Will your PC run Vista? Don't ask Microsoft.

Microsoft is including a rating system, known as the Windows Performance Rating, in Windows Vista, which will enable PC buyers to see how well a particular model can handle the new operating system. The tool ranks your computer on an overall scale of 1-5, and ranks specific components as well. The tool is likely to benefit PC retailers, who will be able to use a relatively low score as a rationale for selling upgrades, but it could also leave some consumers bewildered by what may seem like mediocre scores for relatively high-end systems. Trying out the new system on a number of PCs, CNET found that a recent Sony Vaio with a 1.83GHz Intel T2400 and 1GB of RAM scored a middling 3, though the rating system gave it a whopping 5.6 for its processor and 5.5 for memory. In the meantime, Microsoft is also preparing another tool, the Windows Upgrade Advisor, which will allow computer owners running Windows XP to find out whether their computers have the right stuff to use Vista. If it's anything like the Performance Rating, we assume it'll tell you to install major upgrades, even if you're running the latest $5,000 Quad SLI, 2GB RAM, Athlon 64 gaming rig.

[ty @ Mar 16th 2006 10:13AM]

I have a feeling that Vista is gonna have the worst uptake among exisitng PCs. The hardware requirements are beyond the reach of the vast majority of exisitng sytems. Geez, im still running Win2000 here at work.

[George @ Mar 16th 2006 10:15AM]

These features are behyond stupid.. seriously didn't bells start going off or something when they were brain storming this??

[JT @ Mar 16th 2006 10:20AM]

It smells really bad indeed...

[x23 @ Mar 16th 2006 10:22AM]

didn't they have the same thing on the Windows 98 -> XP transition? pretty sure they did... and it wasn't nearly as sky-is-falling as everyone made it out to be in the months prior to XP coming out.

[DJ @ Mar 16th 2006 10:26AM]

I'll repeat my post from yesterday:

"This just in from Microsoft: Windows Vista may or may not support PC's at launch. However, a patch will be available for download soon after launch."

[derrick @ May 10th 2007 2:03PM]

well also there is problems with vista and older software and hardware too for some reasion and why did they make the minimum requirements so high this time unlike with xp where u need only 64mb of ram and a pentum mmx 233 mhz as a base vista needs at least 512mb of ram 800 mhz processor and at least 15gb of hd space and a dvd drive of some sort

[kriffer @ Mar 16th 2006 10:31AM]

i dont care, im getting vista no matter what and its going to kick ass, and who doesnt run a pretty good computer anymore, im upgrading again, but i know my comp right now will handle it like any other process, i.e. AIM,,,,,,LOLOLOL maybe

[Nate @ Mar 16th 2006 10:31AM]

I say bring it on, maybe then will people realize that 192mbs of ram isnt enough for ANYTHING! "My computer runs slow" Well how much ram do you have? UPGRADE!

[rotten_fruit_fan @ Mar 16th 2006 10:36AM]

Also notice how there's no mention of what graphics chip is in that Vaio that "surprisingly" got a low 3. The bets thing about Vista is that it will force people to get decent graphics hardware. I'm tired of getting laptops with great processors and crappy graphics.

[Lee @ Mar 16th 2006 10:37AM]

See, but #6, RAM upgrade in this case is a band-aid... that'd be treating the symptoms as opposed to the actual problem.
If I'd have to maybe go buy a new PC just to run Vista, it's not going to happen...

Certainly, if we look at the fact MS even had to invent such a utility - "Will your PC run Vista?"... that's a non-starter right there.

So, once again, I'm with #5... how many times has MS put something out then had to patch the crap out of it later... crap, I forgot, it's not a "patch," it's called Service Pack.

Okay, MS chaps me all the time, but I can't seem to live without using a bunch of their stuff... a necessary evil I suppose.

[mark @ Mar 16th 2006 10:44AM]

this rating systems is trying to make pc's easier to understand for non-geeks, and that's a good thing. hey every new version of the Mac OS that comes out has extremely limited support for what they call "legacy devices". Microsoft deserves a lot of credit for trying to preserve both backward integrity with software and support for older pc's and hardware. Windows XP is like 5 years old already, and theyre getting beefed at all the time for not improving it enough. so now theyll come out with a new OS and peopel will beef that it's too new and too much better. give me a break! every few years folks ya gotta buy new and better pc's, get used to it and plan for it. my in-laws are still running win 98 with like 64MB of ram and they cant understand why it's slllooooooowwww. but theyre ok if i spend $300 of my time to defrag and try to clean the POS out. for the same $ they could buy a new dell with XP, 512, 80, dvd burner, and a warranty. bring on vista!

[Lee @ Mar 16th 2006 10:45AM]

darn it... the numbers changed while I was posting my last... it's for #7, not #6. oops.


Also, I completely understand that probably every six months, the technology in a PC from 6 months back is "old," but good gravy, can't MS just write good, clean code. I've got a friend who's a research engineer/programmer and his take is that much of MS's code in XP could have been written much cleaner, and thus run more efficiently. I don't know where the problem is, but I can only hope Vista isn't going to be this behemoth I can't run on my 2.8GHz processor w/ 2Gb RAM.

[BlueLaser @ Mar 16th 2006 10:47AM]

You failed to mention that the system CNET tested also had Intel Graphics with only 64 MB of video memory.

Vista with Aero Glass will be a graphics heavy OS and MS has to find an "idiot proof" way to tell consumers if their computer is good enough to drive the advanced OS features.

A "middle of the road" rating is accurate in this case because the RAM/Processor are great but the video/media related components (good vid card and big HD for storing media content) are only average.

[Alex @ Mar 16th 2006 10:48AM]

I heard that the tool isn't ready yet, so scores aren't accurate. Either way, I've got a 3 year old machine that runs Vista with Glass just fine, albeit a little suggish. By the time Vista ships Microsoft will have optimized things and more people will have upgraded to higher-end machines than they have now. Don't worry you guys, it'll be okay.

[Tom @ Mar 16th 2006 10:56AM]

Please...

I have a 6 year old machine and it runs vista fine, its an old IBM netvista, its 933mhz P3, 384ram (was 128; upgraded by 256 for about $20).

So enough of the "egh it wont run on anything blah blah blah".

[Brad @ Mar 16th 2006 10:57AM]

I understand the point #10 is making about making sure legacy systems are supported, but doesn't anyone else find it absurd that Vista will need something like 80GB of hard drive space and something like 1GB of memory? No doubt that the memory situation is more likely to be a real world requirement of 1.5GB for reasonably snappy performance...

I don't want to start a Mac vs Windows thread here, but why must each major release of Windows result in a logarithmic growth in hardware requirements? I think it's fair to say that Vista isn't really going to add any features that are much more advanced than what the Mac OS is offering. (Aside from draconian digital media copy protection routines.)

[trimbandit @ Mar 16th 2006 10:58AM]

#1 "I have a feeling that Vista is gonna have the worst uptake among exisitng PCs. The hardware requirements are beyond the reach of the vast majority of exisitng sytems. Geez, im still running Win2000 here at work."

It seems to run fine on our very middle-of-the-road Dells here ar work. And at this point the code isn't even optimized. Are you speaking from experience?

[daaper @ Mar 16th 2006 10:58AM]

I don't know why this is such a surprise that they have this rating system. like #4 said, they've done this with past releases. Since when does 3 out of 5 mean that it won't run? Maybe it got the 3 because of onboard graphics or a minor issue that doesn't require money to fix (drivers?). If it ranks each component individually, how about telling us what scored low?

[vectorbug @ Mar 16th 2006 10:58AM]

How about a link to the test?

[Lee @ Mar 16th 2006 11:01AM]

I certainly hope it'll turn out fine... though I have gotten used to XP's little quirks for the most part & switching to Vista may be a bit painful... but switching OS is usually a little painful anyway.

Sidenote -- when I was in Iraq a year ago, many folks were scarfing up ripped Longhorn (I know it's not legal, and thankfully I didn't even have the time to bother with it, but Iraqi shopkeepers don't seem to know what "pirating" is) copies to test out & they seemed to like it then... time has passed, so things should have only gotten better.

[XGM @ Mar 16th 2006 11:01AM]

WTF im a beta tester for vista + office 12, and i find t runs great. The minimum specs are around 2GHz CPU and a Radeon 9200 gets the job done. Im running a 3000+ with X800XL and its runs great

[jonl @ Mar 16th 2006 11:03AM]

I'm running Vista 5308 with aero on a Sempron 2600 with 512mb of (pc2700) ram and an old fx5500.

It runs absolutely fine, and outperforms XP in a munber of things.

In the performance test it scored 2, but regardless of this it runs as well as XP does, if not better.

So, whatever this tool does, it's not really goning to dictate whether you can run Vista well or not.

[Avend @ Mar 16th 2006 11:07AM]

I tried out the February CTP a week ago or so, and I ended up with a 5.8 rating IIRC. Here's what I had:

althon 64 X2 4400+
2gb ram
geforce 7800gtx (256mb)
and about 30GB of free space on a partition

[Jess @ Mar 16th 2006 11:14AM]

well, like with anything users beware. In Great Britain there have already been stories about the problems with window's Vista and that is to say sercurity issues. I only have one little problem with windows XP service pack 2 and that's internet explorer. I just refuse to use it. I have aol explorer and the new netscape 8.1 browser and they both work fine and fast from the makers of mozilla firefox can't go wrong there.)With aol explorer getting windows updates aren't a problem.

[TC @ Mar 16th 2006 11:16AM]

If it's on a scale of 1 - 5, how did any component get 5.6???

[moondog @ Mar 16th 2006 11:19AM]

Re: the OSX comment and supporting legacy devices. As long as your Mac has firewire ports you can run the latest OS. This means that even those color-coded iMac's can run Tiger despite the fact that they are about 8 years old now with a G3 inside. And it runs pretty well I must say. I have one of these running Tiger at home with a 400Ghz G3, 192MB of RAM and it's not much noticeably slower than on my 1GHz G4 Powerbook.

I know the minimum requirements for XP are pretty low, but it runs terrible on those older machines. The biggest problem I see is that MS has such a stranglehold on the PC OS market that everyone has no choice but to switch, especially with the "planned obsolescence" model that MS loves so much.

[Jason @ Mar 16th 2006 11:20AM]

Everytime MS talks about Vista I want an Apple machine more.

I've never owned a Mac before.

I'm getting a 17" iMac as it seems to be cheaper than upgrading for Vista.

[thequinox @ Mar 16th 2006 11:24AM]

I agree with a lot of people here. As to the "why must each major release of Windows result in a logarithmic growth in hardware requirements?" The reason is that of every program. For things to get better (and by that I mean flashy swiveling things) we are going to need better video cards and more ram. If you don't feel like upgrading than you won't be able to use the flashy features, simple as that. Lots of people use XP with the classic style just so they don't have to spend $60 on some ram, and the same thing will happen with Vista.

[Cyberpunk_hex @ Mar 16th 2006 11:29AM]

OK, Maybe I�m thick but if the rating scale goes from 1-5 then how come some things are being rated as 5.5. Wouldn�t that imply that the scale went higher than 5?

[TeleCustom @ Mar 16th 2006 11:40AM]

if Vista is supposedly taking up so many system resources, then what does it mean for running loads of programs? what about gaming?

[nizzy1115 @ Mar 16th 2006 11:57AM]

I got a measly rating of a "2"

My system specs:
1024 gb pc3200 ram
200gb 7200rpm 8mb
200gb 7200rpm 8mb
80 gb 7200rpm 2mb
Pentium 4 3.2 ghz with HT @ 3.6
Nvidia 6600 GT @ 550 core ,1200 ram
420 watt psu
varius pci stuff
Running at 1280 x 1024

I guess i have a really low end system :(

[JCollum @ Mar 16th 2006 11:59AM]

I for one am frustrated by this assumption on the part of software vendors that more and more processing power is available all the time. Sure, it is, but I wish that the OS was better about getting by with less. More adaptive I guess. MS products use soooo much RAM and they just aren't that great for all of it. I'd think by now that they would have gotten better at optimizing things so that Windows Vista would be fast on any system and just smokin sweet on a high end system.

[Garybaldy @ Mar 16th 2006 12:51PM]

Running vista beta build 5308 on my primary gaming machine. I get a rating of 4. Thats after a crappy rating of 2.4 with some driver conflicts. The specs being nothing specail with an ASUS A8N-E Athlon 64 3200, gig of ram and a ATI Radeon X800 XL, Four 250Gb HD's.

[FRED @ Mar 16th 2006 1:00PM]

FUD, dare to post the full image. Actually I have had a look at that comparison. The reason why this computer only got 3 points is because it uses an intel integrated graphic card and has only 64mb graphic memory. The awful graphic device pulls the overall rates down.
Bring your brain with you. Microsoft can't benefit from underrating users' systems and persuading users buying new computer for Vista. What they supposed to do is overrating your system and you are more likely willing to buy a copy of Vista.
Engadget, I know Microsoft is evil, every corporation is evil. But please show us your justice, don't bias anything anymore.

[glacia00 @ Mar 16th 2006 1:28PM]

One of the features of the MS OS versions is backward compatibility. It's seen as both a boon and a hinderence. And abandoning it has been tossed around more than once at MS.

Certainly the code could be highly streamlined without legacy support. And I suspect at some point MS will make a break with it and say "from here forward it will work and from here back you will have to use 'this'"

I personally would have welcomed it with either XP or Vista. And I actually own and use some of that legacy equipment. There simply isn't a reason to upgrade the OS on older machines. It's like adding a TIVO to a B&W TV with rabbit ears.

[Voice O. Reason @ Mar 16th 2006 1:38PM]

OMG... MS sucks!! MS is the devil!! Why do they always do this?!?! MAC is GOD!! The Penguin sticker on my car adds 100 hp!

Give me a break! First you complain that MS has become complacent and now you complain they want too much. I am positive that just like any software it will run just fine, you will just need to turn down some of the bells and whistles! I run XP on over 100 P500 with 256 m of ram. They are not screamers but the employee's can more than do their job.

Build a $300 business machine for work. Spend $1500 on a functioning game machine. If you have the cash go hog wild and spend $3000 on a bleeding edge super PC. Save up and buy that sweet video card. Heck your mom isn't charging you rent!! I'm sure you would like to have a brand new top of the line BMW to drive but can only afford a Scion, but do you bad mouth BMW?

If you hate MS so much and think that there is something better, get out of your mom's basement, invest money and effort, hire a marketing company, and build this miracle OS that will run a Fortune 500 company on a 386 or a Mini Mac. Until then upgrade your system and keep the crying to a minimum!

[Phillip @ Mar 16th 2006 2:02PM]

What I am hoping is that Microsoft is smart enough to build a scaled down version for Enterprise deployment. No machine in a real-world environment is going to have the hardward needed to run this OS. What they are going to do is drive up the cost involved in hardware deployment on an enterprise level (which is all too much of a coincedence).

[SoopahMan @ Mar 16th 2006 2:06PM]

Ummmmmm - hello, that laptop scored badly because its graphics are a joke. People should be thanking Microsoft for releasing a tool that calls crippled machines out on their crippling features.

Nearly every PC comes with a cripplingly low amount of RAM even though RAM is cheap, and a joke for 3D and sound, and sometimes even a crippled ethernet card, when the latter 2 can be had for just a few dollars more - because most consumers don't know what to look for. This tool will hopefully put a number on these crippled PCs and people will finally see them for what they are.

Vista's numerous 3D and vector capabilities basically work best on a gaming machine, and I'm willing to bet my moderate $1500 gaming machine sitting in my room now would rate a 4 or 5 on this system. The one crappy thing about Vista is that your 3D card's fan is going to spin up nearly all of the time, which is going to create a serious noise issue on Vista PCs - and a serious battery issue on Vista laptops.

[glacia00 @ Mar 16th 2006 2:30PM]

"" 35 What I am hoping is that Microsoft is smart enough to build a scaled down version for Enterprise deployment. No machine in a real-world environment is going to have the hardward needed to run this OS. What they are going to do is drive up the cost involved in hardware deployment on an enterprise level (which is all too much of a coincedence).""


They announced a scaled back version and got lambasted by Engadget and others for it.

[7of7 @ Mar 16th 2006 2:58PM]

I'm sick of how patently absurd the general tech communitiy's views of Vista are. Despite wave after wave of good reviews, and the opportunity to test the beta, people are still entirely clueless. There are still morons out there who think the only difference between Vista and XP is the visual redesign. That's like saying that OS X is just a visual redesign of OS 7. It's an inaccurate and deliberate mis-statement propagated by the anti Miscrosoft community. The hardware requirements are not bad at all. My 1 year old laptop runs it quite nicely, usually hovering around 200Mb of RAM with IE7 open to 3 pages. My computer is rated a 3 on the hardware test also. To think that a next gen operating system should be released with the belief that current gen hardware is the best it'll ever be is not only dangerous, it's ignorant. I guarentee that within a year of Vista's release, you will be able to buy a 4-5 range system for less than $1500.

