microsoft-watch.com

[Famer]

check this out you can read the rest here http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,...,1581842,00.asp

it's dated Friday, April 30, 2004 did not know if this had been posted

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.

[gamehead200]

Are... they... crazy?

[Famer]

i dont know but man that would be one hell of a workstation

[prathapml]

i dont know but man that would be one hell of a workstation

That statement is to be viewed at from the angle of "by today's standards".

Does anyone remember this? - "640 KB of RAM support ought to be enough for anybody".

If you don't know who made this statement, it was by the same person who today exemplifies the other extreme (striving to make you upgrade to 640 MB of RAM at a minimum, LOL).

The time-frame of LH's release well might make such hardware requirements seem puny. But, relevant here is the fact that MS normally makes their OSes require such hardware as was mainstream 2 years prior to release of the OS. So, if longhorn really is aiming at the year 2006-2007 for release, the minimum (note that the keyword here is 'minimum', not optimum) system requirements are going to be more in-line with what used to be high-end hardware in 2002 (I'm not going to start listing it here, we all know them well enough). The truth of LH's gluttonous wants may lie somewhere between that MS-watch article (linked above) and those listed (for the alpha) here.

[Famer]

i remember my brother talking about that 640kb will do any for any one

that was back around the days before the 286

[XtremeMaC]

well okay it might be right but still I don't want an os taking up that much of any hardware. bc then we'd need 5x all those hardware to play games!

I'd say lh should run at xp's requirements

[/\/\o\/\/]

Longhorn will more likely ship 2007-2008 ->

(looking at the new msdn longhorn articles)

so there will be 36 + Months,

we are now at 2,4 Mainstream,

so Moore (remember him 2 x every 18 Months) would say 9,6 Ghz would be mainstream

Memory should not be the problem I think (would gladly double my gig now)

and think i will already have at least 4 gig by that time.

the Graph would be my problem (as a not gamer)

avalon will be heavy.

and the disksystems-speed and backup may be a problem (not the size).

but all by all i think the specs are high but not unrealistic.

bc if I go to count wat will take that resources ..

winFS (SQL engine for the 1-terra DB) would like his GIG of memory.

then Avalon (a 3D engine for normal work) will take his price

the video specs looks needed for me to.

and for a server serving XML services Indigo ASP.NET and SQL. ......I think more about 16+ gig and 8 X a 8 gig processor

but by 2008 64 bit will be also mainstream i think, so memory adressing would not be the problem this time ;-) but than again ...

Even Uncle bill got it 9 zero's wrong

gr /\/\o\/\/

[prathapml]

Interesting calculations there, by /\/\o\/\/.

I just hope those don't become true, because they are frightening. I'd like to be able to still run LH on my current PC, alongside the newer one (which I'd most certainly have to get, to run newer apps/OSes optimally). Moreover, there's XtremeMaC's post also, which has already said what I would like to say.

[SiMoNsAyS]

don't bother with future requirements, wxp requirements were w98se x2 so i can not believe LH requirements will be wxp x20. and thinking about storage... 1 TB?? nowadays hardware storage x10?? and finally 1GB of bandwidth??!! i'm sure that inet will not progress than faster, remember what you got 3/4 years ago?? i think microsoft wants to impress customers with that hardware to take some attention over longhorn