Absurd Longhorn system requirements
Quote:
recommend 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.
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/artic...1790569,00.asp
recommend 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.
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/artic...1790569,00.asp
What is the recommended system to run Tiger?
I can't believe Microsoft: they are copying Apple with Longhorn, but they can't even copy fast (as Steve Jobs said). Now it seems they can't even copy efficiently.
Only MS could implement features such as "dot-per-inch scaling, 3D window management and the thumbnail document previews" in such a way that they require such a monster.
(I guess Intel has to justify their new CPUs somehow
)
Comments
At last year's WinHEC, developer sources said that Microsoft was going to recommend 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.
MS officially said this week that Longhorn would run well on a 1GHz CPU with 256MB RAM. Sorry I can't find where I read that, but this article says that it may even run on 128MB.
I'm all for Microsoft bashing when appropriate, but taking things out of context in an attempt to slag them ain't cool.
Originally posted by mikef
Did you even read the article?
MS officially said this week that Longhorn would run well on a 1GHz CPU with 256MB RAM. Sorry I can't find where I read that, but this article says that it may even run on 128MB.
I'm all for Microsoft bashing when appropriate, but taking things out of context in an attempt to slag them ain't cool.
Microsoft is recommending the video card has 128 MB so I really can't see it running too well with only 128 MB of main memory. Sure it may run but not worth a damn.
Edit: That's what I was looking for. Also note they say the "majority" of current processors and not all.
Originally posted by Telomar
Microsoft is recommending the video card has 128 MB so I really can't see it running too well with only 128 MB of main memory. Sure it may run but not worth a damn.
Yes, they're recommending a 128MB video card for the "full" experience, but it'll run on much less. The same way Tiger will work on my 32MB video card but not as pretty as on a 64MB card.
Originally posted by Relic
4GHz -6GHz dual-core processor, first they don?t and won?t exist when Longhorn ships
I could definitely see 6 GHz easy by 2012. Or when did you think LH was going to ship?
--B
Originally posted by mikef
Yes, they're recommending a 128MB video card for the "full" experience, but it'll run on much less. The same way Tiger will work on my 32MB video card but not as pretty as on a 64MB card.
You could be right. In about a year and a half we may know.
In a year and a half, it's not at all unreasonable to expect dual core x86 processors clocked at 5 Ghz or more. PPC is a different story. We'll be lucky to get dual core in a year and a half, and IBM definitely won't be able to scale it past 3 GHz or maybe 4 GHz in a year and a half. Just look at the past two years!
Once the dual core pony is out of the gate, Intel and AMD will likely scale the motherfucker out of its gourd. They never had any problems before - yes they are "stalled" for now, but not for long and part of the reason could be that Intel and AMD are throwing all their resources into dual core CPU development and fabbing.
I hope Apple is on the ball with resolution independent display technology. Microsoft is going to debut its Longhorn in a market awash with ultra-high resolution displays, and it will make those displays shine. Will Apple be stuck on low-res clunker displays because of OS X? Will Apple tie its users (yet again) to obsolete technology because they're too cheap to implement a newer, superior technology?
It's all fun and games to joke about Microsoft delaying Longhorn, but the thing is they are spending more money on Longhorn than Apple has on ALL of the OS X versions, and Longhorn will include all of OS X's features as well as all of Microsoft's new features. Longhorn could very possibly blow OS X away if Apple doesn't get up to speed.
/rant
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
Well these requirements are only absurd for Macs.
In a year and a half, it's not at all unreasonable to expect dual core x86 processors clocked at 5 Ghz or more. PPC is a different story. We'll be lucky to get dual core in a year and a half, and IBM definitely won't be able to scale it past 3 GHz or maybe 4 GHz in a year and a half. Just look at the past two years!
Once the dual core pony is out of the gate, Intel and AMD will likely scale the motherfucker out of its gourd. They never had any problems before - yes they are "stalled" for now, but not for long and part of the reason could be that Intel and AMD are throwing all their resources into dual core CPU development and fabbing.
