Samsung sees $370 million for Vista upgrades

If you were surprised to see that Microsoft's Windows Performance Rating tool -- which ranks PCs on how well they can run Vista -- gives even some fairly high-end current model PCs relatively low rankings, here's another number to wrap your brain around: $370 million. That's how much Samsung estimates it will cost businesses and consumers to upgrade their computers in order to make them Vista-ready. The number is something of a back-of-the-envelope estimate, based on the idea that there were 37 million PCs sold in the US in the last three years, and that 10% of those will be "upgrade candidates," with each upgrade averaging out to about $100 (we assume the other 90% will be tossed into landfills by owners who want brand-new PCs for Vista). To make sure they get a piece of this booty, Samsung plans to offer bundles that will provide both RAM and video upgrades for about $250. If all of this has you thinking there's some kind of conspiracy between Microsoft and its hardware partners to get you to part with your hard-earned cash every few years, banish that notion! If Microsoft really felt that way, they would have released Vista on time, instead of struggling for years to get it out the door.

[Antimatter @ Mar 17th 2006 7:25PM]

This "Windows Vista will require a super computer to run!" FUD is getting pretty old.

Yes, many people don't have even mid-range graphics cards in their PCs and yes, AERO is going to need a decent graphics card to run properly. So turn it off if you can't use it.

I can run Vista BETA on all my computers. Beta people, meaning that it is rough around the edges and not optimized like the final product should be.

My systems range from a desktop with an AMD64 x2 a gig of RAM and a 7800 GTX to an ultraportable laptop with a 1ghz processor, 512mb of RAM, and integrated graphics. My desktop can run Aero fine. My laptop can't. So I turn it off and otherwise Vista is smooth.

I don't understand why people can't get past the fact that Vista can use your graphics card if you want it to in order to make your desktop flashy.

[timmy @ Mar 17th 2006 7:28PM]

And what will I get for these upgrades? A bloated OS hogging up my resources, previously reserved for my games. Oh and lets not forget the phone calls to India when I do upgrade my PC. Thanks Microsoft! Have some money!

[glacia00 @ Mar 17th 2006 7:33PM]

I'm surprised at Samsung. But only a little. This reminds me very much of the Y2K scare. Is anyone really worried that their computer won't run Vista?

Most people won't actually pay any additional money for using Vista. Most users will get Vista preinstalled when they buy their next computer just as they got XP.

Very tired storyline...

[Sean @ Mar 17th 2006 7:38PM]

Why can't vista turn off AREO on its own like OS X disables certain visual features if the CPU can't run them (perhaps it can and I haven't read about it yet)?

Considering that most of the businesses I've done work for over the last three years are still running a mix between Windows 95-XP and most PCs in the business environment are less than 1Ghz models with only 128-256MB of RAM I wonder how many will even consider upgrading? Obviously hardcore PC users and most Fortune 500 companies will have the systems to use Vista, but I'm sure Vista will see the slowest migration of any MS OS to date.

[Ammar @ Mar 17th 2006 7:52PM]

This is exactly the kind of entry that reminds me how neutral and fair the reporting is here on engadget. I bet this article would read quite like that if it were on gizmodo (still check there every day tho!). nice1 fellas. keep it coming

[Ammar @ Mar 17th 2006 8:03PM]

*wouldnt

[Christian @ Mar 17th 2006 8:12PM]

To Sean, that's exactly what it actually does.

The article had to rub in this part again "Microsoft's Windows Performance Rating tool -- which ranks PCs on how well they can run Vista -- gives even some fairly high-end current model PCs relatively low rankings" even though it's been already said in the comments on the other post that the "high-end current model" PCs had crappy video cards.

Vista uses graphics card acceleration for the AERO experience. Just like games do today for their gfx. I bet you don't complain that Quake 4 doesn't run with full effects @ 1600x1200 @ 60 fps on those "high-end current model PCs" that has the fastest 6GHz Athlon256 with 10TB of Ram but a 32MB integrated graphics card, do you?

[i.e @ Mar 17th 2006 8:24PM]

Not surprised that samsumg is glad. they are developing the hybrid hard drives with microsoft.

[Razor @ Mar 17th 2006 8:27PM]

Think of this as an Engadget filler piece as they bide their time waiting to rave about whatever Apple product will be released in April.

[evo @ Mar 17th 2006 8:58PM]

Whoa, this is the first thread where I notice people have something other than "0 STARS".

[ch424 @ Mar 17th 2006 8:59PM]

Whoa! A spectacular day for engadget!

This is the highest concentration of sensible comments I've _ever_ read here. Keep up the good work people!

