SPeedY_B

Just came across this article, revealing what Microsoft expects to be the average specification for a PC running Longhorn (in 2006).
At first, I thought these specs were ridiculous, but thinking about it, they're possibly not.

In 2-years, I think that 6GHz will be around, especially if Intel continues to bump their clock-speeds up and up (however AMD will still be hovering around the 4-5GHz and meeting the same performance levels )

2 Gigs of ram, I can see that happening too, I'm seeing more and more people with 1GB or more right now, so 2-years from now, 2GB will possibly be a normal amount to have.

Now a terabyte of storage seems a bit overkill for me, unless Microsoft intend to make the Operating System itself require an immensely vast amount of space, the only other thing I can see taking that much space are games, because at the end of the day, all the current files we use are still the same size, and in some cases are getting smaller (compression of music and so forth). But as with all trends in computing, people just want more and more, accompany that with the factor that HDD's are currently cheap as can be, 1TB will again probably become normal.

1GBit networking in my opinion should be standard already, I've got a lovely 1GBit card, yet nothing that can utilise it, at LANs everyone else has 10/100, the hubs are 10/00, and my DSL at home is obviously not 1GBit

802.11g will be handy, making that a standard for new machines will certainly be a nice direction for networking to head, but isn't there a new standard of 802.11n coming out before 2006?

There's my opinion anyway, what's everyone else think?

---

ming

It's a bit weird how they come out with such requirements. They bump up 99% of the requirements, but leaves the wireless side to the current level. Haven't they heard of UWB (ultra-wide band)? lol or at least the Super-G standard.

---

SPeedY_B

Isn't Super-G simply normal G but with compression theoretically doubling the speed?

---

ming

Not sure about the compression part. But yeah, it doubles the wireless transfer speed.

---

funky dredd

So I have heard. I don't think these specs are way off the mark. But I do believe that such a requirement might hurt them with the regular household user.

---

dubstar

WOW!!

sorry if this is a repost of somekind, but i saw this for the first time today.

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/artic...1581842,00.asp

---

j79zlr

You have to remember that longhorm wont be out for another 3 years probably, yet that still seems ridiculous. Maybe they are learning to be more realistic for their minimum specs, I mean is anyone who runs XP with a 233MHz processor and 64MB RAM actually pleased with its performance?

---

Lee

Sure there will be a fix, like running ME and XP on lower spec machines.

Better start saving my coins up, beta probably will be 2 years times, then who knows, could be over 4 years till ready, if this planet is still in the solar system.

SPeedY_B

Threads Merged

My opinion's already in the first post

---

melon

From a technology POV, I'm cautiously skeptical. I'm not about to say that these specs in 2006 are impossible, because we are in the twilight of PCI, AGP, and 32-bit CPUs, in favor of PCI Express and 64-bit CPUs.

Where I am skeptical, a bit, is on storage. You can already purchase 250 GB hard drives, and people are nowhere near to filling them up. I should know; I have 700 GB of combined storage, and, while I can conceivably use this storage up, as I do a lot of video work, it will take a while. *HOWEVER,* 1 TB of storage space or more will start to be necessary for those working in HDTV. For comparison, 1 minute of uncompressed standard NTSC video is about 1 GB (it is probably about the same for PAL/SECAM, but I am not about to be presumptuous, because they run at 25 fps, versus 29.97 fps in NTSC). 1 minute of uncompressed HD video is a whopping 13 GB. So, yes, if you are working in HD, 1 TB+ in hard drive storage is very conceivable, but for the average user? I do have my doubts, unless Longhorn's installation size rapidly explodes in size.

I am hesistant, though, to compare the technology environment today to how it was in the late 1990s. Technology, as a whole, is slowing down. I was earnestly surprised at how long the video consoles have lasted, honestly, along with the lifespan of Windows XP. While enthusiasts might have computer systems comparable to Microsoft's specs, I have my sincerest doubts that the average computer user will. Microsoft cannot even get people to dump their old PII/PIII systems that have Windows 98 on them, let alone get people to buy these massive computers.

With the way that M$ has offended serious computer users with their activation implementation, though, I do ultimately wonder about the future of Windows. If the average computer consumer is pleased with their existing old computer, using it only for Microsoft Office and internet browsing, then what is left?

M$ isn't dumb, though; they have spent a lot of time diversifying their products over the past few years, from X-Box to DRM to authoring next-generation DVD standards. Even they may see the writing on the wall for the PC; there will always be some people and businesses buying new computers, but will the masses embrace new technology enough for it to be profitable? Hence, will Longhorn, for all its hype, be profitable?

Melon

---

SPeedY_B

I considered that also, but how big can they really consider to be justifiable for an operating system install? Personally I'd say if the o/s itself takes around or more than 10GB, they really need to sit and take a look at where the hell that size is coming from and if it's really needed.

---

Admiral Michael

Hehe, my webserver used to be that. It wasnt that bad.

---

vacantmind

People are using longhorn now.. so obviously the system specs aren't that bad.

Why does an OS need all that anyway, it's such a waste.

j79zlr

It doesn't matter b/c everyone by then will be using linux.

---

SPeedY_B

No one is 'using' Longhorn now, people are testing it, but the builds which have become available via the internet are quite simply pre-alpha, they're lab builds never intended to be used by the public, Longhorn still has a very long way to go in development, official beta builds won't even be seen until 2005. The case with Longhorn is that we've been lucky(?) enough to get preview of it extremely early in development rather than alpha builds sent to testers being leaked.

---

NetRyder

There go any hopes of running this beast on my current baby.
Oh well, we'll see what happens. It's a long way into the future.

What I'm wondering though is if laptops will have those kind of specs by the time Longhorn is released. It's quite possible with desktops. But every component of a laptop is much more expensive than its desktop counterpart. With specs like these, the machines would need to be ridiculously priced...unless of course, there's some kind of radical change by then.

---

SPeedY_B

Morons

I wasn't overly shocked at the seemingly high specs, but to me this little move seems stupid.

---

ming

lol.. i was going to mention about the 3-tier visual settings.

---

gonaads

And the install discs will prolly be dual layer DVDs.

---

SPeedY_B

The official build of 4074 has been uploaded to MSDN, so if you're a member go grab it

---