Longhorn Recommended Requirements

By SNGX1275 on May 4, 2004, 1:47 PM
Doesn't look like any of us right now will make the 'recommend' specs for Longhorn. But then again we might have double the specs by the time its released.

[COLOR=#1951B9]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.[/COLOR]

Read more here.




User Comments: 30

Got something to say? Post a comment
Phantasm66 said:
But you see, there is sense in this. Believe me, my young padawan learners....This has all happened before with Windows 95, and even to a certain degree Windows 2000. Machines need to get more powerful.Is anyone going to dispute that?So Windows 2005 or whatever its called needs 1 TB of disk space and 2 GB RAM - but the thing is that, if you look at it in perspective, a lot of us already have machines like that.I've got 3GHz Pentium IV1.5 GB RAMHalf TB Hard disk spaceIts not unthinkable, is it?Really?It probably means that computers are about to become a lot more fun again for a little while. Good stuff.
Masque said:
{Masque hunts for the overclocking thread}:D
Julio said:
Whoever it was that moved this post to the frontpage, well done ;)
Phantasm66 said:
It was me, big bad Julio!Everyone needs to read this.
BrownPaper said:
i will be getting another computer anyways. hopefully computers in a few years will cost less than it does now.
Per Hansson said:
Haha, hillarious, Dell still sells computers with 128mb ram2GB of ram required? No way, this is either bull or else MS is gonna do a boo booAnd what is that with a "dual core CPU required" so if I have a single core 6ghz that wont do it? Pure bull....
Phantasm66 said:
Hey maybe TechSpot could give away a computer that can actually run Longhorn as a prize for guessing what the Windows [i]whatever[/i] name it will be called or what day it will hit the stores...[quote][i]Originally posted by Per Hansson [/i]Haha, hillarious, Dell still sells computers with 128mb ram2GB of ram required? No way, this is either bull or else MS is gonna do a boo booAnd what is that with a "dual core CPU required" so if I have a single core 6ghz that wont do it? Pure bull.... [/quote] No dude, it will run. Have faith.it will run like a 486 ran Windows 95. Have a nice life.;)Good luck running Doom III and Half Life bloody 3 or whatever it is coming out next as well. You'll need dual core for the real fun, believe me. Probably even quad core!You won't get chips rated at 6 GHz that are single core, and if you do they will die like dead little 486 SX...
Per Hansson said:
Haha, if TS where to give away a system that could run Longhorn we would have to close the site to afford it! :PAnd you make a very valid point there P66; add like 6ghz more and 2tb more ram and you just might be able to get Doom3 to run at 28fps :P
Phantasm66 said:
[quote][i]Originally posted by Phantasm66 [/i]Hey maybe TechSpot could give away a computer that can actually run Longhorn as a prize for guessing what the Windows [i]whatever[/i] name it will be called or what day it will hit the stores...[/quote] Aren't I a *******? Come on, how inspired will the name be?Windows XP 2005 ?Windows XL ?But the date of release is a pretty interesting one. That could go on for ages.People queued up outside stores overnight for Windows 95, you know.
Nodsu said:
Looking at these specs my guess would be that Longhorn is written in VB.NET.. A TB hard drive? The executables have to be VB scripts to fill that space!
SmAsHeR said:
Dell who? Have you seen the screen shots? no more crayon colored xp theme. i am excited!
Phantasm66 said:
[img]http://www.winsupersite.com/images/showcase/longhorn_405
_034.jpg[/img]Not quite sure if the clock is big enough, though...More [url=http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/longhorn_4051_01.a
p]here[/url].
Spike said:
I hope this thing is going to have some substantial new funcionality under it's bonnet. I say this because looking at it from the interface point of view, it's not all that much different from XP from what I've just seen. Just a little more stylised. What I mean is comparitive to the difference in the general layout between Win95 and Win98.Maybe I've missed something, I dunno. Personally though, unless I have to buy it to keep up, if the only thing I find useful is a revised XP interface, then I'm happy to stick with XP for as long as possible.Remind me to read a review or two when M$ finally decide when this thing is going to roll out, and can tell me exactly what will be in it.I'm feeling quite cynical today. does it show? :D
