Uuh, match Vista's requirements? To be honest, Vista should have matched XP if not less. A better OS would be a stabler, more secure, more optimized, compatible and with better UI ( more user friendly) than the predecesor. Vista fails at doing so and it looks like Win 7 will too, but since it's just something between vista and Win 8, I think we can have some hopes for 2010-2011. Linux anyone?

I think I agree with the first comment. Windows 7 should be less of a demanding system than Vista. But as we know MS is not one to move backwards. Though I did hear that they were removing a lot of the useless crap that comes with an operating system. Maybe lighten the load a little?

I am glad that I won't have to spend any money on upgrading my computer to get this. The way vista is, I was expecting to have to have 4gb of RAM. nice to hear I won't have to upgrade now.

i just hope it will run on my dell optiplex gx 260 because this pc is just enough for me and windows's problems forced me to run pc bsd instead which runs way better than windows ever did... and microsoft said i could even run windows vista so maybe windows 7 will run on this one too....

i am actually Testing windows 7 build 6801 right now . Suprisingly it faster than vista more glassy it runs smoothly its actuallly an improvement . when its finally released we will see most likely an improvement in the OS

So, Devon, can you tell me if I can run this win 7 on dell (laptop) inspiron 1501, dual core cpu 1.9 GHz, 896 ddr, 128 Mb ati xpress series? I would like to try it. BTW I didn't tryed Vista because I don't like it at all

All I want is a more stable, more optimized, more secure, more compatible predecessor. Stop wasting your resources on less important applications and gadgets that non-MS developers specialize in.

Why do we need to ask for more Hardware power for a system which is doing basically same thing like a XP based system anyways ?
I got rid of a really slow Vista and replaced with XP and it's smoking on the same hardware... is MS getting some money from Intel, Asus and such ?

In my opinion for Windows 7 to success it would need to take less resources.. make it run well on 512MB RAM (unlike vista) and nearly all is done. (except for other important things like compatibility for applications and GAMES) Make something that stops processes which are not needed or make them all a low priority thing... when running intensive applications or games.

Would appreciate if someone important at MS reads complaints/opinions of users about their OS.

@dany...
this review says you need at least 1ghz processor and 1 gig of ram and 128 graphics....all you would need to do is upgrade your ram a bit and you will be fine

128MB of graphics memory, why?

xp could run on 16MB graphics, if not less.

i can only hope that they staet 128MB as a requirement for the graphical interface. which slows the whole machine down because the system is always changing something on the user interface and not focusing on the program you want to run.

Windows 7 looks nice well its the same as vista to a pointand if they are going to be running it from a upgraded vista kernal with seemingly the same basic featurs as vista I carnt see how W7 is going to improve on anything if they want to make a better OS take XP rip it to bits improve the kernal improve the graphics (can be done 3rd party alreay) and improve security

*Bingo* one better OS

all they did with vista was fill it full of usless crap (sorry) and I dont feel w7 will be anybetter .

*** Disclaimer These are views of an individual that has not used Windows 7 but if found that his viws are incorrect appologise to anybody offended

I'm not trying to get anyone POd but everyone has to realize that as technology increases things will become obsolete and you will need to upgrade to keep with the times.

This is no different than when people had to spend money to upgrade from an 8 track to a tape drive and eventually a CD player.

In my opinion, even though I think I’m the only person in the world who had a working copy of it, Windows ME was the only "bad" OS MS has released. If you really think about it, all Windows XP is Windows 98 with the glitz and glamour of Windows ME and new security features added on top of that.

I have to laugh when people complain about vista saying that its crap because they don't listen. When Vista came out, MS stated that you will need to upgrade your hardware if you don't want to have problems, but hardly anyone listened and they are the ones who are having problems with Vista.

There is nothing wrong with Windows XP and no one is saying that you have to upgrade to Vista if you don't want to spend the money on the proper hardware to run it. MS will still support XP for the next 10 years or so but eventually you will have to get with the times and upgrade your PC.

