Microsoft Confirms Windows 10 Will Work on Old PCs

[Matsuda]

A few months ago, soon after Microsoft released the official download links for Windows 10 Technical Preview and we found its system requirements as well, we were told that both new and old computers should be able to run the operating system with little effort.

System requirements haven't changed too much since Windows Vista came to be and they will remain the same in Windows 10 as well, so computers running this old operating system should also be able to run the modern version.

That's what Gabriel Aul, head of the Windows Insider boss, has said in a short tweet today, confirming that Microsoft has been hard at work to keep system requirements unchanged when developing a new version of Windows.

Windows 10 system requirements

It's a well-known fact that Windows Vista wasn't quite the most reliable operating system at first, so its small market share doesn't come as a big surprise, but if you still run it right now, your computer should have no issue to cope with Windows 10 without any hardware upgrade.

Here are the current system requirements of Windows 10 Technical Preview, which are very unlikely to change in the final version of the operating system:

Processor: 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster
RAM: 1 gigabyte (GB) (32-bit) or 2 GB (64-bit)
Free hard disk space: 16 GB
Graphics card: Microsoft DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM driver
A Microsoft account and Internet access

And if you're wondering, here are the system requirements of Windows Vista, which are very similar to those of Windows 10:

1-gigahertz (GHz) 32-bit (x86) processor or 1-GHz 64-bit (x64) processor
1 GB of system memory
128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)
40-GB hard disk that has 15 GB of free hard disk space (the 15 GB of free space provides room for temporary file storage during the install or upgrade)

Microsoft hoping to convince users to upgrade

One of the reasons Microsoft decided to keep system requirements unchanged is its effort to move users from old Windows versions to new ones, so offering a new operating system that would run on old hardware is clearly a must in this case.

Windows XP users, on the other hand, have no other option than to upgrade, as their old PCs won't have what it takes to run Windows 10. At least not without hardware upgrade.

Source: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Confirms-Windows-10-Will-Work-on-Vista-PCs-470078.shtml

[Guest maut]

I hope windows 10 will leak sooner.. ^_^

[quachnam]

Maybe Window 10 is slower performance that Window 7

[donkey-girl]

A friend of mine tried to install win8.1 on a computer running win 7 ultimate but it refused to install because it doesnt suport safe boot so Wonder I should let him have a disk with win 10 and see for him self if i can run or not, he have nothing to Loose only win..

[banned]

the system requirements of Windows Vista, which are very similar to those of Windows 10:

But of course. Besides the initial bloating of NT6/Vista, Windows still hasn't changed a whole lot since NT5/2000. I'm still using Windows XP for crying out loud. I could count the things I might miss about Windows 8.1 on one hand, after an alligator chewed it off.

[SPECTRUM]

this is bullshit because they are forzing people to have a CPU with SSE2 and NXBIT and not all the old PCs have that instructions.

[Ryrynz]

Windows XP users, on the other hand, have no other option than to upgrade, as their old PCs won't have what it takes to run Windows 10. At least not without hardware upgrade.

There's a boat load of XP systems that'll be able to upgrade, basically any system with a decent CPU manufactured after 2003.

this is bullshit because they are forzing people to have a CPU with SSE2 and NXBIT and not all the old PCs have that instructions.

LOL, your post is bullshit. SSE2 has been a requirement for many pieces of software for A LONG TIME now. Seriously, by your insane reckoning

we should be running the latest OS on systems over 15 years old to the detriment of newer systems! Might as well just stop hardware advancements

all together for 15 year spans just to suit your idealistic insanity!

The extra effort to support processors made before 2003 would drive up development costs and affect the performance of systems with much newer instruction sets.

with the potential of processing the same code many times faster. It makes little sense to code for SSE systems now.

If you're going to spaz out so much about how ancient your hardware is and how you should be pandered to, then obviously your best choice is to just upgrade to

Win 7 and be done with it. You'll get 5-10 years out of it then MAYBE you might upgrade.

Technology moves fast, it's your own fault if you don't want to move with it, get a clue, upgrading your hardware will cost you sweet f all of anything if you choose minimum

specs with second hard parts. Go without your Doritos, muffins, McDonalds or coffee for a few days.. eat a fucking lettuce. Learn how to budget and understand you look like both a pauper and a beggar

with your incredulous complaints.

