Windows 8 works on all Windows 7 PCs

Windows 8 works on all Windows 7 PCs

Microsoft has pledged that the minimum system requirements for Windows 8 will be the same or even lower than those of Windows 7.

Since the fiasco over Windows Vista's system requirements ended in an embarrassing lawsuit, Microsoft has avoided raising the bar with successive operating systems.

Windows 7 had the same minimum system requirements as Vista, and now Microsoft has promised to follow suit with its forthcoming OS.

"In both of our Windows 8 previews, we talked about continuing on with the important trend that we started with Windows 7, keeping system requirements either flat or reducing them over time," said Tami Reller, corporate vice president of Microsoft's Windows division, speaking at the company's Worldwide Partner Conference.

"Windows 8 will be able to run on a wide range of machines because it will have the same requirements or lower."

By definition, that means Windows 8 should also work on systems currently running Windows Vista, although Reller didn't state that explicitly.

Microsoft's decision not to raise the system requirements is hardly surprising, given the company is developing a version of Windows 8 for ARM processors, which are typically less powerful than the x86 Intel or AMD processors that Windows has traditionally been built upon.

However, Reller claimed Windows 8 would dynamically adjust depending on the processing power of the PC or tablet it's running on.

"We've also built intelligence into Windows 8 so that it can adapt to the user experience based on the hardware of the user," she said.

"So, whether you're upgrading an existing PC, or buying a new one, Windows will adapt to make the most of that hardware."

Features such as the Aero glass effect are switched off on machines that only scrape past the minimum system requirements in Windows 7.

The minimum requirements for the 32-bit version of Windows 7 are a 1GHz processor, 1GB of RAM, 16GB of available disk space and DirectX 9 graphics. That's increased to 2GB of RAM and 20GB of hard disk space for 64-bit versions of the OS.

Source: Copyright © PC Pro, Dennis Publishing

See more about:  windows8  |  windows7  |  pc  |  system  |  requirements  |  pcbuilding
 
 

Readers of this article also read...

Unboxed: ASUS' Limited Edition ROG ARES II  

Unboxed: ASUS' Limited Edition ROG ARES II

 
Top 25 apps for Android tablets 

Top 25 apps for Android tablets

 
One week on with the iPhone 5 

One week on with the iPhone 5

 
Should you upgrade your iPhone to iOS 6? 

Should you upgrade your iPhone to iOS 6?

 
Unboxed: New 500GB model PlayStation 3 Slimmer 

Unboxed: New 500GB model PlayStation 3 Slimmer

 
Comments: 11
lrd390
13 July 2011
Isn't it about time that Microsoft does what Apple did years ago - produce a completely new operating system without the garbage collector called the "registry"? One that doesn't require a reboot after each (inevitable) patch. While Windows 7 seems to be a great improvement, just what will Windows 8 bring? Another new interface to confuse the average user?


Comment made about the PC & Tech Authority article:
Windows 8 works on all Windows 7 PCs?
Microsoft has pledged that the minimum system requirements for Windows 8 will be the same or even lower than those of Windows 7.

What do you think? Join the discussion.
rubaiyat
13 July 2011
lrd390 wrote:
…Another new interface to confuse the average user?


Yep.

There's progress, and then there's just change pretending to be progress.
petergaskin
13 July 2011
The msitake is that we think that once we have the os running, all our software will run without a problem.
Loading Windows 8 on a minimum spec pc will probably mean that your pc will die the minute you try to open an Excel document.
I guess the real question is how much system resources should an os take and how much resources does that allow to run your favourite programs.
So - given that Win 7 could be loaded and run on lower spec pcs - compared to the requirements to run Vista, who has a real life experience to tell about such a machine is actually running.
photohounds
14 July 2011
If MS wish to ignore mobile devices at their peril, let them.

I doubt all computing environments will remain (or become) a "Windows world" just because MS wants to make it so.

