PDA

View Full Version : MS to recommend 4-6 GHz cpu for Longhorn


Zaty
May 5, 2004, 03:19 AM
Quote: "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."

Now we finally know why Longhorn has been delayed several times, MS has still to wait for suitable hardware to be built :D

The whole article can be found here:

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1581842,00.asp

aswitcher
May 5, 2004, 03:29 AM
Quote: "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."

Now we finally know why Longhorn has been delayed several times, MS has still to wait for suitable hardware to be built :D

The whole article can be found here:

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1581842,00.asp

It maybe 2 years away but what this says to me is that if you want to use the superamazingbillsystem then dont bother buying anything anytime soon unless you can afford the absolutely top gear...because that will be only just able to run this...

virividox
May 5, 2004, 05:06 AM
in the meantime im sticking with my mac, im not holding my breath for longhorn at all

JFreak
May 5, 2004, 05:42 AM
i guess that longorn will not be able to match panther in eye-candy, but something is very wrong here: panther runs fine on G3@350MHz but longhorn is said to require a dual 5GHz? what on earth are they doing that requires 30x the power panther needs?

Jo-Kun
May 5, 2004, 06:23 AM
I think they are setting the pace for the highend needs, but as always you will allso be able to run it on a slower computer, as for panther allso, it did run on my old B&WG3 300 & PBG4 400 but not as nice as it does on my G5, especially on the B&W even with 768 Mb ram it was acting slow, Photoshop in particular ran a little faster on the G4 with 1GB ram, but on both systems I got back to boting in OS9 for heavy Photoshop tasks.

they allways can run higher systems, but thy run the best on the OS wich was build for it...

same happened with my old P2 it ran WinY2K as in a dream, when I changed to XP, it turned into a nightmare, it worked but was slow as hell...

just check if you really need the new OS don't buy to soon because then you will thnik: hmm my comp is running slow, lets get a new one, instead of just keep it running on what it nees for the tasks you need, and off course when you get in trouble maybe just get a better system all together...

I got my G5 because things got verry slow... scans wich are 750MB sized take a hll of a time to process on my old ones, and now its nice and fast... and maybe in 4 years I'll get a new computer when this is upgraded to the max and I find the need for a faster system...

NusuniAdmin
May 5, 2004, 06:23 AM
i am suprised windows users won't relize m$ makes them buy a new computer when a new os gets released. XP did not require a super computer thing but this longhorn thing is ridiculous, I wonder how many windows users will look over on apple.com and see that new newest os x supports 6 year old computers, relize that apple likes to keep support for old computers (or at least tries to), and then buy a mac? :p

edesignuk
May 5, 2004, 06:32 AM
It's worth noting that the P4 already runs at 3.4GHz (I think, if not 3.2GHz), to say that down the line a few years (2006-2008) a 4GHz CPU will be required is not all that unreasonable IMO.

takao
May 5, 2004, 06:46 AM
i am suprised windows users won't relize m$ makes them buy a new computer when a new os gets released. XP did not require a super computer thing but this longhorn thing is ridiculous, I wonder how many windows users will look over on apple.com and see that new newest os x supports 6 year old computers, relize that apple likes to keep support for old computers (or at least tries to), and then buy a mac? :p

it was always the same...
sure if you look _now_ at the hardware needed for software of 2 years in the future it is always "too much"

if you want to have cutting edge you always have to pay premium...

i used win98 on a 486dx-2 and i hadn't much problems with writing stuff in word ;) or playing dos games.. sure surfing on it was a pain sometimes but it worked...
not microsoft forced me to buy new computers...internet/games/cd burners

just because someone uses microsoft windows doesn't mean he runs in the next store and get a copy of windows xyz or what ever...i most of the time only switch OS when i buy a new computer.... and for printer yeah i still use a Laserjet 4...ugly,big,old and works without flaws... but how to connect it with a future mac ? per USB ? ;)

kylos
May 5, 2004, 07:01 AM
Well, also, the search functionality they're trying to create is quite complex. It wouldn't surprise me if they'll be creating massive indices and need all the power they can get to even generate those indices.

thatwendigo
May 5, 2004, 07:25 AM
There's already a serious discussion of this in the MacByte's Forum (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=829356). Moderators, I'd recommend one or the other be moved and closed.

Since I posted in the other one, and we have some heavier information floating around, I think it should be obvious which one I favor. :D

JFreak
May 5, 2004, 07:40 AM
and for printer yeah i still use a Laserjet 4...ugly,big,old and works without flaws... but how to connect it with a future mac ? per USB ? ;)

you probably buy a hp print server and connect via ethernet ;)

1macker1
May 5, 2004, 08:28 AM
The way Intel is pumping out chips, this seems to be reasonable. I think they are trying to move forward.