I have to agree with you antimatter, glacia and Christian. :)

ch424

[ch424 @ Mar 17th 2006 9:03PM]

Oops, a bit late, but what's with the poorly done Vi$ta logo? If your have to make a pathetic joke like that, at least do some anti-ailiasing so your vertical line fits in with the rest of the logo nicely.

ch424

[ms fan..not really @ Mar 17th 2006 9:20PM]

wow 512 is not enough, what the f@ck is windoze id using that for....

According to Micro$oft for windows xp prof. it is required 64 MB minimum
(http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/upgrading/sysreqs.mspx)

for Vi$ta ...512 is not enough


Calculations

512/64=8
8*512=4 096

Conclusion: Approximately 4GB of ram it will be required to run next version of windoze-blackcomb..nice...

P.S. Oh yeah while other people will be betting screwed by microshaft and it's partners, tossing their good hardware to keep up with windoze, I will pick up the "free" computers, from the dumpsters, and will put them together to "afford" a decent web server..thank you Microsoft, you should do this more often...

[Chris @ Mar 17th 2006 9:22PM]

Is the price of my [soon to be] new Mac included in that figure?

[brad @ Mar 17th 2006 9:53PM]

LOL VI$TA!! so clever, engadget!

[Bruce @ Mar 17th 2006 10:46PM]

Its horrible. To get a decent Vista PC I have to spend 999$ ... of course thats one with a dual core and 1GB of ram and a 19" LCD.

I can't afford it!

What a bunch of whiners the Linux and Max faithful are!

[Chris @ Mar 17th 2006 11:11PM]

"If Microsoft really felt that way, they would have released Vista on time, instead of struggling for years to get it out the door."

I'm guessing it just took them longer than they thought to add enough bloat to require system upgrades. Explorer takes 100MB or RAM compared to about 20MB in XP. Way to streamline your code Microsoft!

[hongkongtechkid @ Mar 18th 2006 3:13AM]

have I entered the numbers wrong or is 37 million times by 100 3.7 billion?

[Bozo the clown @ Mar 18th 2006 3:41AM]

Considering Windows runs on about 90% of all computers worldwide, 370 million isn't that big a figure really.

[Cyberwhore @ Mar 18th 2006 8:57AM]

Haha classic. You buy the new OS and the average user has to upgrade hardware.
When OS X 10.5 comes out I'll just install it without having to upgrade my 4 year old computer. How's the total cost of ownership looking now you PC lemmings?

[Sam @ Mar 18th 2006 10:41AM]

Can I just get the usual Hooray for Mac, boo to Microsoft / vice-versa rubbish out of the way first?

OK, now that's done...

#1, you actually seemed to have a well reasoned argument, backed up by some empirical evidence!! I know, an Engadget first!!

I'm interested in your findings that Vista will run on you heavy tools, but not on your ultraportable laptop. I'm going to buy a new laptop when Vista comes out, and I regard it as essential that I can run Aero. I don't really have a clear idea of what spec laptop will be required. Based upon your experience, could you recommend a current laptop graphics subsystem that you think could handle Aero?

[j-dawg @ Mar 18th 2006 10:50AM]

I can run the Vi$ta beta on my 1.5GHz 512mb Athlon with a Radeon 8500. The 8500 i$ now running a$ integrated graphic$ on many motherboard$. This i$ getting way overblown.

You $ee, I felt it nece$$ary to point out that Micro$oft i$ $ucking our money out of our pocket$ to run Vi$ta. $o I cleverly replaced the e$$e$ in this po$t with dollar $igns, which indicate$ my rebellion again$t the Micro$oft machine.

[Snappy! @ Mar 18th 2006 10:57AM]

ok, first off, I like WindowsXP, whether its Pro or Home. And I've been using it happily since it appeared on MSDN Universal subscription until I got it pre-installed in notebooks and recently with SP2 in a new notebook.

WinXP gave Win2k the consumer eye-candy it didn't have (though some would say not enough and others would say too much).

Win2k gave Win98 the stability, *increased* security (some would say 0+10 = 10, others -200 + 10 = -190) and proper support for USB devices among other cool stuffs.

Win98 gave Win95 limited USB and more IE and better native DirectX support.

Win95 as we all know transformed the computing world by introducing *improved* GUI (again its relative to Win 3.11 and DOS 6.22) computing to more users in the world than I care and also brought *easier* internet usage to the masses. (Some would say that the software pirates really saved the day with its excellent distribution channels ... but ... )

Win 3.11 gave networking to Win 3.0/3.1

Win 3.0 gave some kind of improved GUI and solitaire to Win 1.0 (was there a 2.0? oh just checked, there was, but was somewhat obscure.)