Phantasm66 said:
That's just a basic view, from some early thing.The real baby has a new GUI technology....[img]http://www.winsupersite.com/images/review
/pdc2003_hillel_aero_14.jpg[/img][img]http://www.winsupers
te.com/images/reviews/pdc2003_hillel_aero_11.jpg[/img]More [url=http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/pdc2003_hillel.asp]
ere[/url].
Phantasm66 said:
Even more [url=http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/longhorn_aero.asp]
ere[/url].
erickdj said:
I would like to see something that makes a difference like going from command-line DOS to GUI windows 9x. We've had the same basic layout with minor changes for almost 10 years now. We need a change, a major one.
Phantasm66 said:
Well if you believe Microsoft marketting hype then that's what you will be getting.
Spike said:
Thankyou very much. I stand corrected, at least in part.Fact remains though, as we all know all too well, is that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Untill M$ can be consistant in what they are saying about it, there's no guarantee for us poor end users as to what we can expect.Even then Microsoft could change the specs at the last minute.Still, I'm intesested again now. Thankyou.
SmAsHeR said:
those screen shots look like xp but i have seen several that look completely different. the icons are much crisper to.
me(who else?) said:
I find that screenshots are pretty useless... if we judged OSes by looks, then Windows would always be chosen over Linux. I wonder what kind of new features they'll be putting in? Maybe there's a new task which runs in the background and eats your RAM (lol). It must have something amazing if it uses 4+ times as much RAM as Windows XP. Maybe it materializes objects in real life or something, otherwise I'm sticking to XP...:dead:
Steg said:
Er? *waves* Ive tried the Longhorn alpha releases on my machine - and my machine is not a dual-core 6ghz......but seriously it run fine on my machine - took forever to load and was usless for gaming (driver problems etc) but other than that it was fine.....6ghz :P unless they have introduced a whole load of new resource hogging 'features' then it will run fine on todays systems....just my $0.02Steg
Phantasm66 said:
yes steg but what you have is probably a very early build, much closer to Windows XP.The finished thing will be radically different in many ways.
SNGX1275 said:
There was even a build of longhorn that was identical? or almost identical to an early version of Server 2003. They even used the same cd key.
Steg said:
[quote]yes steg but what you have is probably a very early build, much closer to Windows XP.The finished thing will be radically different in many ways.[/quote]Oh ok sorry :o - any clues what these differences are going to be? They must be pretty radical to require such moster specs....Steg
Mictlantecuhtli said:
[url=http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/longhorn.asp]Longhorn FAQ[/url]Iterative interface (moving from "desktop" concept to "experience" or something like that)3D special effects in that thing formerly known as desktopPalladiumWinFSAntivirus APIamong other things, so I see a lot of things that can be done to slow down any machine.
me(who else?) said:
Don't talk about Palladium...I still haven't gotten used to someone else using my computer...;) :dead:
Spike said:
I thought palladium was another word for absolute chaos.No, that's pandemonium..... oh no, wait. I might have been right. lolI am not looking forward to palladium at all. :(
Nodsu said:
Funny that this Palladium thing came up..[url]http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15737[/url][url
http://www.theregister.com/2004/05/06/microsoft_managed_co
e_rethink/[/url]It also mentions that the would-be Palladium APIs were/would have been very slow to use. The insane requirements for Longhorn are not so uthopical if you think that all storage will be moved towards databaseish approach, you will have strong security wrappers around every single piece of code and Clippy will be rendered as a 20000 dpi full 3D object.
me(who else?) said:
Why waste all that processing power to make some dumb paperclip look realistic? If I worked for Microsoft, I would have added a KillPaperClip(Violence as Boolean)* function ;) * Yes, I program in Visual Basic and diss M$ (lol:D )
videobruce said:
And I bet it will only work with Wintell processors! Can't wait to be the lADT on the planet to get it!Think I will go back to Win '95!
Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.