Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+ Windows 'Longhorn' will need whopper PCs

Now if this quote doesn't make your short & curlies stand straight up, I don't know what will:

Microsoft is expected to recommend that the 'average' Longhorn PC feature a dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz; a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM; up to a terabyte of storage; a 1 Gbit, built-in, Ethernet-wired port and an 802.11g wireless link; and a graphics processor that runs three times faster than those on the market today.

Article on the upcoming 'Longhorn' version of Windows

Yowza... don't think I'll be overclocking my 1GHz to that kind of category of machine.

I think this may give some insight into how far away a retail release of Longhorn actually is, if they're expecting those sort of specs in your "average" PC. They say a couple of years ... it will be at least that.
OR, this type of statement could be just what we need - chip manufacturers will say "Holy shit! Let's get a move on and start really ramping up the processor speeds - rather than the 'trickle-release' that we follow now" :thumbsup:

I think this is getting on to be the longest wait for a new OS, and well, the CPU speeds and such that we reach now are nothing to shy at, but if they expect huge numbers there not going to have a huge market, therefore ruin allot of there sales, I for one wouldnt upgrade a PC just to use a Better OS(if there is such a thing) A new game i wanna play on the other hand... :)

I dont' buy it. For a PC with that specs to be considered 'average' we'll have to wait a lot, and that's bad business for MS. Probably they'll wanna have various versions of the OS, or something, because that' average' computer won't be 'average' until 5 or more years.

I don't buy it either. MS is not that stupid.

Sounds a bit far-fetched to me... Unless M$ really is going to take that long to develop their new OS. The triple-the-graphics-processor-power thing makes me even more doubtful, unless we'll be experiencing Windows Longhorn in fully 3d DirectX 12... Not to mention the fact that a dual-CPU system is a completely pointless suggestion. Having more than one processor won't speed up your machine or make your OS chug around any faster... all it does is allow your system to run more processes at the same time more efficiently than usual with attempted with a single CPU. So unless M$ is really crapping out when it comes to OS optimization skills (if they ever had any to begin with)... I truly do not believe these kind of system specs.

Before you scoff too much, realize that they're still *targeting* late 2006 for release, that even then they may yet slip their dates, and that what they're talking about is the *average* machine.

The interface choices you'll have are full DX9 including 3D elements, a cut-down version of the new interface, and a "classic" windows 2000-style interface for the slower machines in the bunch.

While it will still run on current-class machines, they're going whole-hog on targeting the anticiptated state-of-the-art. Dual-core processors are imminent from Intel and AMD, next-gen videocards are double today's performance, RAM continues expanding in systems, and it's not uncommon *now* to pack a system with a terabyte of HDD.

It's really not that far-fetched for even a year out from now, let alone late 2006. It sounds staggering by today's standards, but think back two years to what we were running then.

Oops, I misread it and thought it said dual-CPU (as in two completely seperate CPUs in one box)... my mistake. As for the graphics card thing, I am not denying the fact that the technology will be readily available when Longhorn finnally comes out. I'm just at a loss for why the OS itself would require such a seemingly tremendous (even for late 2006...) system power... or have I just misunderstood once again... are they simply claiming that most people will have such machines but that the OS doesn't necessarily require such power? If so, forgive my stupidity, lol.

This post has been edited by TWINE006: May 10 2004, 11:33 PM

ahh if you look at the current PC speeds and the way they are increasing the "average" specs they listed aren't that unreasonable

Microsoft builds bloated OS's that require massive system upgrades, which makes Intel/AMD happy. Intel/AMD in turn build faster and faster systems, but there's no driving need for Ma & Pa to read their email even faster, so Microsoft happily supplies bloatier and bloatier operating systems to justify the hardware that they know they can sell to justify their continued existence, making themselves happy in turn.

It's a nice circular back-scratching arrangement. :)

Without MS, there's not as pressing a need for new systems. Without the new systems, there's not as pressing a desire for flashy new OS toys from MS.

I just don't believe it... I looked around a little bit, but has anyone seen an official communication from MS saying that this is the case? I realize we're probably 2 years away from the release, but I doubt that graphics cards will triple in performance by then, especially given the latest round of cards (X800, etc) finally gave a performance increase worth looking at. The 3.06 GHz chips have been around for what, a year, and they're still basically the top of the line, although the new versions have 800MHz FSBs instead of 533... I would imagine that this OS would run decently on a ~2.4GHz machine with a decent video card and 512-1gig of RAM. There was talk of a mode for slower computers, anyway, that wouldn't be the 3D interface, and would look much like W2K, doesn't that make sense? It's like when Gates said '640K should be enough for anyone.' He never actually said it. Find the original quote and prove me wrong.

TL

You're not *going* to see official statements from Microsoft, for the exact reasons you're seeing in this thread. Panic, confusion, and doubt. FUD is great when they apply it to competitor's products, but they don't like it attached to their own. Plus, any statements they make tie them to commitments they may have to break. It's just a no-win situation for them. What statements you will see are from the beta testers who are in the loop, and manufacturers who get the Longhorn presentations under NDA from microsoft - so obviously they can't stand up publicly and acknowledge these things either. But they're just not that outlandish if you look at them.

Like I said, dual-core processors are pretty much here in the sort term. Intel's abandoned their Tejas plans to move hardcore to a Pentium-M architecture which scales better. Pentium IV is dead, long live the next Pentium, and all that. Videocards available in the next month will be double the performance we have now - why *wouldn't* you think in two more years they'll be able to tack another 50% increase on top of that? Even just the "ultra" revs in six months ought to get us close.

Gigabit ethernet is cheaply available now in the add-in cards and motherboards, though actual access to that kind of bandwidth is lagging.

And yes, it should run on a mid-to-top machine of today, obviously they're not going to kill their entire upgrade market - but it's not the class of machine they're targeting by any stretch for the full experience. It would be foolish to do so.

I think I readed from somewhere that the Longhorn will not put applications to update their 'view' but rather will update the whole screen all the time. which means it might need some more power... on the other hand, instead of separated update-processes (kinda kill playing few video's at the same time) who cant check what is actually shown (at least not all the time), if the OS does that.. well, if they do it well, it will save resources. if they dont do... we end up in that 'average' system :S
and since well, I would guess that this kind of necessary specs are "said" just to get ppl to buy them.. maybe :) and well - its still alpha, which means they havent prolly even tried to optimize the system to not to use available resources so heavily. in other words, that part might just relate to alpha...