home premium of ultimate

[martijn1010]

My question is of home premium heavyer is than ultimate ???

System Spec.

Pentium IV 2.66 Ghz

1 gb ram

96 mb vram

Edited September 12, 2008 by martijn1010

[x-Shadow-x]

Are you asking is home premium requires better system specs? If so, then no.

[PC_LOAD_LETTER]

No. the only edition which has a different set of system requirements is 'Vista Home Basic'

but IMO, you are gonna need more than 1gb of ram for any Vista system if you plan to do ANY kind of multitasking.

Microsofts Official Vista system requirements

[Andromeda43]

Those idiots!!!!

They have done the same thing that they did with XP.....gave the bare minimum hardware requirements to just load the OS.

It doesn't really RUN, it sort of walks, like a man on crutches.

I wish MS would get their stuff together and tell people what they really NEED to effectively run Vista (any version).

If you think of Vista as taking 4 times the resources as XP, you'll be close to the truth.

Cheers Mates!

[PC_LOAD_LETTER]

While Microsoft did set the system requirements for Vista too low, they didnt want to. You can thank Intels s***ty embedded graphics for that.

"In the end, we lowered the requirement to help Intel make their quarterly earnings so they could continue to sell motherboards with the 915 graphics embedded."

--John Kalkman, Microsoft

as for the people that say Vista will run terrible on a minimum spec system compared with XP, When was the last time they ran XP on its minimum spec? i think youd see very similair slow downs.

Here's What You Need to Use Windows XP Professional

•233 MHz minimum required

•64 megabytes (MB) of RAM minimum supported

•1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space

•Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sysreqs/pro.mspx

[cluberti]

Those idiots!!!!

They have done the same thing that they did with XP.....gave the bare minimum hardware requirements to just load the OS.

It doesn't really RUN, it sort of walks, like a man on crutches.

I wish MS would get their stuff together and tell people what they really NEED to effectively run Vista (any version).

If you think of Vista as taking 4 times the resources as XP, you'll be close to the truth.

Cheers Mates!

Yes, "those idiots" indeed. We really shouldn't have minimum requirements at all, we should use something different. Perhaps, maybe, the Windows Experience Index? Sorry, couldn't resist. And yes, if you run XP on a 233MHz machine with 64MB of RAM, you'd be p***ed at XP as well if you wanted to do anything other than boot. Holding Vista accountable for running a machine at it's bare specs (just like people tried, and failed, with XP back in 2001) is not something that will be paid much attention to. Running XP on a machine with 512MB of RAM (when the minimum spec is 64MB) is akin to running Vista on 4GB RAM (64 * 8 == 512, 512 * 8 == 4096). So, if it is fair to say that the average XP user would have something between 800MHz and 2GHz with 512MB of RAM, to get the same Vista experience we would probably expect a 2+GHz processor with 4GB RAM, which is *surprisingly* about the sweet spot where Vista runs very well. The only add would be that you would want to have a better-than-basic video chipset, which XP did not require, so I'll give you that as a concession .