Win 1.0 gave to DOS a some kind of GUI.

DOS DOS DOS ... gave you a machine to play cool games like Wolf3D, Karateka, ChopLifter etc

The point being that there was always some kind of change that improved our usage of the computer. To me, WindowsXP serves me really well right now and the last thing I need is someone to tell me that my 1+ mths old notebook needs an OS upgrade already! And on the way to the store, I should try to upgrade the hardware. Heck, buy a new notebook that ships with Vista already! NO!

There is no USB3.0 out there or wifi809.99z or something that will only run on Vista. Will it remain true, very likely. Will it be like this after 5 yrs? Heck, I'll prob be using a new notebook by then if my current one actually live that long. But in the next 2~3 yrs, I seriously see no strong motivation to get Vista, whether as an upgrade or through a new system, especially if I am paying for it!

UMPCs are cool 'cos its a slightly different form factor and usage and paradigm stuff. I cannot see why the average Joe needs to upgrade to Vista.

[Snappy! @ Mar 18th 2006 10:59AM]

Hey, here's a link to show Windows in its full glory over the years ... how we have grown together! :)

http://www.infosatellite.com/news/2001/10/a251001windowshistory_screenshots.html

[Chris @ Mar 18th 2006 11:46AM]

#21

I've been running the various Vista beta's with full Aero on my Dell D610 - 2GHz Pentium M, 1GB RAM, Radeon x300 Mobile with 64MB RAM (1400x1050).

Many of the older machines that don't support Aero just now simily just don't have WDM drivers. As they are added, more machines will support Aero. It also looks like the Intel GMA950 integrated graphics used by many OEM's will also provide full Aero support.

As many people have mentioned, there is no need to move to Vista on launch day. So, many people will simpily aquire the new hardware and Vista during there usual hardware update cycle.

[Sam @ Mar 18th 2006 12:17PM]

#22 & #25.

Thanks guys, that's information that I can put to use.

I just happen to be at a point in my personal upgrade cycle where I'd be looking at a new notebook in 6 months or so, so I guess I should really go for one that can run Aero. I'm a sucker for a pretty face, whether it's birds or OS's!

I'll price up notebooks with the Radeon x300 mobile and Intel GMA950.

[MosquitoControl @ Mar 18th 2006 3:03PM]

Oh no! Businesses sitting on old computers will be forced to upgrade! They'll have to put money into the stalling desktop industry!

[thomas_h @ Mar 18th 2006 11:17PM]

i can run vista beta perfect on my dell i6000 with an ati x300 64mb and 1GB ram..

[duke @ Mar 19th 2006 1:16AM]

#7 christian, does MCC mean anything to you ?

to upgrade or not to upgrade, that is the question. for average consumers, i dont think microsoft is gonna earn a penny from them. frankly speaking, im a computer nuts, i got a 19' lcd, athlon64 4400+ 2gig of ram, raid0 940gb of storage and a pretty decent 6800 256mb card, and i dont give a f@ack about vista, hell i dont even want to try it even if its free, my rigs works fine why would i go thru all this shit just to load this vista junk ?

[josh @ Mar 19th 2006 7:11PM]

Jesus, the derth of stupidity in hear is painful. Vista beta, which is not optimized yet (that's typically the very last thing that happens) runs fine on my Satellite 5205, a 2 and a half year old machine, with Aero enabled. About the only requirement for Aero support is a video card with 64 megs + ram (which fortunately it has). A large number of OEM budget machines and laptops don't have this (or have the incredibly lame shared memory a la the new macbooks) so they will need to upgrade if they want Aero enabled.

This is not the same as the machine being unable to run vista. Vista automatically disables eye candy and other non-essential but nice to have features if the machine doesn't cut it. much like video games do. Much like OS X does.

Ram wise 512 is about the minumum you want, but all of you Mac users who are busy ignorantly bashing an OS you have absolutely know experience with should be familiar with that. That is also about the bare minimum you would want to run OS X at.

A 3 year old machine with a decent amount of ram and a decent 3d card should be able to run Vista without a hitch. Without these things it will still run, but it won't have everything enabled. Sounds fine to me.

[English @ Mar 20th 2006 3:40AM]

at #30:

"Jesus, the derth of stupidity in hear is painful"

When you say "the dearth of stupidity" do you mean the lack of stupidity or the lack of intelligence? Because by the tone of your comments, I think you mean the latter rather than the former.