// Home / News

Windows 8 will work on all Windows 7 PCs

By Barry Collins

Posted on 12 Jul 2011 at 09:23

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

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.

Subscribe to PC Pro magazine. We'll give you 3 issues for £1 plus a free gift - click here

From around the web

User comments

So no final move to 64bit computing?

I had hopes that Microsoft would ditch 32bit computing with Windows 8, but if they are aiming to enable all current Vista/7 machines to run Windows 8 then that means 32bit is to stay for another OS generation.

By skarlock on 12 Jul 2011

Yay

MS are not Apple so yes, it will work on all pcs... especially as MS will want it on all netbooks and of course tablets.

"Since the fiasco over Windows Vista's system requirements ended in an embarrassing lawsuit," - Shame that MS got the blame for the oems shipping machines with 512Mb ram
or EVEN 256Mb. Shame on them. Shame that article writers still blame MS and anyway, Vista could be tweaked to run VERY well.

P.s. I'd imagine a slightly tweaked Superfetch for Win8

By rhythm on 12 Jul 2011

Yay

By rhythm on 12 Jul 2011

@rhythm

The court documents proved that Microsoft lowered the requirements for Vista at the behest of Intel (see http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/237009/microsoft-lower
ed-vista-capable-bar-for-intel). Who else would you like us to blame?

Barry Collins
Editor

By Barry_Collins on 12 Jul 2011

Oh dear

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

Or, even if you spend a fortune on a new PC, Windows 8 will just turn on more useless eye-candy and eat up all the resources you throw at it.

By Bassey1976 on 12 Jul 2011

@Bassey1976

"Or, even if you spend a fortune on a new PC, Windows 8 will just turn on more useless eye-candy and eat up all the resources you throw at it."

Unless you turn it off with a few mouse clicks.

By Stiggy on 12 Jul 2011

@skarlock

Unlikely to ditch 32bit computing with Windows 8, as the various flavours of ARM processors are 32bit.

By chapelgarth on 12 Jul 2011

@rhythm

You're obviously not understanding the issue. Intel moaned that their 915 graphics chipset wasn't on the "compatible" list. Instead of telling Intel and their poor graphics chip to get stuffed, Microsoft changed the requirements. End result? PCs sporting 915 chips which are listed as being compatible by Microsoft, yet they're completely incapable of handling Aero and all the rest of it.

Hence, MS's screw-up - not the OEMs.

By Trippynet on 12 Jul 2011

@ Barry and Trippynet

I don't see how lowering the spec makes it guilty of anything. Considering the fact that if they hadn't reduced the spec they would be demanding people buy a PC that was beyond what the OS actually does need to be usable.

Besides Vista's best feature is the ability to turn off areo.

By PhilGQ on 12 Jul 2011

"Vista's best feature"

:D

That's an oxymoron if I have ever heard one.

By Anonymouse on 12 Jul 2011

@PhilGQ

You obviously haven't experienced Vista on low end hardware (though it wasn't much better on top end). I 'regraded' all (4) my family laptop PC's to XP to give a reasonable experience. The biggest problem was that memory was under-specified, however even on dual-core 2Gb systems (which were high-end in 2006) performance was frequently dreadful, even with Aero turned off.

By milliganp on 13 Jul 2011

@PhilGQ

If someone says that a program is compatible with your computer, you expect to be able to use all of the features of that program.

Microsoft listed PCs that were compatible with Vista, even though these PCs couldn't utilise one of Vista's main features. Worst still, it was going to do the right thing and not list them as being compatible, but collaborated with a another company in order to lower the requirements and mislead customers.

Changing tack, I still hope that MS finally ditch the 32bit x86 version. ARM versions will need to be compiled separately anyway. All a 32bit x86 version does is cause hassle - not least for hardware manufacturers who have to release two Windows 7/8 drivers for everything.

By Trippynet on 13 Jul 2011

If MS and the OEM's did'nt raise the system specs then we would all still be running 486 CPU's and Windows 3.1! Personally I am an Ubuntu convert @ home which absolutely flys along compared to Windows 7 64bit I dual boot with. I still think MS have a way to go until they get it just right so everyone can enjoy a good user experience without turning every feature off making the new OS look like XP! We'll see how Win 8 turns out I suppose.

By Turbolagg on 14 Jul 2011

The problem with Windows is not the os but the rubbish like Antivirus software and varies backup software people get when they buy it on VirtualBox I ran a fresh 32 bit Windows 7 on 90MB of ram and it ran better than most Windows 7 PCs Ive seen.

By danzx1 on 14 Jul 2011

W8 Hardware Recycling 101

My old Radio Shack M100 MSDOS 8 bit 32 K ram box is still doing my lab work fine, but 32 bit and 64 bit are overshadowing my systems for fancier graphical displays. I have not seen any app besides HD Video Editing that needs a 64 bit OS yet. Most real workstations or industrial grade systems use a OS that wouldn't even fit in a PC. All the bells and whistles, to me, are nothing but sales gimmicks to recycle hardware. I cross my fingers that my old computers hang in there just to run my large printers, scanners and other instruments. When they burn out, I'll retire! Oh I forgot, 3D Porn is about to hit the web hence 64 Bit is needed, right?

By BillB on 14 Jul 2011

Leave a comment

You need to Login or Register to comment.