05-08-2009 #1Starlight Guest
Windows 7 'Hardware Tax' Unveiled is No Surprise to Consumers
Hardware requirements are always a concern among PC consumers since manufacturers scrounge to put the lowest possible hardware specs while still promising all the bells and whistles on them.
Something tells us this might not be the case with Windows 7 though.
To quote: Back in January, Windows 7 Beta came out with the first preliminary hardware specifications. Based on feedback given by the owners of various systems, Microsoft firmed hardware requirements with the recently shipped RC version.
According to Microsoft, minimum hardware specs for running Windows 7 are as follows: 1GHz processor, 1GB RAM, 16GB of disc space for 32-bit version, 20GB for 64-bit version and a DirectX9-compliant graphics card.
This means almost every PC manufactured after September 2002 should run Windows 7 - something that we haven't seen in the past. If this is true, owners of older computers can delay the purchase of their machine until they are able to save up for the DirectX11-compliant, multi-core computer.
The much praised and criticized "XPM" (e.g. virtual WinXP on Win7) minimum memory requirement is set at 2GB, additional 15GB of disc space, and of course - a processor with hardware support for virtualization.
More PlayStation 3 News...
05-09-2009 #2oreodoh Guest
Windows 7....Windows Vista...what's the difference?
So I never tried Windows Vista, really. It's probably because of all the bad press it got and the belief that anyone who wants to run it would need to buy a high-end graphics card. Well I have tried Windows 7 Beta, and I have to say...well, I guess I can't really say anything can I? How about this...you ask me a question, and if you can read my facial expression, there's your answer:
1. How does Windows 7 Beta (W7b) run on your older hardware?
2. How does W7b run on your newer hardware?
3. Does it crash very often?
4. How is it visually?
5. Do the bells and whistles make the O/S unusable?
6. What do you think about running Ubuntu Linux as an alternative?
7. How does W7b stack up against WXP?
8. When do you find yourself enjoying W7b the most?
05-10-2009 #3tornadog Guest
I think with Vista people must already have uber configurations.. so this shouldnt be a big deal.
06-09-2009 #4lotto Guest
I have been using Windows 7 build 7137 and it is rock solid(My opinion).
1. How does Windows 7 Beta (W7b) run on your older hardware? very well
2. How does W7b run on your newer hardware? excellent
3. Does it crash very often? no
4. How is it visually? as good as any other OS
5. Do the bells and whistles make the O/S unusable? like all other OS, too many bells and whistles for the average user
6. What do you think about running Ubuntu Linux as an alternative? definitely not
7. How does W7b stack up against WXP? got xp beat by a long shot
8. When do you find yourself enjoying W7b the most? almost all the time
Windows 7 is easier and more compatible to install because more drivers are incorporated in the install disk.
One should also remember that this OS like all previous OS should be tweaked by the individual user for his or her situations. That being said, I think Micro$oft may be getting it right this time.
Vista was the beta version of Windows 7. Yes that right, the consumer paid Micro$oft to test Vista(as a beta version) for the upcoming Windows 7.
06-17-2009 #5semitope Guest
Running windows 7 on a 512mb b130 inspiron with pentium m 1.5ghz. Goign well so far, more ram would definitely help
06-17-2009 #6bootlegninja Guest
I've ran 7100 on my Toshiba Satelite with a 1.4GHz Centrino, 512MB RAM, and a 40GB HDD. Lags a bit, but it is workable. The only thing I hate about it is that it refuses to access the samba shares of my NAS. But I agree with others though, it's a pretty rock solid OS.