I agree that XP was one of the best OS's but after upgrading my PC, considering my last one was built in 1999, and giving Vista a try, I won't go back to XP. I was hesitant to try it because of all the reviews but when I gave it a try, nearly a year after its release, I will stay it took awhile to get used to, but after a week or so of "messing" with everything, I loved it.

Windows 7 is being built on the Vista Technology, which was designed for computers of the now and future, not the past (being 10 yrs old or more), and though the hardware requirements are the same, it will be less demanding on that hardware so all your programs will run faster, ultimately giving you that warm and fuzzy feeling you had with XP, but with the security of Vista.

Bottom line is, if you don't want to spend money to keep up with technology, don't complain when new software becomes available and it won't run on your outdated hardware!!!

I have run dis on my Desktop n also laptop ! MS lads know to make things but hav d least idea abt integration wit one anoder n resource management ! If U r one givin more importance to performance, resource usage n file management dis isnt for U ! Incase u run some multimedia or simulation appln lik matlab or NS2, Dis OS Sucks !
My suggestions, XP wil do !!!!

My PC is currently running XP SP2. I have installed Windows 7 on another drive and I am quit pleased as it seems faster and looks a lot better. My machine is a Asus P4S800D-X motherboard with 533 memory and processor. Pentium 4 2.4 gig processor with 1.5 gig of memory and an ATI 9600 AGP graphics card. Games play smother than under XP and the start up is much faster. There are a couple of programs (Nero and Norton anti-virus) that don't work but I expected that. Had one old scanner (parallel port) that the software would not work but I have a newer EPSON USB that works fine. I think that Windows 7 will allow my machine to be use for another 3-7 years if the hardware last.

I completely agree with ComputerGeek. If you aren't willing to upgrade your hardware, you have no business complaining about Vista. I have been running Vista for more than a year now with no problems what so ever.

I have to disagree with ComputerGeek, at least in part. True, you do need to match your hardware to the OS requirements, but the problems that I've had with Vista had little to do with the hardware. For one thing, the Vista indexing and Vista version of Windows Explorer are awful. Explorer simply does not work most of the time and hangs up completely if you ask it to look at mapped drives. For another, there's something screwy going on with the UAS. If I run either of my Vista machines (business and ultimate) longer than 24 hours without restarting, they begin to hang on all sorts of applications with this message: "Windows cannot access the specified device, path or file. You may not have sufficient permissions to access the item"; this when I've been using exactly the same applications previously in the same session. I assume that this security hangup is also occurring to the various system apps that are running underneath the desktop, which gradually causes all sorts of other problems until you restart. Which is another problem with Vista; it takes forever to boot up and longer than forever to shutdown or restart. Sometimes it won't shutdown at all and the power has to be pulled to bring the machine down and reboot.

I could understand some of these problems occurring if I weren't careful about secure surfing or about keeping the OS tidy, but I'm probably one of the most careful users out there (I teach this stuff on a college level). Vista is definitely a crap OS, even if you have the right hardware to run it, at least within my own experience.

I am a Vista user since April 07. I really do like Vista a lot. I will admit that Vista has had it's share of problems and most of these problems were software and driver compatibility issues. But XP had its share of problems when people switched over from 98 and 2000. People complain about hardware but I can tell you that I ran Vista on a old socket 478 P4 2.1Ghz , 2Gb memory, 256Mb agp video card running home premium with no problems more like a typical laptop running Vista home premium. Currently running on amd socket 939 3800+ dual core, 4gb old ddr memory, xfx 256mb 7800gt video card, 500gb HD. Total cost 200. ebay last year. Processor at 5.2, memory at 5.2, everything else 5.9 in system performance in welcome center. So far I like Windows 7. Can't get Symantic anti-virus working yet but still beta. Just like with XP, Vista and now Windows 7, I have always started with a fresh install and you tweak your system to YOUR taste. Things begin, progress and grow old and the same is with computers. There come a point when you have to upgrade to digital because analog is obsolete. You can still use analog with extra components but the picture is not as clear. Tube and LCD. See my point. Part hype to get you to buy more. Smarts gets you more usage out of older things by tinkering and adding to it. Or buy a system every time a new OS comes out and let automatic update take care of all your worries. And finally, run Linux Mint 5.0 as a dual boot. Makes a great backup once configured.

