Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
You think OS X is a resource hog?
- Thread starter Alkard
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple can do all of that with a much lower hardware requirement.
I wonder if we'll see Vista on laptops in the first year of release?
I wonder if we'll see Vista on laptops in the first year of release?
Whats the word on OSX and HDPC or whatever that's called? Is Apple getting mixed up in that or what?
I wonder if Microsoft has worked with some hardware companies to design their new OS. It pretty much looks like when you will be upgrading to new OS you will have to upgrade to new hardware - well, buy new computer.
That will probably mean longer transition time.
It is kind of a funny, that Microsoft is gone require their customers to buy new hardware to use their new/better OS. But they won't design new OS from scratch that not only will be more secure and stable, will also be able to run on current machines. By which forcing their consumers to only buy new software, which would be less expensive way to upgrade.
That will probably mean longer transition time.
It is kind of a funny, that Microsoft is gone require their customers to buy new hardware to use their new/better OS. But they won't design new OS from scratch that not only will be more secure and stable, will also be able to run on current machines. By which forcing their consumers to only buy new software, which would be less expensive way to upgrade.
whats going to happen to dell and their crappy low end computers, none of them will run vista, at least the ones they got out now...
Heh, yeah, if you think OS X is a resource hog, then get ready to consider Vista to be an 8-ton uberpig.
I really think it's amazing that OS X can do what it can, even on limited hardware (233mhz G3 iMac anyone?)
I really think it's amazing that OS X can do what it can, even on limited hardware (233mhz G3 iMac anyone?)
I don't see anything odd there.
Graphics: 256MB? Alright. If you want the snazzy effects. If you don't have it, you won't see it. Kinda like OS X, right?
CPU: Doesn't say that it requires multiple cores or CPUs. Just that it'll take greater advantage of it. Kinda like OS X, right?
RAM: 2GB for 64-bit. 1GB for 32-bit. It will run on 512MB RAM, but will perform better with 1GB or, even better with 2GB. Kinda like OS X, right?
HDD: It will take advantages of SATA2 features. So what? Doesn't mean it won't work with older SATA1 drives. Just that it'll take more advantage of the new features, unlike XP today.
Bus: See graphics. The marked is already moving toward PCIe, so meh.
Display: As mentioned in the article. This isn't really Microsoft's fault. Apple will have to do the same in the future. You can thank the big DRM happy media monopolies for this.
If anything, this just make it seem like MS is moving in Apple's footsteps, taking more advantage of the technology available.
We'll see, when the release date comes closer, what the requirements will really be like.
Graphics: 256MB? Alright. If you want the snazzy effects. If you don't have it, you won't see it. Kinda like OS X, right?
CPU: Doesn't say that it requires multiple cores or CPUs. Just that it'll take greater advantage of it. Kinda like OS X, right?
RAM: 2GB for 64-bit. 1GB for 32-bit. It will run on 512MB RAM, but will perform better with 1GB or, even better with 2GB. Kinda like OS X, right?
HDD: It will take advantages of SATA2 features. So what? Doesn't mean it won't work with older SATA1 drives. Just that it'll take more advantage of the new features, unlike XP today.
Bus: See graphics. The marked is already moving toward PCIe, so meh.
Display: As mentioned in the article. This isn't really Microsoft's fault. Apple will have to do the same in the future. You can thank the big DRM happy media monopolies for this.
If anything, this just make it seem like MS is moving in Apple's footsteps, taking more advantage of the technology available.
We'll see, when the release date comes closer, what the requirements will really be like.
The HDCP thing sounds interesting - they want to encrypt the video signal on the way from the computer to the monitor. That's a rather large amount of data to encrypt/decrypt on the fly isn't it?
Graphics: OS X only asks for a DX-9 equivalent GPU (using 32 MB of memory on an iBook) for Core Image, and 16 MB of video card memory (I forget the exact GPU spec) for Quartz Extreme. To ask for 256 MB for a vector-based GUI is simply RIDICULOUS given how OS X has done with fewer computing resources.dubbz said:
CPU: OS X runs decently on a 233 MHz G3. Try running Win XP on a 233 MHz PII. Now imagine Vista on that PII hardware.
RAM, HDD, Bus, Display. Apple makes good use of older technologies, while taking advantage of new ones. Apple leaves older model computers behind because they don't have the hardware beefiness (Open-GL accessible commands for Core Image on a Radeon 9200, for example). and don't want to raise people's expectations beyond a level that is reasonable.
Sometimes it is because they feel like extracting more money and encouraging users to move on (they have to do some of this because they are a business and need profit), but it doesn't usually make an Apple user feel like an MS user would. Mac users in fact like to brag about the longevity of their hardware over the PC/Windows equivalent.
I always get this feeling that Microsoft would like the user to believe that their 500 MHz Celeron with shared-memory built-in graphics should be able to run Vista without a hiccup (to justify Windows users' snobbiness towards alternative OS users), and then to hand over the money for a new "Vista-ready" PC without giving it a second thought. Which, in my eyes, is the worst kind of cheating for any company.
