Windows 8 comes out. But I'm curious about Windows 8 ARM, media centers running ARM, a reemergenceof HD-DVD with possible XBOX game support on Windows 8 x86. So will people be able to get media centers running ARM with HD-DVD & will there be any movies to watch? Will they compete with google tv & apple tv? How much will it cost?
 
so does this mean i can upgrade from windows 7 to windows 8? And is there a release date besides just 2012?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.