What do 'Vista Ready' Pc's Consist of?

PiKe

PiKe

PiKe

Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
25,287
Location
Lake District
For the home builder, what componants would make a Vista Ready machine?

My idea is that the graphics card should be able to handle Aero and there should be at least 1gb of RAM, but what are the big name manufacturers putting inside their machines to get the 'Vista Ready' certification?
 
they put whatever they like in and call it vista ready anyway ;) ive seen an *unnamed* company selling a vista ready sempron with half a gig of ram, it probs will run vista, just will take 2 days to turn on first :]
 
I'd personally just go with 2 gigs of ram just to be safe, and any of the latest 256 or 512 graphics cards should be able to handle it.. anyway, this is what microsoft have to say about it:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/capable.mspx

A Windows Vista Capable PC includes at least:

* A modern processor (at least 800MHz1).
* 512 MB of system memory.
* A graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable.
Click to expand...

A Windows Vista Premium Ready PC includes at least:

* 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor1.
* 1 GB of system memory.
* Support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)2, Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32 bits per pixel.
* 40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
* DVD-ROM Drive3.
* Audio output capability.
* Internet access capability.
Click to expand...
 
This is what is writen on the Microsoft website:

A Windows Vista Capable PC includes at least:

* A modern processor (at least 800MHz1).
* 512 MB of system memory.
* A graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable.

A Windows Vista Premium Ready PC includes at least:

* 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor1.
* 1 GB of system memory.
* Support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)2, Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32 bits per pixel.
* 40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
* DVD-ROM Drive3.
* Audio output capability.
* Internet access capability.


Edit: you beat me to it :D
 
PiKe said:
So from the GUI point of view, any graphics card with Pixel Shader 2.0 or greater will allow Aero to work?
Click to expand...

That is pretty much the way I read it, yes. But 15gb of free hard drive space is the minimum requirement, wow I'd never even looked at that before. Ok so XP probably takes up about 2gb for a normal install(I haven't looked at my Windows folder in a long time) but to need 7x as much for the initial install is insane.
 
I think jumping on vista prior to the release of at least the first full service pack will be folly.

imho, I don't see how or why the release of Vista will be any different from the retail releases of previous M$ operating systems. ie:broken.

I personally will not buy the first release. I need to actually use my machine, I have more interesting things to do than beta test retail software. I may consider the upgrade after the release of Vista SP1.

From what I have read of the reviews of RC1 of Vista, it leaves me unimpressed. There are more bells and whistles and petty prettiness, a little more functionality which fits the m$ MO of lets lock out third parties by bundling inferior tools and utilities into the OS. Then there is another layer of obscurity which separates the user from the details of what the OS is actually doing. Are m$ going to apply the same mickey mouse, disney like, patronising default GUI to vista I wonder?

m$ release beta quality software wrt to OSes, they have done since Windows 3.0 I see vista being no different.

To be honest setting up Vista on VMware then attacking/exploiting it will be much more fun than actually trying to use it as an operating system.
 
Does anyone else not find it bizarre that MS are specifying a fairly high-end (relative to the general market) videocard for Vista ready/optimum PCs, yet supposedly one of the main benefits of Vista will be the DX10 API, which will of course require an upgrade to yet another video card?

To echo the above, I also have concerns about the huge resources that the OS seems to consume, even without the bells and whilstles enabled.
 
I don't think it's worthwhile getting vista unless you're getting a DX10 card, and then there are many people who will wait (me included).

I'm seeing a lot info on the net that gaming performance is slower under vista compared to XP, as the 3D effects on the desktop is leaving less horsepower for the game.
I don't know how true that is and if it will be improved for release, but I'll wait for the early adopters and review sites to publish their findings before I splash out up to £350 on an os.
 
The $6m Dan said:
I'm seeing a lot info on the net that gaming performance is slower under vista compared to XP, as the 3D effects on the desktop is leaving less horsepower for the game.
Click to expand...
That's a load of crap, gaming performance is down because drivers are immature.
 
semi-pro waster said:
That is pretty much the way I read it, yes. But 15gb of free hard drive space is the minimum requirement, wow I'd never even looked at that before. Ok so XP probably takes up about 2gb for a normal install(I haven't looked at my Windows folder in a long time) but to need 7x as much for the initial install is insane.
Click to expand...
It needs a large space to literally just do the install. It doesn't finish up using that amount. The installer's completely different now, it's all image based. It copies the install image to the HDD and expands it, so a lot of space is used during the process. A fair bit is recovered at the end. I think the unused contents of the disc are copied too (mostly being made up of a collosal amount of drivers!).

My RC1 installation with little else installed is sitting at just under 5Gb - so not quite such a huge increase.
 
csmager said:
It needs a large space to literally just do the install. It doesn't finish up using that amount. The installer's completely different now, it's all image based. It copies the install image to the HDD and expands it, so a lot of space is used during the process. A fair bit is recovered at the end. I think the unused contents of the disc are copied too (mostly being made up of a collosal amount of drivers!).

My RC1 installation with little else installed is sitting at just under 5Gb - so not quite such a huge increase.
Click to expand...

Cheers for the info, it does sound like a pretty inefficient way of doing things though. I've just checked my Windows folder now and it sits at somewhere under 3gb so a bit up from my estimate but that is an install that has been left for over 2 years now with very little in the way of uninstalls or any sort of maintenance at all.

I know hard drive sizes are bigger than ever but I'm still not particularly happy with the idea of devoting 5gb just to have the thing installed although I've yet to use Vista so maybe that would change my mind :)
 
It's a far better overall result doing it this way - from inserting the disc to sitting at the desktop using Vista is now under 25mins. Far, far quicker than XP.

If, as I suggest, most of the space is taken up by unecessary drivers then I'm sure there'll be a new nLite along to rip out the clutter if you fancy some space back. When XP was released, most average PCs still had 10-20Gb HDDs, nowadays it's more like 100-200Gb - space is so cheap, it's not really an issue.
 
PiKe said:
That's a load of crap, gaming performance is down because drivers are immature.
Click to expand...

Like I say we'll have to wait and see.
If it is just immature drivers then, how long before they mature?

I'll still wait and see I think. Wait until a GFX card comes to a price that I like and wait until the performance is at a level that doesn't make XP look like a better choice.

Edit - Wasn't Windows 2000 the better choice for gamers until service pack 1 came out for XP???
 
Because ATI and Nvidia don't want to spend the time on a platform that isn't mainstream yet.

The GPU does render the UI, but it won't be rendering it if it's not on the screen will it.
 
BillytheImpaler said:
...I'm fairly certain that most anything that would need patching in Pro would also need patched in Home and Media Center.
Click to expand...
Seeing as they are essentially the same core with features stripped.

Support will continue for years, look how long it took till they dropped support for 98.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom