Developer source: Microsoft ‘Longhorn’ to require some serious hardware

“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,” Mary Jo Foley reports for Microsoft-Watch.

“That’s according to developer sources close to the company. Microsoft officials would not comment on the Longhorn reference implementation,” Foley reports.

Full article here.


  1. And this is JUST for the OS. What happens then after installing the first third party program?

    Anyway, apart the clock, and the *URGH* terabyte storage, it looks essentially a today’s G5.

  2. Ary: recommended, not minimum. Big difference. Barely run is not useable.
    Simular stuff with games: minimum config and you load it, see the first screen then realize you run at 2~3 frames/sec.

    Usually a game is playable when you are way better then the recommended configuration.

  3. Well, that should encourage swift adoption!</sarcasm>

    It’s hard to imagine a system like that existing for less than $800, even in three years time. It’s even harder to imagine a portable configuration – the growth area in both corporate and SoHo – for less than $1500-2000.

    A 200-seat SMB/SME company that is 60/40 (desktop/laptop) will need to spend around $250,000 to re-equip, plus the upgrade costs of Office 20xx ($125), plus the costs of anti-virus software ($25), not to mention the resource costs of installing the damn thing anyway ($250-500).

    So now it’s $330,000 at the least, just to buy in to the latest product from the creators of some of the most shabbily designed platform software in the history of the industry.

    And then you’ll have to keep it alive everyday, which is something else entirely.

    Can’t wait to read Thur-rots latest fawning piece about how Longhorn’s graphics will look so much nicer than OS X. Fscking well should with that spec.

  4. These are not minimum requirements, they are “average” requirements. Hopefully (or not) Intel and nVidia/ATI will be able to keep on track for these specs. Could you imagine delaying the next major revision of Windows until 2006 and having to wait until 2007 to run it properly?

  5. Please, don’t misunderstand my intent. I think Longhorn is the biggest joke ever conceived by a company. I am much more bothered by MDN’s scratching around week-old obscure articles and posting them as “news” than I am of the predictably huge hardware requirements for Longhorn.

    Personally, I’ve been trying to find a video (stream) of Allchin’s struggle with Longhorn. That’d be priceless.

  6. ummm… just wondering… exactly how many computers, that meet THESE specs, does M$ have access to in order to develop their bloatware??? WTF are they thinking? Do they really believe that “Joe Sixpack” is going to scurry out and buy a new CPU to run this? Idiots.

  7. I want to see Dull offer this computer for $499! These cheap pee-cee buyers will go into sticker shock when the minimum system is $1,000 or more. This will help Apple look better to new computer buyers.

  8. The minimum 2Gib RAM blows out any chance of it running decently on a Pentium then. Looks like another reason for Windows users to abandon Intel for Athlon64.

    On another point, before we all get too smug. Yes, Longhorn is currently very slow, but so was OSX 10.0.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.