[SPECTRUM]

LOL, your post is bullshit. SSE2 has been a requirement for many pieces of software for A LONG TIME now.

no, only few apps are requesting and forcing users to have a CPU with SSE2, even when a good programmer know that SSE2 can be completely optional inside the code.

the only reason to force the usage of SSE2 is related with hardware's programed obsolescence.

[Ryrynz]

no, only few apps are requesting and forcing users to have a CPU with SSE2, even when a good programmer know that SSE2 can be completely optional inside the code.

the only reason to force the usage of SSE2 is related with hardware's programed obsolescence.

LOL, forcing! you're obviously not a coder, the benefits of newer code are clear as I outlined above, you don't keep things the same way forever like you obviously want them to.

You're so absolutely wrong, you have no idea. it's just natural progression and only because it negatively impacts you do you think it's otherwise, which is laughable in the extreme.

You really do need to get a clue.

[banned]

There's a boat load of XP systems that'll be able to upgrade, basically any system with a decent CPU manufactured after 2003.

Admittedly, I'm primarily an AMD processor fan (Intel is awesome no doubt, but a little pricey for my blood). Windows XP 32/64 runs hella fast on the latest AMD 64-bit processors. In my experience it even runs faster than newer versions of 64-bit Windows.

edit - I've benchmarked many AMD/Intel systems, and some software that was compiled for 64-bit was indeed faster than 32-bits in benchmarks.

[nIGHT]

Windows 10 system requirements

A Microsoft account and Internet access

Why do I need to have a MS account? :think:

[banned]

Why do I need to have a MS account? :think:

Perhaps Microsoft is trying to pull a Google and get everything in the Cloud.

I hope I'm not spoiling anything here, but I've used XP32 and imagex to easily avoid the product key/cloud requirements in the past.

[Ryrynz]

Want speed? Display all those flashy animations in Windows Vista/7/8 and it'll "feel" as fast as XP.
Most of that apparent speed you feel is in fact the graphics card stretching it's legs.

If everything I've read so far is true, Windows 8.1 should work a fair bit faster than XP..

There's a boat load of XP systems that'll be able to upgrade, basically any system with a decent CPU manufactured after 2003.

Admittedly, I'm primarily an AMD processor fan (Intel is awesome no doubt, but a little pricey for my blood). Windows XP 32/64 runs hella fast on the latest AMD 64-bit processors. In my experience it even runs faster than newer versions of 64-bit Windows.

edit - I've benchmarked many AMD/Intel systems, and some software that was compiled for 64-bit was indeed faster than 32-bits in benchmarks.

[a6najdorf]

needing a ms account, it tracks you guys,

not to mention it has a built - in key-logger

before you can install it (Windows10) you have to agree first, what a crap W10 :(

[brain_death]

I have successfully installed and run every Windows 10 build so far without a M$ account, but then I don't use the Windows Store or any lame new-style apps. In my experience what gets you with older hardware is the eventual lack of driver support, especially going from a PC intended for Windows 5.x (XP) and upgrading to 6.x (Vista, 7, 8, 8.1)...

:fool:

[steven36]

needing a ms account, it tracks you guys,

not to mention it has a built - in key-logger

before you can install it (Windows10) you have to agree first, what a crap W10 :(

That's only the preview that's the price people have to pay for using stuff for free from Microsoft . Once it comes out final it want be like this. But Microsoft is not looking out for the people who make computers at all . There only looking out for themselves . And if you dont have a very good PC its not going to run that great. If you bought a PC with Vista that's old sooner or latter its going to quit working anyways If you used it much . Almost every post is hype about how Microsoft wants to sell Windows 10 because they failed at selling Windows 8. Really Microsoft O/S not really made a big change in computers since Vista . Every since all you been getting is a few new features improved or not improved of the old technology . ;)

[SPECTRUM]

no, only few apps are requesting and forcing users to have a CPU with SSE2, even when a good programmer know that SSE2 can be completely optional inside the code.

the only reason to force the usage of SSE2 is related with hardware's programed obsolescence.

LOL, forcing! you're obviously not a coder, the benefits of newer code are clear as I outlined above, you don't keep things the same way forever like you obviously want them to.

You're so absolutely wrong, you have no idea. it's just natural progression and only because it negatively impacts you do you think it's otherwise, which is laughable in the extreme.

You really do need to get a clue.

as coder I perfectly know that SSE2 can be programmed as optional, so there is no reason to make it forced.

[Blackchildcx]

gettin more androit look even 4 desktop...but I think Ill like it!