I hope Apple is on the ball with resolution independent display technology. Microsoft is going to debut its Longhorn in a market awash with ultra-high resolution displays, and it will make those displays shine. Will Apple be stuck on low-res clunker displays because of OS X? Will Apple tie its users (yet again) to obsolete technology because they're too cheap to implement a newer, superior technology?
It's all fun and games to joke about Microsoft delaying Longhorn, but the thing is they are spending more money on Longhorn than Apple has on ALL of the OS X versions, and Longhorn will include all of OS X's features as well as all of Microsoft's new features. Longhorn could very possibly blow OS X away if Apple doesn't get up to speed.
/rant
I'm all for being critical of flaws but this is perhaps the single most misguided and outright troll infested post I think I have ever read.
You show an absolute blindness to the current state of the semiconductor market and starry eyed naïvety at to how much progress everybody but Apple can make when there is no evidence current or over the past 2 years to support it.
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
IBM definitely won't be able to scale it past 3 GHz or maybe 4 GHz in a year and a half. Just look at the past two years!
Those are some interesting points you make.
What about the cell? IBM certainly has the resources to match Intel and AMD in research, however I suspect that they are concentrating their efforts on the processor with far greater potential for some serious sales. Then again, I hear the XBox 2/Next/360 will be using a dual-core G5, so who knows?
It's all fun and games to joke about Microsoft delaying Longhorn, but the thing is they are spending more money on Longhorn than Apple has on ALL of the OS X versions, and Longhorn will include all of OS X's features as well as all of Microsoft's new features. Longhorn could very possibly blow OS X away if Apple doesn't get up to speed.
Well, Tiger already has most of Longhorn's features (and almost has resolution independence fully implemented - though currently disabled). Also, Longhorn will not include even all of Longhorn's own features, as Microsoft struggles to release it on time, let alone those innovations that will appear in OS X by then. Apple aren't just going to sit around twiddling their thumbs waiting for Microsoft to catch up.
Another point: counterintuitively, throwing money at a late software development project usually makes it later. Microsoft can try to outspend Apple has much as it wants. I don't think it will do them much good.
I do however wish that Apple would hurry up and release some hi-res laptop displays and a mac tablet! 8)
Originally posted by Telomar
I'm all for being critical of flaws but this is perhaps the single most misguided and outright troll infested post I think I have ever read.
You show an absolute blindness to the current state of the semiconductor market and starry eyed naïvety at to how much progress everybody but Apple can make when there is no evidence current or over the past 2 years to support it.
You want a troll? Look at your own post. You do nothing but call me names. If I'm full of shit then refute it, otherwise, be cool.
Originally posted by jms698
Those are some interesting points you make.
What about the cell? IBM certainly has the resources to match Intel and AMD in research, however I suspect that they are concentrating their efforts on the processor with far greater potential for some serious sales. Then again, I hear the XBox 2/Next/360 will be using a dual-core G5, so who knows?
Well, Tiger already has most of Longhorn's features (and almost has resolution independence fully implemented - though currently disabled).
<Googles resolution independence> Well I stand corrected! That is good news. Apple is looking forward further than I thought.
I still don't see how a gaming console chip is going to help Apple. Cell is considerably more simple to fabricate than the PPC 970, and far easier to scale because of it's low transistor count and simple design. It's apples and oranges. Of course the other key to Cell's performance is the large market. Apple isn't nearly as large a market for IBM, and so the PPC desktop CPUs stagnate.
Originally posted by bergz
I could definitely see 6 GHz easy by 2012. Or when did you think LH was going to ship?
