windows vista needs 800Mhz front side bus laptops?

I heard that windows vista needs 800Mhz front side bus laptops to be able to run premium versions of vista!But now, there are only 667Mhz processors,will chip makers be in time to produce 800Mhz front side bus laptops in time before vista arrives

 

what!?!! thats rubbish! 667mhz would be sufficient enough for most of the task we wanna do today, the mainstream RAM is gonna be 2GB (instead of 1GB) though, the 800mhz desktop is available here and now, the AMD turion comes with 800mhz (FSB), intel next centrion pro is gonna comes w/ 800mhz FSB in the first half of 2007. perhaps other Beta tester here would clarify.

btw, it would be wise for you to wait for at least 6 month before buying any new operating system (not just vista), as many software and driver would not be really ready when windows just comes out.

 

What Vista will need is a PROCESSOR with a frequency of at least 800Mhz, no matter its FSB frequency (but the faster the better).

 

Not true at all. AMD are still on DDR2 400, and it'll be a while before that changes. Intel will be introducing DDR2 667 in Q1 2007.

Steve Jobs and his rumours eh?

edit: ed22 has it right, Vista minimum requirements are 800mhz, that's where that mis-information has come from.

 

Err...No, they can use upto DDR2 667 and the Turion X2's might even unofficially support DDR2 800MHz memory considering the AM2 Athlon X2 already support it.

No again. There are already DDR2 667 memory and the Core Duo/Core 2's already run on a 667MHz(quad pumped) FSB. Intel will be introducing mobile processors supporting DDR2 800 memory with FSB of 800MHz next year.

 

my bad. i'll just slowly creep back to the graphics board....

 

I think it's minimum 800MHz clock speed not 800Mhz FSB.

 

Gotta learn this stuff somewhere It's nothing personal, we just want to make sure the right info is out there.

 

Regardless of what they claim it "requires" of performance, it's never more than an estimate.
When specific features are involved, it makes sense to speak of requirements (for example, to run Vista with Aero, you need a SM2.0 capable card. If it doesn't support that feature, you're out of luck. And to run the 64-bit version of Vista, you need a 64-bit CPU).
But all the "soft" performance requirements which are only a question of "how much" are never requirements as such.A slower FSB doesn't prevent anything from running. It just means everything will run a tiny bit slower. same as a lower CPU clock speed. Same goes for RAM, Vista might claim to "require" 1GB or whatever, but in reality, it will work with less. it'll just be slower because it requires more swap file activity.

 

I would definatley think its clock speed, not FSB. That would mean only AMD laptops could run it, which is definatley not true. A T2500 or T7200 would run Vista beautifully despite having a 667 MHz FSB. Even a P-M 750 would give very good performance in Vista with 533 MHz FSB.

I would compare it to having a requirement of DDR2 (just an example, its not a requirement). While it is faster than DDR and gives a little better performance, it is not as important as the amount of RAM (or the actual CPU speed in this case) and has less of an impact.

 

Thanks, everyone!