Microsoft Longhorn: HOLY SYSTEM SPECS

[Morfiend]

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1581842,00.asp

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.

They figure those to be the "Avarage" specs for Longhorn users, when this system is released. And they plan to release it in a few years. Lets hope Microsoft knows some thing we dont.

The first Beta of Longhorn is due to release in 2005.

[HaemishM]

WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT SHIT?

[pants]

You'll have to excuse my ignorance, I haven't been closely following Longhorn - is it supposed to be a desktop OS, or server OS?  Most of those specs (Barring the video card) don't seem obscene for a server in 2005.

[schild]

Is hardware piratable?

If not, does anyone have a time machine?

[SurfD]

Which always brings me back to one of the things i have found fundamentally wrong about nearly every Microsoft OS since windows 3.1:

Why is it that the system specs for smooth operation of my OS are almost always higher then the system specs for smooth operation of half the applications I wish to run on it?!?

Why microsoft, please tell me WHY!!!

[Soukyan]

I think Longhorn is going to be a server OC from them. Those specs are not uncommon, although the terabtye of storage is a little unnerving. Of course it does say "up to" so it's not needed per se.

[waylander]

Well considering that Intel is releasing its first gen 64 bit systems later this year, computer prices shouldn't be so rough by 2006 when Longhorn is adopted enmass.

Prices always go through the roof the first few years when hardware/software leaps forward by a generation.

[TripleDES]

These specs are pulled out of the ass of these microsoft-watch.com guys. Why? Because Microsoft never told anyone specific hardware requirements. Evar. And at WinHEC yesterday they said minimum graphics card requirement will be a DX7 card with 32megs, Aero Glass requiring DX9 64megs. The only concrete requirement there is, and way out of line of what that site claims.

[Roac]

Memory:  1Gb memory is not insane for a PC right now, although many of us have less.  Doubling that to 2Gb in a year and a half is not unreasonable.

CPU: There are 3.0 GHz chips out there now that are fairly reasonable.  Pent 4 3.0 is $220 for mobo/cpu.  This is a higher end chip, but if you're talking about doubling in a year and a half, this is once again reasonable.

HD: High end HDs are around a quarter terrabyte.  That leaves for 4x improvement over the next year and a half, which to me sounds unreasonable.  

Moore's law says we double every year and a half - which isn't a real law of course, but a reasonable benchmark.  I think Microsoft is angling a bit high on the specs, unless they anticipate to release Longhorn in early '06.  What's given above is sort of high end for the present day too (1Gb mem, 3.0 Ghz chip, 250Gb drive), so you'll need another 6 mo to bring them down to a more "average" level.  Having 1Gb ethernet isn't unreasonable, nor is wireless, given that time period.  

I think their biggest fault is overestimating what the consumers are willing to buy.  The number of people willing to go out and pay $1,200 for a moderately high end PC are few and far between.  Even if I had that much cash to burn, I'd burn it on a vacation with my wife, not a PC.  I don't expect office places to want to shell out the money for those systems either, at least en masse; where I'm at we have some PCs that are P2s still in circulation.  Hell, there are still some 95 machines out there.  We don't have them because we like old stuff, but because they work and there hasn't been a need to swap them out.  Don't overbuy.  Don't get what you don't need.  If I don't have a need for more desktop power, why would I buy it?

[UD_Delt]

From my understanding Longhorn is going to be a desktop and server O/S. It is going to be the biggest leap in operating systems since 16-bit to 32-bit. If you think back to when you made the move from Windows 3.1 or OS2 to windows '95 it was a pretty large leap back then as well. If I'm not mistaken most business PC's at the time were still 486's. Those would barely if at all run Windows '95. Even after Win '95 came out it still took at least 2-3 years before it was widely adopted.

Longhorn will have the same adoption rate. Those system specs are going to be high-end when longhorn is first released and not many people will move to longhorn right away. If you think forward to about 2008 then those specs seem like they actually will be about average if not low-end. That's about the time when Longhorn will officially take hold.

To give you an idea of how long it takes large companies to adopt new technology I started working at my company in '99. When I started the company standard was Windows '95. It took until late 2002 to change that when they did a large rollout of XP. To this day we still have some bank branches that are running PC's with Windows 3.1 and some with OS/2. We are just now in the process of completing a large project that will finally replace the last of the OS/2 only applications we have and we can finally phase it out.

[Alrindel]

These specs are pulled out of the ass of these microsoft-watch.com guys.