[niner @ Mar 16th 2006 5:02PM]

Keep in mind that Conroe, the Robson cache, and DX10 graphics cards are all coming out around the Vista launch.

[steve @ Mar 16th 2006 6:19PM]

OMG 34. Thank you. This is exactly what pisses me off about vista critics. People look at it as an xp upgrade. It's not. It's a new OS, and it's not meant for every computer out there. It's been years since xp came out, and the capabilities of your average Joe Shmoe's hardware are no longer barely peeping over the minimum requirements for FreeBSD.

If your hardware con't handle vista, either upgrade or sit tight and stfu. I'm tired of plebs crying about how they won't be able to run vista with all the eye candy turned on and they don't have money to upgrade because they live in a cardboard box in somalia and they only have a stolen $100 laptop. Microsoft is not forcing you to buy vista. There are plenty of people running 98, 2000 and ME right now. At least they don't bitch and moan about XP the way you guys do about vista.

[Pzychotix @ Mar 16th 2006 6:54PM]

Honestly, I believe that an OS shouldn't even require that much to run. Visual eye candy isn't something I'd want out of my OS. Being able to run my programs without stealing half my RAM and processing speed is what I want out of it. XP was already a memory bloated app, pretty much killing any comp that doesn't have 256 MB of RAM or more (and it's sluggish at that). Even if RAM is cheap, 256 MB RAM should still be more than enough to run your apps, since most programs themselves don't run too high anyways (excluding games and the like). But instead, when idling with no programs out, I have about 120-180 MB of RAM already used up. That's not a lot of room left to run other things. If Vista is as bloated as XP was, and has little options in the way of toning down the graphical requirements, I'll be sorely disappointed.

(On the other hand, I do have a nice high-end recently build comp. So I'll still be using Vista.... sadly.)

[Echo_ @ Mar 16th 2006 7:12PM]

engadget do you sleep with apple?

[Razor @ Mar 16th 2006 7:32PM]

Another Engadget Vista bad-mouth. Get this straight, the next release of the software from the world's largest software company whose current operating system runs on what, 92% of the world's computers will roll right past this silly little gadget blog and there's not a hell of a lot they can do about it.

[Woofy Snickelback @ Mar 16th 2006 11:18PM]

Where can I run the test on my machine and...

Do you guys think a Sempron 2600, 512 of ram and a 128mb Radeon XPress 200 will run vista glass?

[twiggy @ Mar 17th 2006 12:56AM]

even though i havent been able to test vista for myself, i think that what you guys are saying is right.. i mean after microsoft releases vista.. the immense hardware requirements are going to force prices down on what we would consider "high end" in the end, i think this is microsoft's goal. to actually get everyone into the present.. not leave everyone satisfied with running a crappy win 98 pc with 64 megs of ram. they realize that people aren't that keen on stepping out of their comfort zones, so microsoft is going to force tehm out of hiding by releasing a new product and pushing it as hard as the xbox 360. lets just hope they dont dump us xp users like they did xbox players when someting new and shiny comes along. a total revolution is a few years off. but i commend microsoft for perserverance.

[twiggy @ Mar 17th 2006 1:34AM]

btw... since you all asked so nicely.. heres teh link to get windows vista.. it goes a littel slow.. but bear with it. http://windows.czweb.org/461_DOWNLOAD_Windows_Vista_build_5270

[twiggy @ Mar 17th 2006 1:50AM]

Oh.. and like nemmy.. i want STAAAARS!!!!

[Othello @ Mar 17th 2006 3:51AM]

Wait... Has anyone besides me looked at the full test results they posted? On a 1-5 scale: CPU 4.4, RAM 5.4, 60GB of HDD space 3.8, GPU 3.6, GFX memory 3.3, Overall 3.

Obviously, there's a problem when something scores over 5 on a 1-5 scale, but I also wonder just how much HDD space is optimal when 60GB free isn't enough. The most disconcerting thing is the fact that the overall rating is a 3, while no other score ever went that low. There seems to be no real context for determining just what any of this means, not to mention the fact that it comes off as a little wacky. I like the idea they have going, I'm a sucker for benchmarks, but can't they atleast have this make some sense? Keep it simple!