Eeek! Longhorn Specs!

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by cslewis, Aug 23, 2004.

  1. cslewis macrumors 6502a

    cslewis

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    40º27.8''N, 75º42.8''W
    #1
    OS X sales figures shoot through the roof... :D
    Honestly, do you expect HD's to increase tenfold from about 100 GB to 1 TB in two years? AND THAT'S JUST TO HOLD THE OS!!!!!!
     
  2. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #2
    I think it's appropriate...A requirement of non-existent systems to run non-existent system software.

    But do you have a link that shows where MS says this?
     
  3. quackattack macrumors 6502a

    quackattack

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Location:
    Boise, ID
    #4
    I love it, lets make software assuming dramatic increases in hardware, that way the software may require something that might exist......
     
  4. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #5
  5. cslewis thread starter macrumors 6502a

    cslewis

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    40º27.8''N, 75º42.8''W
  6. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #7
    ah, ok, I misinterpreted. Anyway, I agree, MS deserves a hefty eye roll for this latest garbage...Not that it matters; Longhorn isn't actually ever going to be released. It's gonna be like Copland, eventually scrapped, with bits and pieces of it distributed across future releases of Windows. Well, I shouldn't say that. It'll just be released for twice the price it was supposed to cost with half the features that it was supposed to have and as unstable as '98.
     
  7. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #8
    I guess it hasn't happened as much with more recent versions of their OSes, but I remember that when Win95 first came out, it ran terribly on the ridiculously expensive top-end machines that made up the first wave of Win95 OEM'd computers. I think it was first gen Pentium 55-60 MHz at that time? :cool: IIRC it took about six months before the hardware really caught up. But then again there weren't specs like this in the sand for Win95....
     
  8. DavidLeblond macrumors 68020

    DavidLeblond

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    #9
    I highly highly HIGHLY doubt that all these specs floating around are the actual specs. Longhorn is based on XP, and unless MS decides to use the Doom 3 engine as their new "Glass" interface I think the requirements will end up being pretty reasonable.

    I mean, come on... a terabyte of space? Are the new animated icons mini-DVD movies? Not possible.
     
  9. rendezvouscp macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    Long Beach, California
    #10
    Remember, they think that the typical PC will look like that when Longhorn is released, not require it. I actually think that what the developers said is true–we should be seeing systems like that close to Longhorn's release. I don't know if typical is quite the word though.
    –Chase
     
  10. munkle macrumors 68030

    munkle

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Location:
    On a jet plane
    #11
    The specs provided are just rough guesses, so shouldn't be taken too seriously...much like the vapourware that is Longhorn! :D

    Longhorn sounded interesting but when it's finally released I bet it's going to be just a shell of what was originally promised...I wonder what we'll be using by then! :p
     
  11. BornAgainMac macrumors 603

    BornAgainMac

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Location:
    Florida Resident
    #12
    These specs are false. I think they just provided specs of a computer that would be mainstream by the time it comes out. Longhorn will probably be just XP with some new makeup and underwear. They probably tried to rewrite it from scratch but it was just too difficult.
     
  12. munkle macrumors 68030

    munkle

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Location:
    On a jet plane
    #13
    What do you mean based on XP? Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought Longhorn was meant to be the next generation of Microsoft OS's, much like the jump to OSX on the Mac.
     
  13. DavidLeblond macrumors 68020

    DavidLeblond

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    #14
    The current build of Longhorn sure isn't much of a jump. From what I've seen of it, its Windows XP with some ugly windowdressing.

    Its definately not going to be as much of a jump as Classic to OSX.
     
  14. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #15
    If that's the case, then I think it says more about the timeline of the release than the robustness of the features. Honestly, even to reach 4 GHz seems like it's going to take a while--All the chip manufacturers have hit a wall. The other features seem more reasonable, but nonetheless quite ridiculous.
     
  15. Chaszmyr macrumors 601

    Chaszmyr

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    #16
    These aren't requirements, these are the average systems, and Longhorn will be used for years. Therefore, this isn't necessarily specs anyone will have in 2 years, but perhaps in 4 or 5
     
  16. NusuniAdmin macrumors 6502a

    NusuniAdmin

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    #17
    anything that is not on the actual corperate site i dont beleive. Period.
     
  17. King Cobra macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    #18
    C'mon, guys, this is old news...like, 3-4 months old. You really think that Microsoft would be quick enough to update those longhorn specs? :D
     
  18. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #19
    Note that the article states Microsoft recommends this, that, or the other. Therefore, if we accept the accuracy of the article, these specifications indeed do appear to be requirements, or at least, recommendations/suggestions.

    However, the veracity of the article itself is, as always, debatable.
     
  19. HeWhoSpitsFire macrumors member

    HeWhoSpitsFire

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Location:
    Oregon
    #20
    I personally have seen the betas of Longhorn and can say those specs are not "real world" requirements. Simply a guess at the systems available in 4 years or so.

    And as for a jump, I agree, it's just a really slow xp with a bad window environment. At least that's what the early betas look like. But we all know how the supposed "GM" micro products work, so you can't expect much from these betas
     
  20. GulGnu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
    #21
    The above is nearly entirely inaccurate information. It's a twisted version of a quote in which a Microserf speculates regarding what specs the "average" PC running Longhorn is likely to have in a few years. Nothing to see here but the rumor-mongering power of the Internet - just move along ;)
     
  21. GulGnu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
    #22
    Beta? I didn't think Longhorn was out of Alpha, and delayed as well?
     
  22. musicpyrite macrumors 68000

    musicpyrite

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Cape Cod
    #23
    How would you install 1TB of data?
    1,429 CDs?
    107 DVDs?

    Not to mention how long it would take to install all that. I'm guess you'd have to pull an all nighter for at least a week to install it.


    And I really don't think longhorn will be that much different from XP. Some new icons, more eyecandy, more bloat. I mean comon, there's already skins avaliable for XP to make XP look like longhorn.
     
  23. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #24
    You mean that Longhorn is THAT far out? I don't expect those specs till at least 2008 at the earliest.
     
  24. cslewis thread starter macrumors 6502a

    cslewis

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    40º27.8''N, 75º42.8''W
    #25
    Then why do you use MacRumors? :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page