Wanna join the discussion?! Login to your HotHardware Forums forum account, or Register a new forum account.
Windows is still trying to get more market share in mobile segment, so it makes sense that they would keep the requirements low so that they can work on more devices.
How much overhead do you really want your OS to have? I'd rather they keep the requirements low and get the OS out of the way and let the APPs shine.
I was thinking I would hate to see specs go up just because they can, thinking there would be bloat in the software, etc... Who doesn't want a trimmed down, speedy OS... However, I think I miss the point in that taking advantage of modern technology and NOT supporting very outdated hardware would allow just that. There is probably more bloat trying to support all this legacy junk not to mention less efficient code. I agree, focus on nailing the cross-platform functionality with modern tech and leave the legacy systems to stripped down linux distributions if they must be used.
How is that a lost opportunity? Operating systems shouldn't be resource intensive and shouldn't require impressive hardware. Get with the program.
HotHardware thinks Win10 should be resource intensive so as to try to push people to upgrade their machines. While it would help push people to develop better hardware (BARELY), it would be totally backwards. Prebuilt storebought Win10 machines would by default be more expensive since theyd have higher specs, meaning people looking for a simple, up to date pc, but cant afford a really nice one, would be forced to have an outdated OS. MS wants as many people as possible to get to use Win10, which makes the most sense. "pushing the envelope" with OS min specs is stupid...
Microsoft with all of their wisdom can offer OS' s with higher minimum specs as a alternative....just like gpu's. People with high end system s may want the tech to finally push the windows OS. They don't have to have just one OS with the same specs since vista
100% disagree. An OS should be very minimum. I have the computer to run the programs I want to run, I don't have the computer to run the OS.
The reason they call it Windows 10 is because they missed things out
dont agree with this article also, windows should give more to those with high end specs pcs but not remove those with old ones, actualy it would be more bad ass if the minimum requirements would be less ! clean the code give more with less ... not the other way around
windows 10 in binary = 2
should be windows zero
Hot Hardware thinks that support for non-GPU-accelerated desktops should be dropped, multi-core should be mandatory, and 64-bit should be the only supported version, yes.
Come on. How many of you complaining about this are going to go home and run Windows 10 on your 2003 Opteron or Pentium 4 with 1GB of RAM? Anybody? *ANYBODY?*
I'm not arguing that the OS should target a six-core Core i7 as a minimum spec, but let's not pretend there's no middle ground here.
I am sure that most of people switched to 64 bit OS and x64 CPU (Intel / AMD) and big RAM (such as 8 GB or more) that will have no problems to run on new OS Windows 10. Maybe few old 32 bit CPU as Pentium 4 can run on 32 bits new OS Windows 10 unless they can upgrade RAM and old styles AGP 8X video card. I do not think there is nothing is wrong with it. We are move forward more with 64 bit OS and x64 CPU..
Wow, what a dumb post.
The OS is a damn operating system who's role is to manage the hardware and resources as efficiently as possible and GET OUT OF THE WAY of the user so that you can run productivity apps on top.
It's job IS NOT to occupy gigs of RAM, so you have no resources left for anything else on top!
There's NO NEED at all for an OS to justify more than 512mb of RAM, because the point is to serve you a desktop so you can go off and do the things that matter.
The stupidity of this post can be summed up by reading some comments here: -
I actually believe the specs for Vista/7/8 are already far too high!!
Why in the world would you need more than a Pentium 2 (maybe 3) CPU (i.e. more than 800mhz) and more than 512mb just to run an operating system?
You buy a PC to run productivity apps on top, not to run the OS alone!
The more resources and cpu-cycles required to run an OS means the less resources available for the rest of the apps which actually matter.
Come on Joel, maybe you thought it was April fools today?! :)