I always look forward to a new Microsoft version. It’s fun to see what they think the minimum and recommended hardware requirements are for running their operating systems. I’ve used Microsoft’s Windows operating systems for more than twenty years and each one requires a major hardware upgrade over the previous version. And, it’s comical to read how the next great Windows version won’t require that expensive and inevitable CPU, memory and disk upgrade. But, it does. Not only does it require a significant hardware upgrade, there is also the accompanying fresh installation of the new operating system, applications and data.

There are millions of private and corporate users who haven’t made the great leap from Windows XP to Windows 7 yet. There’s no easy upgrade path from XP to 7. Microsoft fully expected people to leave XP in favor of Vista and then race to 7 with glazed-over eyes and emptier wallets. But, they didn’t. Vista sucked and people didn’t want a repeat of Vista in Windows 7. Windows 7 is good. It isn’t Windows XP good but it’s pretty darn good.

But now that the release of Windows 8 looms over us like tax day, individuals and IT managers have to contemplate the Microsoft hardware tax. How large that tax will be is anyone’s guess. Microsoft currently provides the following hardware recommendations for Windows 8:

Of course, if history does indeed repeat itself, then expect to at least double the requirements for CPU and RAM. Disk requirements of 16GB (x86) and 20GB (x86_64) are minimums for operating system installation only.

If you don’t believe me about Microsoft’s history of grossly underestimating hardware requirements, let’s take a trip down memory (no pun intended) lane. For the purposes of this article, I’m only considering workstation versions and comparing CPU, RAM and disk requirements. To be fair, server operating systems require a lot more horsepower because they are multi-user systems and requirements vary so widely that it’s not reasonable to use them for this comparison.

If after seeing this graph, you don’t get the feeling that Microsoft pulls its hardware estimates out of thin air, maybe my own personal history with these operating systems will convince you.

When I upgraded from Windows 3.1 to Windows NT 3.51, I upgraded to a 486-DX 66Mhz with 32MB of RAM and it ran very well. NT 3.51’s stability and speed were unsurpassed in Microsoft’s professional operating systems (NT) for almost the next ten years.

Upgrading from NT 3.51 to 4.0 was a real treat for me. My old machine wouldn’t work at all. I had to requisition* a new one from our incoming shipments. A new Pentium-class system with 32MB of RAM. I realized after two or three days that 32MB was just enough to run the OS but not enough for any serious work. I added another 32MB. The system ran fine but blue-screened on a daily basis.
I pulled the RAM and inserted a set of four matching SIMMs and never had anymore blue screens.

My wife bought me a new system for my birthday in 2002 with Windows 2000 Professional on it. It came with a Pentium III and 128MB of RAM. I had to upgrade to 256MB right away because it was as slow as sucking cold gravy through a straw. After a few more months, I upgraded the RAM again to 512MB, where it remained until I moved to Windows XP.

Windows XP required a new motherboard, CPU, and an upgrade to 1GB RAM. And, that was just a short two years and two or three big arguments with my wife later about spending a lot more money on computer stuff. I stuffed another gigabyte of RAM into that system for a smooth ride until about two years ago.

I never transitioned to Vista. It has too many problems and is basically garbage. While it was still in beta, I was signing on to become a co-author of an O’Reilly Vista book with a somewhat famous lead author. After working with Vista for a few weeks, I told my agent that I hate Vista and I don’t want the book deal. I couldn’t write a book about something that I hated so much and because someone might actually purchase that worthless pile of ones and zeros based on the book.

Instead, I waited and I bought myself a new Dual-core AMD Turion X2 RM-70 2GHz laptop with 4GB of RAM for my primary workstation running Windows 7 Ultimate. It runs fine. Although sometimes it gets a little sluggish with a VirtualBox VM and a few other programs running, I’m happy with its performance thus far. It was an inexpensive system that I won’t mind replacing at the end of its useful life.

Since I’m a technology writer, I feel that it’s necessary to stay fairly current with operating systems. I usually give Microsoft a year or so to work out the bugs and kinks with a service pack or two before taking the plunge/risk on their newest OS. I run new operating systems in VMs. It prevents hours of reimaging and frustration that I just don’t have time for these days.

I’m sure I’ll take the same ‘wait and see’ attitude with Windows 8 that I’ve taken with their other OSes. Fixing an operating system released too soon to the public is not my job. I prefer stability over break/fix.