--B
ah the numbers game. i really think people will stop caring past a certain point. i mean top end computers today are way more than enough for *most* consumers. i think a lot of people here are pro-users to some degree, so we need more performance. but think about it, will grandma be able to tell the difference between 2.5Ghz and 4Ghz? Probably not. I'm more concerned with overall power than numbers and clock speeds. Let's keep clock speeds around 3 Ghz, then make the system more stable and efficient through re-allocation of tasks to MRAM (still waiting on that), GPU's, and other things that are just prototypes right now. sorry for such a long post over a quick comment, but i think it's an important thing to keep in mind.
Originally posted by bergz
I could definitely see 6 GHz easy by 2012. Or when did you think LH was going to ship?
--B
Haha, isn't that the truth.
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
You want a troll? Look at your own post. You do nothing but call me names. If I'm full of shit then refute it, otherwise, be cool.
I simply insulted your argument for being blindsighted and naïve, which it is. Tell you what you go find any roadmap to support what you're saying and then I'll agree with you. Until then the past 2 years illustrates a decent trend to follow.
Intel and AMD aren't going to rapidly accelerate, dual cores will be as hard to scale as single cores (mind you some interesting stuff should start to appear around the time of 65nm processes so it will be interesting to see how that goes but IBM is one of the leaders into it, along with Intel), and Windows isn't going to start including any massively new additions that weren't shown at WinHEC.
As I say, you're trolling. You make a wild post and allegations of doom and gloom without any evidence in any way shape or form to support it. And your argument when called on it is it could happen you go and prove me wrong. How about you prove yourself right for once, eh?
Originally posted by Telomar
I simply insulted your argument for being blindsighted and naïve, which it is. Tell you what you go find any roadmap to support what you're saying and then I'll agree with you. Until then the past 2 years illustrates a decent trend to follow.
Intel and AMD aren't going to rapidly accelerate, dual cores will be as hard to scale as single cores (mind you some interesting stuff should start to appear around the time of 65nm processes so it will be interesting to see how that goes but IBM is one of the leaders into it, along with Intel), and Windows isn't going to start including any massively new additions that weren't shown at WinHEC.
As I say, you're trolling. You make a wild post and allegations of doom and gloom without any evidence in any way shape or form to support it. And your argument when called on it is it could happen you go and prove me wrong. How about you prove yourself right for once, eh?
Listen, maybe I'm guilty of being too gloomy and doomy without basis, but that's no reason to call me a troll. And facts do show that x86 is almost always ahead of PPC in most performance metrics. Roadmaps may show otherwise, but roadmaps are not reality. The roadmap for the PPC 970 when it was introduced apparently showed 3 GHz within a year, and we're still waiting. More important than any roadmap is the profit incentive, and unfortunately for us, PPC offers a paltry profit incentive compared to x86. There just aren't that many high-end Mac users out there to warrant the kind of R&D required to compete with x86. Things did look promising when it seemed that Apple could take advantage of IBM's own R&D for the Power CPUs, but so far this has not even yielded a dual core desktop PPC CPU.
I don't doubt that IBM will be able to keep Apple in the game, but I fear that Apple will always be a minor player, depending more on superior software and groovy hardware case designs. Much like Bang and Olufson in audio equipment; good quality equipment with lots of style, but not able to hold a candle to brands like McIntosh or Carver et. al. in terms of pure sound quality.
Naturally, everybody will have their own concept of what a reasonable number is, but I think the gist of my post is that this statement is very indicative of gratuitious, shameless code bloat, for the sake of selling new hardware. This does not serve the better good for the powerusers of the computing world if these newfound resources that intensive apps could benefit from will just be pilferred on a greater and greater level just to run the OS. Some posters here have already alluded to it, already. I absolutely agree. Instead of viewing this statement with wonder and awe, I really do think the general populace should make a point to view it with displeasure and disdain to let MS know how "uncool" a direction it is (has been) going. In a fluffy, perfect world, people would actually consider the "switch" just to make a point to MS that the its customers are not interested in yet another resource whore of an OS, if they can get the same services elsewhere...but alas, it is purely a fantasy gesture, I admit.