Beefy Computers Required for Longhorn?

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1581842,00.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1581842,00.asp</a><br /><br /></div>"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. That's according to developer sources close to the company. Microsoft officials would not comment on the Longhorn reference implementation."<br /><br />A lot of sites are picking this "news" up, but it seems a bit much to me - those specs seem to high-end. Sure, a lot will change in two years, but 2 GB of RAM will not be dirt cheap, and neither will 6 Ghz CPUs. The above specs seem hyped up to the point where I don't believe Longhorn will require this much power. Granted, part of me is excited by an OS that can actually USE that much RAM, but I think these requirements are exaggerated. Let's talk in two years and see if I'm eating my words... ;-)

[Ed Hansberry]

That's insane. Virtually eliminates the possibility of upgrades. :-(

[Gary Sheynkman]

No way. 1st and foremost people will not start buying new PC once longhorn comes out just to run it. Second of all they will have to delay it if they want the AVERAGE use to have 4-6 GHz....that means that the high-end user will have up to 7??? Will we have Pentium 6 that runs 64bits?? Longhorn was supposed to come out late 05....now I think 07 is more like it :roll:

[OSUKid7]

This doesn't sound too far out. Two years is a LONG time in computers. I can see these specs being available, but maybe not common.

[bcre8v2]

I have installed the preview build 4074 from WinHEC on a 1.0 GHz system with 512 MB RAM and it is very fast. I haven't installed any apps on top of the OS, yet.
As we all know.... software dictates your hardware needs.

[Mojo Jojo]

That seems way off base to me. Sure a lot of stuff happens in computers but that? I sense either a spoof, Longhorn isn't coming out in 2 years but 4, or that thing also runs an A.I. to manage all my house needs and ties into the fridge, home heating, and a bunch of other stuffs.

Here are the specs for XP Professional (taken from MS site directly)...

-PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended

-128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)

-1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*

-Super VGA (800 × 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor
CD-ROM or DVD drive

-Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
...

That type of machine was 'Average' say 3-4 years ago during the p2-p3 time frame but is still capable of runinng a current OS.

So even if you fudge the numbers here or there this OS is going to increase in requirements by 3.7 ghz (times 2), nearly 20 times the amount of ram, so on and so forth? I better be able to send this thing to work in my place or they need to optimise their code. :D

[Kevin & Beth Remhof]

I have installed the preview build 4074 from WinHEC on a 1.0 GHz system with 512 MB RAM and it is very fast. I haven't installed any apps on top of the OS, yet.
As we all know.... software dictates your hardware needs.

I agree that software does dictate hardware needs. But these new requirements, if true, are pretty hefty for just the OS. This could finally give Linux the edge on desktops.

[Jason Dunn]

This doesn't sound too far out. Two years is a LONG time in computers. I can see these specs being available, but maybe not common.

Two years from now, yes, those will be the high-end CPU specs - but certainly not "average". The average desktop computer selling from Dell today has a 40 to 60 GB hard drive even though 400 GB drives are available, so suggesting that "average" storage will be up to one TB is silly.

It's also strange to me that they would specify gigabit ethernet - why would Longhorn require gigabit ethernet? It's very slow to roll out - still lots of new chipsets that don't support it, and I doubt you'll find many people buying gigabit routers.

This has got to be a hoax, or a gross mis-representation of what was really said by the Microsoft person.

It's worth noting though that Longhorn WILL require most hardware than any other OS, especially if they include the DirectX-based Avalon interface. You'll need a decent 3D card to get smooth GUI performance (think Media Center Edition interface), and if they integrate Sequel Server like they say they're going to, you'll need a decent amount of RAM and CPU power. But 2 GB? No way - that would cost a fortune.

[Jason Dunn]

This could finally give Linux the edge on desktops.

Not unless the Linux geeks figure out that Joe User doesn't want to know how to recompile his kernel. :roll:

[Suhit Gupta]

I seriously don't mean to brag here, but both my work (over a year old) as well as my home machines (over two years old) are almost capable of running Longhorn now. I have 1/4TB HDD and I do have 1GB RAM and memory prices are cheap (though unfortunately not so now). One of my machines is a 3GHz while the other is a dual 2GHz. Now, Longhorn isn't due until two years from now but you have to also keep in mind that it is going to have to last for 3-4 years after that because that is when the next OS is due. I don't know but I think the specs they expect are fairly reasonable. And if some users choose to use Linux then more power to them.

Suhit