Vista minimum requirements for processors

Discussion in 'Dell' started by robert, Nov 4, 2006.

  1. robert

    robert Guest

    I'm a bit confused and maybe for my benefit as well as others, maybe
    someone can help. I've read up a little on Vista's minimum
    requirements per MS web site:

    The MS web site says the minimum processor in terms of 800 mhz and
    1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64). Can someone tell me what is the
    equivalent when your processor is the M, Core Solo, Core Duo, Core 2
    Duo and Core Quad ? I guess some are given with mhz/ghz but not all I
    do believe.

    Please educate me so I'm not so confused or send me a link and I'll
    read up on it more. Meanwhile I will try looking up more sites.
    Should I find anything else, I'll reply to my own post for the sake of
    others that might have the same question.

    Thanks in advance.
    robert, Nov 4, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. robert

    Dave Guest

    The minimum (according to MS) is 800MHz. All the ones you mention are
    higher than the minimum.
    Dave, Nov 4, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. robert

    S.Lewis Guest


    Any of the newer CPU's mentioned in your last paragraph will work fine.
    Better if accompanied by at least 1gb of RAM, best if both are run with an
    AGP/PCIexpress card of 256mb (although a 128mb display adapter will work).

    The more capable the system is, the more Vista "features" it can utilize.
    Many of these can be disabled to allow lesser systems to run the OS.

    S.Lewis, Nov 5, 2006
  4. robert

    Ben Myers Guest

    And, as usual, the minimum system configuration specified by Micro$oft is a
    large pile of horse manure, meant to encourage people to spend money on Vista
    upgrades, whether their system can run it reasonably or not. I would NOT ever
    run Vista on a Socket 370 Pentium 3 computer with a chipset limitation of 512MB.
    Hey, XP barely runs on a slower P3 with 512MB, so think about Vista which is
    even more bloated... Ben Myers
    Ben Myers, Nov 5, 2006
  5. robert

    Joan Hansen Guest

    I just ran the Vista test on my XPS Generation 5, 3.2 ghz
    2 Meg of Ram 667, 2 Sata HD (s) and 1 WD external HD.
    16 x DVD Drive
    16 x DVD burner
    256 nVidia 6800 GeForce video card
    Creative SB Audigy 2Z
    The test said the Basic was for me.
    Most of my peripherals, HP printers, scanners, Sony Digital camera and
    Logitech camera and printer do not have drivers. No guarantee these
    companies will make updated drivers.

    If this system cannot have the Home Premium, XP is just as good as Basic
    Vista why upgrade.

    Joan Hansen, Nov 5, 2006
  6. robert

    Tom Scales Guest

    The advisor is nuts. Your machine can happily run any version of Vista. HP
    printers are mainstream enough you should not have problems (although I tend
    to avoid HP anymore due to their software bloat). The camera should work
    too, since it should be a generic storage device. Logitech has been
    struggling, but I believe there are beta versions of their drivers by now.

    If your machine won't run it, what will!

    Tom Scales, Nov 5, 2006
  7. robert

    robert Guest

    I tend to agree with you Joan. From reading other posts and a few
    sites, I really don't see a need to upgrade to Vista at all, at least
    for my needs now. However, since I'm not an authority on Vista and
    considering a laptop purchase in the near future, I'm open minded on
    the need for upgrading to Vista.