DavidLeblond
May 5, 2004, 08:42 AM
It takes a lot more power to program something than it does to run it (they have to run it unoptimized and in debug mode) and I highly doubt they are using machines that are that fast so I highly doubt those figures are correct.

edesignuk
May 5, 2004, 08:42 AM
There's already a serious discussion of this in the MacByte's Forum (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=829356). Moderators, I'd recommend one or the other be moved and closed.

Since I posted in the other one, and we have some heavier information floating around, I think it should be obvious which one I favor. :D
If a mod could join the two rather than locking either down (as they both have quite a few posts now) that'd be even better :)

edesignuk
May 5, 2004, 08:45 AM
It takes a lot more power to program something than it does to run it (they have to run it unoptimized and in debug mode) and I highly doubt they are using machines that are that fast so I highly doubt those figures are correct.
heh, they'll be on nice dual 3.06Ghz Xeons workstations with U320 SCSI disks, couple of gigs of RAM, and a pro video card (along the lines of HP XW6000/8000 systems). The kind of box home users would never see.

Juventuz
May 5, 2004, 09:11 AM
It maybe 2 years away but what this says to me is that if you want to use the superamazingbillsystem then dont bother buying anything anytime soon unless you can afford the absolutely top gear...because that will be only just able to run this...

For some reason, the absolutely top gear would still be cheaper than a Mac.

thatwendigo
May 5, 2004, 09:17 AM
The way Intel is pumping out chips, this seems to be reasonable. I think they are trying to move forward.

Like the short green guy said:
Do or do not, there is no try. :D

Intel's roadmap is EXTREMELY optimistic, and they've already slipped whole years on some of their targets. People who like to bash Motorola take note...

heh, they'll be on nice dual 3.06Ghz Xeons workstations with U320 SCSI disks, couple of gigs of RAM, and a pro video card (along the lines of HP XW6000/8000 systems). The kind of box home users would never see.

Actually, you're not far off. I'm buddies with a programmer in Redmond, and while in Seattle I got to visit his office. I won't say anything about him so that he doesn't get in trouble (in case I shouldn't have been allowed to see the hardware or something silly like that), but I did see what was in some of the offices.

We're talking serious, high-grade boxes. Multiples. Supposedly it's to test compatibility on different hardware (i.e. P4, Xeon, Athlon, etc.). The one that blew my mind was a dual Xeon server just sitting on the floor, beside about eight other computers.

He's not even all that high up, but they've got the cash to just throw hardware at him. Weird stuff. I did like the breakroom, though. Wall-to-wall drink coolers with just about anything you could want for free, and about eight or nine coffee machines.

thatwendigo
May 5, 2004, 09:18 AM
For some reason, the absolutely top gear would still be cheaper than a Mac.

It isn't now. Why would it be then?

g30ffr3y
May 5, 2004, 09:18 AM
well i guess all those 499.99 or less bargain basement windoze boxes that people use to say that macs are too expensive are going to be pretty useless huh?

c'mon... dual 5's... and a terabyte of storage... how poorly codeds is M$'s next bloated ass POS operating system going to be...

no pity for the massess...

Sun Baked
May 5, 2004, 09:26 AM
c'mon... dual 5's... and a terabyte of storage... how poorly codeds is M$'s next bloated ass POS operating system going to be... Not poorly coded, MS needs somewhere to load their user diagnostics and self-repair stuff (aka, SpyWare).

Along with the 1,000 different animated (and HD capable) versions of Clippy.

Juventuz
May 5, 2004, 09:37 AM
It isn't now. Why would it be then?

Power Mac G5
Dual 2GHz PowerPC G5
1GB DDR400 SDRAM (PC3200) - 2x512
250GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
128 MB DDR ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
56k V.92 internal modem
SuperDrive
NO monitor
NO Airport Extreme
$3,574.00


Dimension XPS
Pentium 4 Processor 3.4GHz w/800MHz FSB
1GB Dual Channel DDR SDRAM at 400MHz
250GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
256MB DDR ATI RADEON 9800 XT
Integrated Intel PRO 1000 Ethernet
16x DVD-ROM Drive 48x CD-RW Drive
17" CRT Monitor
TrueMobile 1300 WLAN (802.11b/g) USB 2.0 DT Adapter
2,388


That's a top of the line G5 vs. a top of the line P4. The P4 is considerably cheaper and you get more.

Mr. Anderson
May 5, 2004, 09:37 AM
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=829356