[player]

Windows XP users, on the other hand, have no other option than to upgrade, as their old PCs won't have what it takes to run Windows 10. At least not without hardware upgrade.

i wanted to be rational but this is really gross. Improvement in newer windows doesn't give you right to discriminate/underestimate users from previous versions, however outdated it is compared to current standard.

my 'old' pc can certainly handle win8 but i'm just not switching.

[player]

deleted

[steven36]

Windows XP users, on the other hand, have no other option than to upgrade, as their old PCs won't have what it takes to run Windows 10. At least not without hardware upgrade.

i wanted to be rational but this is really gross. Improvement in newer windows doesn't give you right to discriminate/underestimate users from previous versions, however outdated it is compared to current standard.

my 'old' pc can certainly handle win8 but i'm just not switching.

When Xeon E5450 came out in 2007 is was like a $915 processor

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Xeon/Intel-Xeon%20E5450%20-%20EU80574KJ080N%20-%20AT80574KJ080N%20%28BX80574E5450A%29.html

but now days you can buy a whole computer with a faster HD processor and a tb hhd with x64 Win7 or Win 8 for less than what it was for just the processor.

And regardless of witch windows your on if your using x86 its only good for under 4 gb of ram .

[player]

When Xeon E5450 came out in 2007 is was like a $915 processor

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Xeon/Intel-Xeon%20E5450%20-%20EU80574KJ080N%20-%20AT80574KJ080N%20%28BX80574E5450A%29.html

but now days you can buy a whole computer with a faster HD processor and a tb hhd with x64 Win7 or Win 8 for less than what it was for just the processor.

And regardless of witch windows your on if your using x86 its only good for under 4 gb of ram .

my current E5450 is 2nd hand $40 :lol: , cheap deal for a 775 mobo (how?)

you can use more than 4GB ram on XP x86, someone made a crack for it, no guarantee it'll work on every system though.

[steven36]

When Xeon E5450 came out in 2007 is was like a $915 processor

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Xeon/Intel-Xeon%20E5450%20-%20EU80574KJ080N%20-%20AT80574KJ080N%20%28BX80574E5450A%29.html

but now days you can buy a whole computer with a faster HD processor and a tb hhd with x64 Win7 or Win 8 for less than what it was for just the processor.

And regardless of witch windows your on if your using x86 its only good for under 4 gb of ram .

my current E5450 is 2nd hand $40, cheap deal for a 775 mobo (how?)

you can use more than 4GB ram on XP with some hack :lol:

Even if you could hack it why would you want to ? XP is all down hill from here bro besides the point there's no more security updates patching it dont bring real security updates it only updates ie and a few other things witch will go dead as soon as the windows there patching it from does . Its a breeding ground for Trojans and Worms . And before to much longer its going end up like Windows 98 SE were you cant use nothing but old programs have fun at old apps .com :lol:

[Ryrynz]

I have successfully installed and run every Windows 10 build so far without a M$ account, but then I don't use the Windows Store or any lame new-style apps. In my experience what gets you with older hardware is the eventual lack of driver support, especially going from a PC intended for Windows 5.x (XP) and upgrading to 6.x (Vista, 7, 8, 8.1)...

:fool:

People for some reason seem to think you NEED a online account. You don't. MS just had hidden the local account login feature by making you click on create a new online account.. and THEN selecting create a local account.

It was a bloody dumb way to do it for people that knew what was up, for those that didn't suddenly everyone has outlook accounts.. which could be a good thing as far as syncing settings etc.. but honestly right at the start

they should say "what sort of acocunt do you want to have?" Local or Online? And actually have a paragraph telling people WTF the difference is..

Apparently quite a few people were leaving feedback with MS to do something like this with Windows 10.

[Ryrynz]

no, only few apps are requesting and forcing users to have a CPU with SSE2, even when a good programmer know that SSE2 can be completely optional inside the code.

the only reason to force the usage of SSE2 is related with hardware's programed obsolescence.

LOL, forcing! you're obviously not a coder, the benefits of newer code are clear as I outlined above, you don't keep things the same way forever like you obviously want them to.

You're so absolutely wrong, you have no idea. it's just natural progression and only because it negatively impacts you do you think it's otherwise, which is laughable in the extreme.

You really do need to get a clue.

as coder I perfectly know that SSE2 can be programmed as optional, so there is no reason to make it forced.

Of course it can but do you create separate code paths for every program you make? Have you even coded large programs and understand how much effort it can be to maintain

that code and even create it in the first place? It's not trivial... otherwise everyone would do it would they not?