I’m in no hurry to spend a lot more money on another hardware upgrade to run a few cutesy thingies on the desktop. I’ll probably stick with Windows 7 until Microsoft stops supporting it. Either that or I’ll run Linux exclusively.

With Linux, I won’t have to run out and spend $500 to $800 every two years to replace or to upgrade my existing system. Nor will I have to buy more RAM on the “non-upgrade” years.

For those of you waiting with palpitating hearts in anticipation of Microsoft’s latest effort, I say, “Go for it.” But, be prepared to replace or to upgrade your current system in that transition. You’re gonna need a bigger boat to make it float.

* There’s an additional story to accompany this one that will be the subject of another off-topic post. Stay tuned.

Source:http://www.zdnet.com/blog/virtualization/another-windows-version-another-hardware-upgrade/3849

Apple has the right to continue restricting its operating systems to its own hardware thanks to a decision handed down by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday. Circuit Judge Mary Schroeder wrote in her opinion that Apple’s Mac OS X licensing agreement was indeed enforceable against Psystar, which had sold non-Mac computers with Mac OS X installed.

Psystar had previously been held in violation of Apple’s copyrights by a District Court, and did not appeal that ruling. Instead, in its appeal, Psystar argued that the OS X licensing agreement was an “unlawful attempt to extend copyright protection to products that are not copyrightable”—an argument that the Ninth Circuit has now dismissed.

The legal row between Apple and Psystar began in July of 2008, several months after Psystar introduced a bargain-basement computer for $399 that could run Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard). Apple sued, and Psystar’s original countersuit against Apple was thrown out completely; a bankruptcy filing later revealed that Psystar owed its law firm more than $88,000. All the while, Psystar continued to sell its products and even marketed new ones, such as an Xserve clone and an EFI tool meant to help individual users put Mac OS X on their hacktintoshes.

In late 2009, US DIstrict Judge William Alsup ruled that Psystar violated Apple’s copyrights when distributing Mac OS X with its machines. Psystar’s counterclaims were dismissed and the documents were sealed at Apple’s request—the company argued that the filings might reveal some of the proprietary technical measures it used to limit the distribution of Mac OS X on unauthorized machines.

Psystar never appealed the decision that it had violated Apple’s copyrights, but it did argue that Apple was engaging in anti-competitive copyright misuse by limiting its software to Apple hardware. The company claimed it had purchased copies of Mac OS X and included them when it sold non-Mac computers to customers, which should be protected under the First Sale doctrine. Judge Schroeder sided with Apple, however, which said Psystar hadn’t shown evidence that the OS X licensing agreement restricted creativity or competition.

“Apple’s [software license agreement] does not restrict competitor’s ability to develop their own software, nor does it preclude customers from using non-Apple components with Apple computers. Instead, Apple’s [software license agreement] merely restricts the use of Apple’s own software to its own hardware,” Schroeder wrote. “Psystar produces its own computer hardware and it is free to develop its own computer software.”

Chicago-based intellectual property lawyer Evan Brown described this decision as “kind of a big deal.”

“This is an important win for Apple because it bolts down the legal substrate for Apple’s tightly controlled, closed ecosystem. Since the courts have found that Apple is not playing unfairly by keeping its users from loading Apple software onto non-Apple hardware, the company can likewise maintain the technological controls to ensure that only approved applications are used in connection with the operating systems,” Brown told Ars. “A world in which there were legitimate marketplaces for third-party hardware running Apple software would greatly lower the entry barrier for hackers and enthusiasts to play outside of the rules. This court decision keeps those rules firmly in place.”

The only part of the District Court’s decision that Schroeder didn’t agree with was one that sealed the judgement documents. She wrote that the court failed to articulate specific reasons for complying with Apple’s request, and therefore vacated that part of the ruling and remanded it for further consideration.

As we noted in 2009, when Apple won its first round against Psystar, the decision will certainly limit companies that try to make a commercial business out of re-selling Apple’s software with unauthorized hardware. What it won’t limit will be hobbyists creating their own hackintoshes at home using their own PCs and OS X installations. In fact, the commercial industry has largely moved on already by selling tools to those at-home hackers (instead of the software and computers themselves), making enforcement of Apple’s licensing agreement effectively moot for those users.

Source:http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/09/appeals-court-apple-can-continue-to-restrict-os-x-to-mac-hardware.ars