Filed under: OS, Mac mini, MacBook
Julio Ojeda-Zapata of the Pioneer Press points out the system requirements for Microsoft's 
Bump Technologies, Inc. - Mountain View, CA (2 weeks ago)
See More Relevant Jobs ›Want to drag a file to another folder and copy it instead of moving it? Press the Option key when you drag that file and it'll be duplicated rather than moved entirely.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Programming Manager, AOL Tech
Editor
Editor
Editor
Editor
tips apple tuaw ipad psystar AppleStore facebook appstore pricing hgg tablet review IpodTouch china rumors itunes keyboard video amazon games podcast AppReview holiday ATT legal mac download app TuawTvLive app-store opinion GPS SoftwareUpdate Apps jailbreak rumor ibooks ipod interview software iphone MacbookPro hardware DailyDeal SteveJobs release sales apple-ipad flash developer
All contents copyright © 2003-2010, Weblogs, Inc. All rights reserved
The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) is a member of the Weblogs, Inc. Network. Privacy Policy, Terms of Service, Notify AOL
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Glenn said 8:08AM on 5-19-2006
The video chipset in the mini and macbook can take as much ram as the firmware will allow it to, currently it is set to 64MB, but it could easily be increased with a firmware update
Reply
narco said 8:09AM on 5-19-2006
Yeah, but that's today's technology. Have this dude get back to us whenever Vista comes out and see where the current Macs are at.
Fishes,
narco.
Reply
Tristram said 8:23AM on 5-19-2006
My iMac 17" meets the requrements :)
Reply
Ludwik said 8:42AM on 5-19-2006
My iMac meets the requirements either, but this is crazy. This is a rip off people, who will have to upgrade their systems and they would be still at the entry level.
Thank God I switched (recently)!
Reply
radams said 8:49AM on 5-19-2006
a 60GB HD as a min? Is that just to handle the OS? That's ridiculous. Let's say I get a fancy new Dell tomorrow and it comes with 120GB drive. Then I want to upgrade to Vista and, phoom, half my storage is gone? That's insane.
Reply
Kerim said 8:52AM on 5-19-2006
Its a little high end. but my specs are good enough, or better.
I think microsoft just wants to take a big leap into the furture. Its gonna cost a lot for some people, but it will pay off. VIsta is beatutiful and so is office 2007 . They worked hard on them and you see it.
Reply
Brent said 8:56AM on 5-19-2006
Yeah, Ludwik - a real "rip off." Unlike releasing OS updates every 14 months at $129 a pop, eh?
Reply
Steve said 9:05AM on 5-19-2006
het guys lets just think for a moment. You don't have run Vista, DO WE !!
Use XP
Reply
Eric Busalacchi said 9:06AM on 5-19-2006
I would rather have the option to upgrade to a newer OS every 14 months then watch my OS rot in patch/security nightmare hell for 5 years. Pick your poison.
Reply
harrisjamieh said 9:07AM on 5-19-2006
Brent, at least we are moving forwards. Windows is very outdated in its current form (XP). I would much rather have OS updates every 14 - 18 months (and the gap between each 10.x is increasing) than to have the exact same OS for 5 years!
Reply
Svante said 9:11AM on 5-19-2006
people! you only need a 40 GB harddrive, and vista is only going to take 15 GB of that! please read the article before posting stupid remarks
Reply
Joe said 9:13AM on 5-19-2006
This is a pointless argument. Vista won't be released until '07 at the earliest. If you bought a plain old Windows XP PC now, you'd be crying that you would have to upgrade too. Welcome to the 21st Century of computers people! Steadily increasing minimum requirements are a way of life. Deal with it.
Reply
Chris said 9:14AM on 5-19-2006
This is a real dealbreaker for me. The MacBook is in a sweet spot of cost/size/performance and the potential to dual boot was really making me consider. But not being able to run Vista at its fullest means this laptop is not future proof enough for me. Oh well, guess I'll have to wait another year.
Reply
mungler said 9:16AM on 5-19-2006
who the hell wants to run Vista anyway? its currently awful, and will still be awful when it comes out.
i'll stick to dual booting XP for games and OSX for absolutely everything else.
Reply
Dave Jeffery said 9:29AM on 5-19-2006
Just to clear things up...
The Mac mini and Macbook will meet vista's premium requirements (eye candy et al) if you upgrade the ram to 1gb.
The vista website says that you need a 128mb graphics card but it also say that if you are using a resoloution of 1,310,720 pixels (1280*1024) or less then a 64mb graphics card will suffice. The macbook's optimal screen resoloution is (1280*800). The Intel GMA 950 is DX9 ready and suports pixel shader 2.0.
As was pointed out earlier it would be very easy to increase the RAM allocated to the GMA 950 through a firmware update (in fact I'm pretty sure that some PC manufacturers allocate up to 256mb Ram to the GMA 950). So the GMA 950 could conceivably be a 128mb card which would allow it to support 2,304,000 pixels (equivalent to 1920 x 1200)... or even a 256mb card which would allow it to support even higher resoloutions.
Here's a video of the GMa 950 running Vista's eye candy http://youtube.com/watch?v=aTdTdTELZj4
Reply
Magne said 9:33AM on 5-19-2006
If you're not using an external display at high resolution the macbook are able to run Vista?:
Windows Aero requires:
DirectX 9 class graphics processor that:
Supports a WDDM Driver.
Supports Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware.
Supports 32 bits per pixel.
!!
Adequate graphics memory.
64 MB of graphics memory to support a single monitor less than 1,310,720 pixels
!!
Reply
Marcos Kirsch said 9:47AM on 5-19-2006
#14 is very informative...
I'd be very surprised if the MacBook/Mac mini can't run Aero ok... since they can run Quartz Extreme and all the Mac OS X eye candy.
Reply
WakkaWakka said 9:50AM on 5-19-2006
The fact is, even with 128MB RAM allocated to it, the GMA950 is still an integrated chipset, and therefore far less effective and powerful than a separate graphics card like the Radeon X1600.
Reply
dombi said 10:10AM on 5-19-2006
... or basically get a Mac and forget about Vista. Vista is just XP dressed up in Microsoft style eye candy...
Reply
JClark said 10:18AM on 5-19-2006
How about running Vista with the eye candy turned off? The first thing I do after re-installing XP is change it back to the Classic (Win98/2000) look and turn off most of the extra animations and stuff.
Sure, I like OS X's eye candy, but at least it (mostly) actually means something from a UI perspective, and it doesn't seem to drag down system performance as much. Plus there's no way to turn it all off :)
As for rip offs, and Apple's 14-18 month release cycle, given that each release of OS X runs faster on older hardware, rather than forcing an upgrade as WIndows updates always do, I don't think the two OSs are in the same league in terms of value.
Reply