... not trying to piss off anyone here, just telling it like I see it (which may be not completely right, but is informative in its own way)
dubbz said:
But I can see all the snazzy effects using an Nvidia 5200Go with 32MB of vRAM, 1.25GB of RAM (I ran with 512MB for over a year using this Mac), a 1GHz G4 processor (and its still not slow), and a slow PowerBook HD. Apple may have to do the same thing in the future, but lets face it, Apple has done more with less --- more effects and features with less hardware requirement.
When QE came out in 2001, 16MB vram was a lot to ask for (only the newest macs and some older powermacs had it), and core image needs cards with 64MB or even 128 MB vram (according to http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/coreimage/ The iBook does not support core image)After G said:
If by running on a computer where moving the cursor lags and you have to quit the finder to play starcraft is decent, i wonder just what merits that. I'm guessing XP would run just as well. yes, OSX runs on a 233, but you wouldn't want to use it on a day to day basis. The real requirement for OSX to run "Decent" IMO is a mac with built in firewire.After G said:
Basically, for 2007 these features are not unheard of.
I've read on this forum (and others) that the Radeon 9550 (which new iBooks use) does support Core Image.Jimong5 said:
http://ibook.macrumors.com/
ibook page said:
Well, I've used a 233 MHz iMac with OS X and found it okay. My expectations were lowered accordingly (it was upgraded to its neck in new parts though). I guess this is a matter of personal opinion. But as long as people hold this opinion, it is valid in some way. Could you run Starcraft on a 233 MHz PII?Jimong5 said:
I guess a better example would be a stock Cube. ~450 MHz. I don't think most people in the PC world would find an x86 at 450 MHz useful for anything except the most basic of tasks (i.e. "Internet"). Yet I find Mac users doing video-editing, Photoshop, and audio work with their "slow" Macs.
Your point as I understand it is valid; we will see 256 MB cards as default on Vista machines in 2007. I would expect it. In fact, if they didn't show up, I'd be pissed off.
I think my point is also valid; Windows Vista should not need that 256 MB (according to the article) to do "vector windowing", when Mac OS does it in 16 MB, and does it even better in 32 MB or more. However, I think Vista will have requirements more in line with Mac OS, like a previous poster said.
most people find it abysmal for anything but the most basic tasks. the same can be said for 2000 or xp on a p2 233: lowered expectations. as far as starcraft goes, i've played it on a 486 100mhz (yes, 486) and it was actually playable. but then, i don't really play starcraft.After G said:
After G said:
most people don't because the hardware is less expensive. why do things with slower hardware when the newer hardware will do the job much faster and still cost 1/4th of initial the price of the old hardware?
jhu said:
I've used both (WinXP on Virtual PC and OSX on a PowerMac G4 350 MHz), and OSX was very usable for many non-processor intensive tasks, while WinXP was slow as wet poo. Although Jimong5 is right.....I wouldn't want to run either OS on those systems.
My rev B 12" PowerBook 1GHz G4 with 32MB of vRAM runs CoreImage just fine, although I'm sure I can't take full advantage of it. For Vista to require such a graphics card is ridiculous. For Vista to require that much RAM to run well is ridiculous. I ran my 12" PB on 512MB for over a year, and the only reason I upgraded to 1.25GB of RAM is because I always had a dozen programs and around 5 webpages open at once. If MS thinks 1GB of RAM for their 32-bit version of Vista is ideal, it's probably as too slow, or as fast as my 12" 1GHz PowerBook with 512MB of RAM, possibly 768MB.Jimong5 said:
Still, a 1GHz G4 with 1.25 GB of RAM <<< Multi-core/Dual-core Intel/AMD chip and 1GHz of RAM.
broken_keyboard said:
I'm not sure if the content is actually encrypted/decrypted on the fly. Not in a heavy way, anyway. It looks like some kind of authentican/key setup. Nothing will be transfered unless both sides are compilant or, alternatively, lower-quality material might be transfered if one side isn't HDCP compilant.
I might be wrong though.
Abstract said:
Well, this *is* the future we're talking about here, afterall. Vista isn't out yet.
As for OS X or XP on a 233MHz CPU... well, heck, I whouldn't know. I don't even have a CPU that slow (well, that's not competely true. I have a 166Mhz Pentium MMX CPU lying somewhere in my room). My slowest computer is a PowerMac G4 at 466MHz. And it's not usable to me for other than basic websurfing since, while the OS itself might run fine, the current formats and content require a faster CPU.
Abstract said:
Let me tell you about the time I tried to run OS X on Pear PC....
As for the other requirements, I'll be repeating a bit what's been said in other posts, but Vista will, as far as I know, have different levels of visual bling bling. 256MB is likely for the Ultimate Crazy Visual Snazzy Made By Programmers On LSD mode where all the eye candy will make you sick in your stomach. More moderate levels of eye candy will require less VRAM, or a slightly less advanced GPU. A blessing in disguise, I'm sure.
But, heck, even low end cards come in 256MB versions (for reasons that are quite beyond me). I don't seriously see this as any problem in the future. Besides, the current cards, 256MB or not, supposedly won't support the ulimate level of Visual Bling Bling in Vista anyway. Maybe the next gen will (I'm kinda of torpedoing my own arguments here, but what the heck).