    I may have overlooked something in regard to considering Vista
    upgrading so I'd like to hear from others if they feel different so I
    purchase the best laptop for my needs now and in the forseeable future
    (without spending more than I need).
    robert, Nov 5, 2006
  8. robert

    Joan Hansen Guest

    Maybe the new one I'm getting? :). Nontheless Tom, I will not be
    getting Vista for sometime or really not at all. It doesn't like my
    Symantec products or its own tweak power toys. Norton bloated or not
    has been great for me. Windows is bloated too. HD (s) are cheap now.
    :). It also said I have to download all the MS updates, which I have
    never done. Just a few of them. I trust Norton and Netscape to keep my
    systems out of trouble. I haven't had a problem in many many years and
    have never re-installed Windows on my current systems. Yipee! :)

    Joan Hansen, Nov 5, 2006
  9. robert

    Tom Scales Guest

    Oh, I agree with you. I've tried most of the various Vista betas and there
    is nothing that makes me go 'gotta have'. My next new computer will likely
    have it, but I can't see spending money to upgrade to it. It's just XP with
    a pretty new dress and, frankly, it's not a dress from a very skill

    The security features are nice (and annoying), but sitting behind a router
    with decent firewalls, I'm not that concerned.

    Tom Scales, Nov 5, 2006
  10. Yep, and none more annoying than that "administrative alert" popup
    every thirty seconds that says "you're an idiot, do you really, really
    want to do this?"
    Alex Flaherty, Nov 5, 2006
  11. robert

    robert Guest

    Thanks Tom thats what I was thinking too. Just wanted to see if
    others agreed with me (or disagreed with me for that matter).
    robert, Nov 5, 2006
  12. robert

    Ben Myers Guest

    Vista: lipstick on the XP pig?
    XP: lipstick on the Windows 2000 pig? Actually, it is unfair to call Win 2000
    a pig... Ben Myers
    Ben Myers, Nov 5, 2006
  13. robert

    Tom Scales Guest


    Tom Scales, Nov 5, 2006
  14. robert

    S.Lewis Guest

    With regard to boot times anyway, a complete sow.
    Of Vista, I find it only slightly humorous to be prompted with security
    warnings when navigating within portions of the OS itself.
    As a guess I'd think that MS is trying to "protect" the user's machine from
    automated "drone" functions or the like once it's infected.
    If that's the case, I'm thinking that it will take hackers a fraction of the
    time to disable that "feature" compared to the system owners on average.

    S.Lewis, Nov 5, 2006
  15. It's not an issue. Any new computer, even the slowest you can buy
    (that's new 2006 production) will run Vista as far as the processor is
    concerned. The issue that you need to worry about is video (assuming
    that you want to run Aero), not CPU. Of course, a faster CPU is better,
    and the minimums are just that (minimums, and sometimes BARE minimums)
    but the slowest CPUs currently being made are more than twice as fast as
    the minimum for running Vista.
    Barry Watzman, Nov 5, 2006
  16. While you may not need or want to upgrade to vista at this time, it
    would be nuts, if you are buying a brand new computer today, to get one
    that could not run Vista ***WITH AERO***. And that (Aero, not Vista
    itself) is where the issues and the questions arise. Especially for a
    Barry Watzman, Nov 5, 2006
  17. robert

    Ben Myers Guest

    Actually, I have a certain fondness for Windows 2000, because it does not have
    all the bloat, lipstick, fishnet stockings, heavy eye shadow, and mid-thigh
    mini-skirt of XP. Changed metaphors on you, didn't I? ... Ben Myers
    Ben Myers, Nov 5, 2006
  18. robert

    Tom Scales Guest

    Actually, you burned an image of a pig with lipstick and fishnets into my
    mind. I'll have nightmares tonight.

    Tom Scales, Nov 5, 2006
  19. robert

    BillW50 Guest

    If one wants to upgrade to Vista, why not buy a machine that already
    comes with Vista on it with all of the right drives, etc.? Heck even
    better, wait a year until they get all of the bugs out of Vista anyway.
    I know that is what I will do anyway. ;)
    BillW50, Nov 6, 2006
  20. robert

    BillW50 Guest

    I purchased my laptop just a bit over then 3 months ago (and the
    warrantee just ran out - Gateway Mx6124 refurbished). And there is no
    Vista sticker on it at all. Just one saying "Designed for Microsoft
    Windows XP". Which is fine by me. ;)
    BillW50, Nov 6, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.