Che said:Have you checked the requirements of the OS? I mean what the hell does it need the 1 gig of RAM?
teepo said:what the fuck?
God's Hand said:OSX Tiger > Longhorn
Lathentar said:I don't see anyone using more than 5% of this. Other than MS of course.
Che said:Have you checked the requirements of the OS? I mean what the hell does it need the 1 gig of RAM?
God's Hand said:OSX Tiger > Longhorn
Lathentar said:First off, its not expected for 2006.
The 1 gig of RAM is if you want to run it at the highest graphical setting.
goodcow said:If you wanna keep sucking Steve Job's cock, then yeah.
shuri said:1gb of ram is common these days
Che said:OMFG!!!!! I found the recommended specs of an average PC running Longhorn:
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.
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1581842,00.asp
xsarien said:A reasoned, well-argued counter-point as to why Longhorn should be used instead of Tiger.
Well played.
neptunes said:
I like this one cause many teens my age could find this stuff useful.
It would be cool to enter this room where anybody in your class can join and help each other out.
I would actually use this in school.
God's Hand said:I'm into image editing and video editing (I'm better at both than all you combined), so this new OSX and the G5s and the 30" display will be mine.
You would be anyway... seeing as longhorn wont be out for a long long time. Wasnt it pushed back to like 07?08?neptunes said:teiresias, this just looks prettier
But goodness gracious! if those specs are real I'll be staying on my XP for quite a while.
neptunes said:I like this one cause many teens my age could find this stuff useful.
It would be cool to enter this room where anybody in your class can join and help each other out.
I would actually use this in school.
Lathentar said:I agree. Basically what I said in the 2nd post in this thread.
Che said:Have you checked the requirements of the OS? I mean what the hell does it need the 1 gig of RAM?
VPhys said:By the time Longhorn comes out 1GB of ram will be as common in the average PC as 256 is today.
Che said:OMFG!!!!! I found the recommended specs of an average PC running Longhorn:
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.
![]()
![]()
![]()
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1581842,00.asp
Diablos said:Hahaha. Your average consumer is not going to have that kind of PC by 2006. WE won't have that type of PC by 2006. In fact Intel is lowerling the clock speed and improving the instruction set for the next line of Pentiums coming out so they don't run as hot...
StrikerObi said:Have you haters even seen what Tiger can do? It's got a built in search that will look through your entire drive as you type and bring up results in real time (like how iTunes searches through songs). The search even becomes context sensitive so if you have the system control panel up and select it in the search box and type "internet," for example, the screen will darken and all the icons in the control panel related to ineternet stuff will light up.
maharg said:That doesn't mean the performance of the system will increase at a slower pace, it just means the approach is different.
I think people in this thread are vastly underestimating what happens in 2 years. I think people are also vastly overestimating the importance of 'recommended' specs.
Diablos said:Yeah, just like the Athlon XP/64 CPU's. Intel is ripping off AMD once again; they already said they are going to stop going with how many gigahertz their CPU's are and give it a rating number like the AMD CPU's. Go figure.
"Vastly underestimating"? Come on dude, not that much is gonna change in two years... MS would be foolish to demand such top of the line system specs. And open your friggin' eyes. The OS looks good, but again, it looks like something a Radeon and decent CPU could handle. I think the system specs thing is a bit off. If my 2GHz CPU and 9800 Pro can play games like FarCry and UT2004 with 4x FSAA at 30-60FPS with high texture detail, then guess what, it will have no problem whatsoever with a bunch of icons representing people and folders floating around while an animation of some planet plays in the other window. Simple shit..
maharg said:Keep reading. Remember the part where I said "vastly overestimating?" That was about recommended specs.
And 1GB being the norm for new machines in 2 years is absolutely believable. 2 years ago, 128MB was the norm, now 512 is getting into the mainstream hardware. If it suggested 10GB then I'd be right there with you, but 1GB? Why do you think there's a push for 64-bit chips right now? The top of the line is hitting the 2/4GB memory wall already, in two years the top of the line will be well beyond 4GB. The fact is, if it's viable for the big spenders to buy it now, it'll be viable for the moderate spenders to buy it in 2 years. It's as simple as that.
And who says they intend it to run on any old hardware? It's not like XP will cease to exist or people will be forced to upgrade at gunpoint. A sizeable portion of the computing population still uses win98 for christ's sake.
Point is, this is all a lot of much ado about nothin'. We're talking about speculative recommended specs on an unfinished operating system that is *at least* 2 years from release. AT LEAST. When was the last time MS released an OS on time?