Agreed.  Microsoft always ludicrously lowballs their minimum required system specs - the current official minimum for XP Professional is a 233MHz processor and 64MB of RAM.  Just try it.  The idea that MS Marketing is going to freely brag that it's going to cost your company $2K per workstation to get ready to buy their OS upgrade is ludicrous; they're going to claim it's fully backwards compatible, that it'll run perfectly on your existing hardware park, that it'll improve performance with 100% compatibility with all your current applications and that it'll cure your obesity, erectile dysfunction and hair loss if you opt for the additional annual hotline support contract.

[TripleDES]

Not entirely sure if you're making fun of me or not, but I regularily see WinXP running on a P2-233 laptop at a friends house, and it doesn't chug along at all, it has more than 64megs though. Windows machines usually run more or less fine on lowlevel specs. If it runs slower and slower with time, it's usually a side-effect of fucking your installation in all possible directions, by installing tons of useless bullshit, over to spyware en masse, possibly ending in trojans everywhere. Granted, Microsoft could add tools and wizards to future versions that will try anything to prevent a user to fuck up his machine, but that's something that's virtually impossible. The stupid would find creative ways to bypass any safegates.

[Daeven]

WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT SHIT?

A really crappy low-end mainframe running linux.

[eldaec]

it has more than 64megs though. .

And that is the key.

I know this because in Feburary I changed job. My new (3 year old) laptop had 64Mb of ram,  and was supposed to run windows 2000.

For anyone who cares...

Windows 2000 takes almost 15 minutes to boot, run standard company mind control software, and load outlook when running on a machine with 64Mb of RAM.

128Mb runs fine, if rather slow.

I imagine XP needs a little more.

[koboshi]

Is hardware piratable?

aye. but ye be need'n a good pistol and a strong blade.

[NiX]

Right now Longhorn is nothing more than a tweaked XP. I don't think it'll go anywhere beyond an overhauled XP. Those specs are stupid and it's blatantly obvious. Everyone knows a website dedicated to anything microsoft has to be run by people doing crack off the ass of a chimp.

[schild]

Everyone knows a website dedicated to anything microsoft has to be run by people doing crack off the ass of a chimp.

...or gamers

[Murgos]

I'd actually spoken with one of the devs on the Longhorn project about 3 months ago, I even talked about what he told me on WTo.

At that moment a top end P4 with a top end video card and all the bells and whistles barely ran a very feature incomplete Longhorn.  Mostly he blamed harddrive performance as the leading source fo their frustrations.  He said they have to use a multidrive raid-0 setup to get anywhere near acceptible data thoughput.

He also said that they are not aiming this OS at the casual users and to expect recuring billing as the revenue model.

Thats right baby, get ready to pay the monthly Microsoft bill.

[Soukyan]

Thats right baby, get ready to pay the monthly Microsoft bill.

Or yearly, just like *gasp* RedHat. ;) Don't try to make Microsoft look like the bad guy on that. Everybody is using subscription models these days. ISPs, online games, Real Networks, Napster, AOL, MSN, etc.

[schild]

No operating systems require a monthly bill. This sounds like a total bald-faced lie though. I'm sure this is only for corporate sales and it also includes on-site support and whatnot.

[NiX]

On site support? You mean they come to your house, laugh at you and then bend you over your desk as they scream "Just backing up your harddrive!"

[schild]

Hey man, if that's your experience with on-site support then I guess that's what you've got coming at you. No pun intended.

[NiX]

They don't call their company hewlett packard for nothing. (What my shitty computer is.)

[schild]

I hear that. I worked at compusa when I made my first computer. Before that it was all apples up until I bought a Gateway. I can't really complain about the Gateway either, they used to make a decent machine and I still use it for mp3's and shit.

[NiX]

When I finally finish building my new comp, my HP will make a playhouse for my cat.

[schild]

Poor kitty. Does it deserve such a shitty toy? Well, I guess it's better than the packing from the Star Wars Galaxies limited edition box.

[Murgos]

Thats right baby, get ready to pay the monthly Microsoft bill.

Or yearly, just like *gasp* RedHat. ;) Don't try to make Microsoft look like the bad guy on that. Everybody is using subscription models these days. ISPs, online games, Real Networks, Napster, AOL, MSN, etc.

I've used RedHat for 5 years and I've never paid them a dime and yet have a fully up to date system with all the latest patches and fixes.

Don't try to make end user systems sound like they need corporate level tech support.

[Murgos]

No operating systems require a monthly bill. This sounds like a total bald-faced lie though. I'm sure this is only for corporate sales and it also includes on-site support and whatnot.