A lot of users these days couldn't care less what "brand" (if any) is underneath their computing experience as long as it works properly. Witness the pace of Android market penetration and improvement.
j876
18 July 2011
I have Windows 7 Ultimate running on a netbook with a 1.6GHz Atom and 2.0GB of RAM and it runs fine.
kevin_watters
20 July 2011
I have Windows 7 Home Premium running on a dual-core AMD 1.66Ghz fusion processor with 4GB of ram and it runs ok(ish)... bit slow. You would not be able to use it for anything other than BASIC internet/email typing up a letter in word etc. Video playback is choppy if ANYTHING in background is running.
BarracudaOne
27 July 2011
@Idr390 - It's Macintosh users like you who make up the ignorant population of computer users. Making a comment like that immediately tells us that you have zero computer / operating system knowledge what-so-ever. I'm sorry but what Steve Jobs refers to as 'The worlds most advanced operating system' is about as powerful as my 1998 PC running Windows 95. In fact, I think I could do more on that PC than anyone could on 2011 Mac computer even... I suggest you learn a little more about operating systems before you make such a far-fetched comment like that Idr390...
kevin_watters
27 July 2011
LOL BarracudaOne !! Ok, you are saying Unix, and its derivatives, Linux and MacOSX are 'less powerful' than Windows ? lol What 1983 TAFE course did you learn than in ? What, exactly, can you do on your PC than you cannot do on a mac or linux with the software that included in a base install of linux or MacOSX ? Hell, Im not even going to get into this with you because it is MORE than obvious you are a fool. Thanks for the laugh though !! lol you earned that one.
rubaiyat
27 July 2011
Wow BarracudaOne!

Care to expand on that ludicrous statement. Except for longer file names Windows 95 was way behind the Mac OS of the time let alone today's OSX.

I went to the midnight launch of W95 and was able to crash it within 3 minutes just by switching the screen resolution. There were so many things it could not do, or did so badly I'd hardly know where to begin, though I've tried to put those ugly days behind me.
amcmo
27 July 2011
BarracudaOne

What a load of absolute rubbish!

I have worked with EVERY release of Windows since day 1, not to mention Unix, Cobol, Pascal, DOS, DRDOS (killed by MS dirty tricks) OS/2 (oops - more MS dirty tricks), CP/M, GEM (anyone remember Pagemaker on GEM - took MS several goes to release a Win version better than GEM), original Mac OS, Linux in around 10 versions and OSX and I can say without fear of contradiction, you are ranting through the proverbial 'hole in the head'.

As Rubaiyat has commented, apart from filenames Win95 was behind the Mac OS of the time and even most any Linux over the past 4-5 years would run rings around Win 95.

Before you make any dumb-ass comments about my being a Mac fanatic, my current OS of choice is Win 7, due to the number of applications specific to my role.

I suggest you learn a LOT about operating systems before the next uninformed comment!


j876- I have Win 7 Ult 64 on an i7 2600K, OWC SSD, 16GB Radeon 6970, and it still doesn't run fast enough for me.......


Edited by amcmo: 27/7/2011 04:46:52 PM

Edited by amcmo: 27/7/2011 04:49:38 PM
amcmo
27 July 2011
Photohounds,

From what I've seen a big part of the Win8 push will be towards mobile, or small form-factor devices.

Your Android argument is no different to the sucess of Windows - works on platforms from hundreds/thousands of suppliers, some of whom have added their own tweaks.... The 'brand' behind their Android experience is Google - no different from a PC experience with MS being the brand behind it. Linux is even more so a case of no one caring about the brand behind it as it is even more open than Android. I would question whether the rate of Android improvement is as fast as that for Linux.

Biggest difference I can see is Google's marketing muscle and behind the scenes push.

As for a lot of people not caring about the brand... report out today, something like 60% of Yanks surveyed on mobile phones intend to upgrade to an iPhone 5 in the next 12 months... That is all about brand!
Comments have been disabled for this article.

Latest Comments

Latest Poll

Which side are you choosing in the new console wars?



or View results
The Xbox One
  27%
 
The PlayStation 4
  29%
 
A console? Good Lord no - PC for me thanks!
  44%
TOTAL VOTES: 120

Vote now
Ads by Google

From our Partners

PC & Tech Authority Downloads