You must be a Microsoft fanboy, ComputerGeek, but I am a little sorry for labeling you. The Linux community is alive and well and you might not realize it but a very large portion of the internet, with http and smtp/pop on top, is still run on Linux servers with VERY outdated hardware. Until now, the open source community is alive and kicking with hacking and playing with "older" machines and you can be surprised how blazingly well they perform compared to the normal Windows setup with too much unnecessary overhead. As long as the economics of money is a key concern, along with the sheer joy of breaking things and see how they work, the open source community will always shine. The internet did not become to what it is today because of Microsoft, but because of the open standards (RFCs) and open source community.

My old hardware still has use, and as long as they all run, they still serve me well, what with the lot of servers I still run and enjoy.

However, I am also a sensible Windows XP user, and I do not share your sentiments with Windows ME. I skipped ME and 2000 from 98 and went straight to XP, realizing that they finally hit the nail on the better part of its head. I even saw that the DOS prompt in XP emulated many useful things I enjoy in BASH (Linux DOS-like shell console). XP also addressed many compatibility issues to 16-bit programs introduced in ME and 2000. You see, I come from the DOS era, and have used Windows since it was in version 3 and its more popular version as 3.11. In my POV, Vista was another ME or 2000 OS, bringing along with it many compatibility issues working with older software - things that you've also invested upon with hard earned money (unless you don't earn yours that way). I am glad to point out, though, that Windows 7 appears to be more robust in its applications compatibility to 16- and 32-bit apps than the sad release called Vista.

I do welcome Windows 7.

Maybe I`m plain stupid, but I don`t understand why is it so bloody necessary for an OS to be so demanding....... Like the sole purpose of a machine is to run an OS - and period! God forbid if you want anything to run on it!!!

What comes in that 16 or whatever gigs on hdd??! And whats this statement that "a 40 GB hard drive will be more than enough to power Windows 7." I have a 150 gb hdd. Why on earth should I waste almost a third of my space, and be thankfull about it?

In my understanding an OS should be a platform for other programs to run on. To establish a set of rules and conditions for that. To manage hardware.. With every OS that Microsoft puts out (XP and 98se were the only ones I had a fairly good opinion) - I`m becoming more a Linux lover!

I can say that I neither agree nor disagree with any of the posters on this forum. Everyone has their own personal favorite, so here are my two cents.

XP is still faster than Vista, regardless on what hardware its run on. Vista has some really good features that XP does not have, although I have to say that I really hate UAC a lot, what an annoying little addition.

I had been using Vista x64 for quite a while, and after getting used to Vista it's really hard to return to XP (due to some of Vista's features that are just nice) However, Vista, even to this day has a lot of problems, and hangs on some applications for apparently no reason.

I tried Windows 7, and even though it's just a reconstructed Vista, I've noticed a couple of interesting changes.

In Task Manager > Performance Tab, Vista x64 Kernel Memory usage is always anywhere between 120-350MB.

Windows 7 kernel memory usage has not surpassed 100MB, staying within the ranges of 65-90MB. Personally, I would consider this an improvement.

I haven't had much experience with Windows 7 yet, but I can say it's noticeably faster than Vista. Whether it has to do with the less-hogging kernel it's still to be seen, but all we can do is wait and see if Microsoft will make the same mistakes it did with Vista.

well ms has alot of hang ups. yes they keep piling on the system requirements and not showing alot to back up why they need it and yes they are still riddled with the flaws of viruses and etc. but i have to admire their cheekiness in their dev. only ms could screw ya ova and still make a profit lol. but all jokes aside no operating system is perfect linux has flaws mac has flaws and so does windows. it depends on your preference.