Um, they already charge some corporate clients monthly for thier licenses.  Microsoft really wants to switch over to a monthly blling system for all thier products in all tiers of service.  They will, of course, make the decision to do that based on when they think the market will bear it but they really are seriously considering it.

Why don't you try talking to a Microsoft rep before calling me a liar?   It's not like its a secret.

[schild]

Hey now, I didn't call you a liar. I called your friend a liar. You think Joe-Six Pack will pay a monthly bill? I have a feeling a lot of middle/lower class people will learn how to pirate windows if this happens.

[Murgos]

Hey now, I didn't call you a liar. I called your friend a liar. You think Joe-Six Pack will pay a monthly bill? I have a feeling a lot of middle/lower class people will learn how to pirate windows if this happens.

My 'friend' is a Microsoft recruiter, like I said he's one of the Longhorn devs and I spoke to him a meeting of my ACM/Sigraph chapter.

When Joe Six Pack buys a Dell he's already paying $200 - $250 bucks for windows and office whether he knows it or not.  Easily 1/4 to 1/3rd the price of his new computer, Microsoft believes that if they switch to monthly billing then the upfront cost of a new box will drop leading to more sales and that with proper advertising they can explain to people that really paying 200 bucks upfront is a worse idea financially than paying 200 bucks in small amounts over the next 18 months.

They are right, in a sense.  The ringer is of course the months after the first 18 where you continue to pay.  The Microsoftie explained that they would justify this by switching to a more evenly spaced upgrade path.  Incremental upgrades every year or so rather than major upgrades once every 3 - 5 years.

It is coming. You will be paying a monthly Microsoft bill and it will be sooner rather than later.

[Dark_MadMax]

When Joe Six Pack buys a Dell he's already paying $200 - $250 bucks for windows and office whether he knows it or not.  Easily 1/4 to 1/3rd the price of his new computer, Microsoft believes that if they switch to monthly billing then the upfront cost of a new box will drop leading to more sales and that with proper advertising they can explain to people that really paying 200 bucks upfront is a worse idea financially than paying 200 bucks in small amounts over the next 18 months.

 License cost for xp cost around $20 buck for company like Dell (if even it) .   Joe never pays $200 for OS.  Shoving their OS to the customers as the only was one of  the MS major isntruments in achieving their 90% of desktop market

They are right, in a sense.  The ringer is of course the months after the first 18 where you continue to pay.  The Microsoftie explained that they would justify this by switching to a more evenly spaced upgrade path.  Incremental upgrades every year or so rather than major upgrades once every 3 - 5 years.

It is coming. You will be paying a monthly Microsoft bill and it will be sooner rather than later.

 Paying monthly bill vs free Linux..... -That would be first really good reason to switch to Linux - as of now very  few home user pay for MS products (preinstalled or pirated) .

[TripleDES]

I know this because in Feburary I changed job. My new (3 year old) laptop had 64Mb of ram,  and was supposed to run windows 2000.

For anyone who cares...

Windows 2000 takes almost 15 minutes to boot, [stuff]

Ok, now I disagree. My old workplace had lots of Win2k stations with 64megs, and they did definitely not take 15minutes to boot, not even near 5 minutes. If your box takes that much time generally, not just at booting, you might want to run a surface scan of the disk overnight. My guess would be that NTFS system structures are damaged (as in broken sectorage!)

Right now Longhorn is nothing more than a tweaked XP. I don't think it'll go anywhere beyond an overhauled XP. Those specs are stupid and it's blatantly obvious. Everyone knows a website dedicated to anything microsoft has to be run by people doing crack off the ass of a chimp.

Typical.

Most of the tech stuff is in the system in a good state. Maybe not feature-complete, but near pre-beta state. Just because the freakin' shell doesn't expose that tech, doesn't mean it's not there. I've been toying with Avalon and WinFS since the first developer preview, and the stuff IS there. DCE is also available now in the WinHEC build. And it does work. So talk about becoming nothing more than a tweaked XP.

[eldaec]

I know this because in Feburary I changed job. My new (3 year old) laptop had 64Mb of ram,  and was supposed to run windows 2000.

For anyone who cares...

Windows 2000 takes almost 15 minutes to boot, [stuff]

Ok, now I disagree. My old workplace had lots of Win2k stations with 64megs, and they did definitely not take 15minutes to boot, not even near 5 minutes. If your box takes that much time generally, not just at booting, you might want to run a surface scan of the disk overnight. .

I just put 128 meg in - it all became bearable after that.

To be fair to win2k, the sinister global megacorporation that pays my bills does insist on a very large amount of mind control software.

I think the problem was mostly down to not being able to fit windows into physical memory combined with a very old and slow HD. Fixing the former took the focus off of the latter.

No operating systems require a monthly bill. This sounds like a total bald-faced lie though. I'm sure this is only for corporate sales and it also includes on-site support and whatnot.

All true - but I don't doubt MS are looking at ways to move to monthly billing. It's the only way MS can kill off competition from software pirates and thereby return to charging higher prices for home operating systems (have you noticed how windows is a lot cheaper lately?).

People pay monthly for their internet service already, and I don't think they'll necessarily be averse to paying for the OS that way if it's presented right (monthly fee for windows update + office + firewall + virus checker, then subsidise boxes sold this way, and crank up the cost of buying windows separately). And the corporates love it (and will in practice already pay a premium to have an ongoing rather than one-time expense), the reason being they can pretend that they have spent less this year, and mark next year's expense down as non-fixed. The fact that they have no practical way to stop paying the expense once they start makes this accounting practice either boneheaded or immoral (imo), but plenty of companies do it anyway.

[Soukyan]

Thats right baby, get ready to pay the monthly Microsoft bill.

Or yearly, just like *gasp* RedHat. ;) Don't try to make Microsoft look like the bad guy on that. Everybody is using subscription models these days. ISPs, online games, Real Networks, Napster, AOL, MSN, etc.

I've used RedHat for 5 years and I've never paid them a dime and yet have a fully up to date system with all the latest patches and fixes.

Don't try to make end user systems sound like they need corporate level tech support.

Then check the RedHat site. They have stopped updates to RedHat 9 as of the end of April. They stopped support on 7 and 8 last year. Now, if you purchase RedHat, the least expensive workstation edition for end users is $179 per year for a license, and that is a version that is very trimmed down from the RedHat you're probably used to using. I don't make this shit up. Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS is what they are currently selling as an end user desktop OS, but it looks like they will have something in mid-May that is a bit more catered to a person who just wants a desktop OS; however, the price will still be in dollars/year. The subscription model IS in use at RedHat. If you're using one of their old operating systems, then certainly you won't pay, but neither will Microsoft charge you yearly for their old operating systems that you already own. It appears that it is not just tech support that you are paying for, but I haven't seen the new RedHat OS available as a single price point purchase yet either so I could be wrong.

[edit]
Just checked out BestBuy.com for shits and giggles and found RedHat Professional Workstation available. $99.99, so cheaper than the aforementioned $179, but there's a catch. Looking at the feature list:

* Point and click graphical installation makes it easy to get started    
* Red Hat Bluecurve interface is customizable and intuitively works with all applications    
* Ximian Evolution e-mail client helps you manage personal and group productivity    
* Desktop office suite is compatible to most standard document formats   
* Includes one year of Red Hat network updates    
* Provides 30 days of installation and configuration support

I've bolded the important one. For those unfamiliar with RedHat, their RHN updates are comparable to Windows Updates. They allow you to obtain all the latest patches for your operating system in an easy to use, centrally managed location. Notice that you only get one year of updates. At the end of that year, in order to continue receiving updates, you must pay another fee. Imagine if Windows did that now? They don't... yet.

So there is my point, Murgos. Microsoft is doing nothing new. The monthly fee thing is a total rumor with no basis in fact. I could see MS charging a yearly fee as other operating system makers have already started doing it. As to the price, well, I'm not so sure. I wouldn't mind $100/year. That's reasonable to me provided you offer me a new OS every two years and allow me to upgrade to it at a very minimal cost. That probably won't happen though. Lastly, before you call me an MS fanboi (yes, I'd love to work for MS someday), I use RedHat for my web and MUD servers so I'm not some prick who is averse and hates everything Linux, but I am upset that it is now costing me more to run Linux than to run Windows. Sure, I could get free Linux distros, but all of the ones I've tried have been severely lacking in a major department... quick and easy administration. RedHat has been the easiest to administer.
[/edit]

[Murgos]

 License cost for xp cost around $20 buck for company like Dell (if even it) .   Joe never pays $200 for OS.  Shoving their OS to the customers as the only was one of  the MS major isntruments in achieving their 90% of desktop market

Ask Dell to make you a PC with a Linux OS and compare teh prices and then tell me your only paying $20 for Windows.

The OS division is BY FAR Microsofts most profitable division, and it's not because they give it away.