ie8 fix
madison

Hardware 2.0

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes
Home / News & Blogs / Hardware 2.0

Windows 7 - Official system requirements

By | April 30, 2009, 7:03am PDT

Finally we have confirmation from Microsoft as to the official system requirements for Windows 7.

Here they are:

  • 1 GHz or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
  • 1 GB of RAM (32-bit)/2 GB of RAM (64-bit)
  • 16 GB of available disk space (32-bit)/20 GB (64-bit)
  • DirectX 9 graphics device with Windows Display Driver Model 1.0 or higher driver

By today’s hardware standards, these requirements are pretty tame.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “Hardware 2.0”

Topics

32-bit, Microsoft Windows 7, System Requirement, 64-Bit, Microsoft Windows, Network Technology, Processors, Semiconductors, Hardware, Components, Operating Systems, Software, Networking, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

Disclosure

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

All opinions expressed on Hardware 2.0 are those of Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. Every effort is made to ensure that the information posted is accurate. If you have any comments, queries or corrections, please contact Adrian via the email link here. Any possible conflicts of interest will be posted below. [Updated: February 23, 2010] - Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has no business relationships, affiliations, investments, or other actual/potential conflicts of interest relating to the content posted so far on this blog.

Biography

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology -- whether that be by learning to program, building a PC from a pile of parts, or helping them get the most from their new MP3 player or digital camera.

Adrian has authored/co-authored technical books on a variety of topics, ranging from programming to building and maintaining PCs. His most recent books include "Build the Ultimate Custom PC", "Beginning Programming" and "The PC Doctor's Fix It Yourself Guide". He has also written training manuals that have been used by a number of Fortune 500 companies.

Adrian also runs a popular blog under the name The PC Doctor, where he covers a range of computer-related topics -- from security to repairing and upgrading.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
Ask a Question Start a Discussion
52
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Just In

Some of us...
guyonearth 28th May 2009
Are all grown up now and can't use daddy's credit card to buy new computers with. Some of us just don't need to have a new system every year to do mundane tasks. Ubuntu is not "underpowered", in fact, if you compare two fresh default installs, it is far more capable and useful, (as would be almost any linux) Some of us see the usefulness of a minimalist system that can function well with modest resources, rather than joining the race to see who can be the most power-hungry resource hog.
View in thread
0 Votes
+ -
Is it possible to buy a new PC that doesnt meet these requirements? (NT)
TheTruthisOutThere@... 30th Apr 2009
.
0 Votes
+ -
I dont think so...
notlehs 30th Apr 2009
Heck.. the Smartphones are close to meeting those specs at this point!
0 Votes
+ -
NO, not possible at all!
mwagner@... 30th Apr 2009
I am running Windows 7 RC on a four-year-old Dell laptop and other then having no AERO capability, it runs great!

Any machine sold since January of 2007 is capable of running Windows 7 and running AERO. Windows 7 will even run with only 512MB of RAM but Microsoft won't tell you that after the "Vista-Capable" bruhaha.
0 Votes
+ -
Possibly
LegendsOfBatman 6th May 2009
I'd be mostly concerned about the graphics.
Really, however, the requirements are just about the same as with Vista.
Both require 1 Ghz
Both require 1 GB ram. However, Win 7 requires 2 GB for 64 bit
Vista requires 40 GB hd space, 15 free, whereas 7 requires 16GB and 20 free.
Both require garphics that support Directx 9 with Windows Display Driver 1.0 or higher.
0 Votes
+ -
Official or minimum??
Takalok 30th Apr 2009
Hey, wasn't Win95 supposed to run on a 486DX66 with 4 megs of RAM? I tried it, it didn't work, and then wound up buying a 16 meg chip for $540.

My how some things (prices) change and some don't (system requirements).

Did MS put out recommended requirements?
0 Votes
+ -
re: Win95
Badgered 30th Apr 2009
Hey, wasn't Win95 supposed to run on a 486DX66 with 4 megs of RAM? I tried it, it didn't work, and then wound up buying a 16 meg chip for $540.

It was quite a while ago, but I think I did get it to run on a 486 w/ 4mb RAM. If I remember correctly, it was painfully slow but I got it to run.
0 Votes
+ -
I had forgotten about those days
juantar 30th Apr 2009
$540 for a ram chip? ouch! I had forgotten about those days; I am glad those days are gone.

About the Linux note, firefox installed in any flavor of windows will outperform and be more stable than the Firefox packaged in the linux distros. Personal experience and the experiences of many other people are witnesses to that fact. happy

Insert flame war below:
0 Votes
+ -
$540 foe a hard drive
bvonr@... 30th Apr 2009
I have a hard drive at home with a price tag on it for $540 for 464 Mbytes and I see tiger direct has a 1Tbyte for $99 Cdn :o)
0 Votes
+ -
no flame war... i don't think anyone will argue the point with you
brokndodge@... 30th Apr 2009
as you are correct, but it's not a windows linux thing, it's a firefox thing. try out win firefox + wine on linux, and you get the same result. linux firefox is not optimized in the least. it's a runs on everything setting. where as there are only a couple of different windows os's to support, so they optimize for windows.

to prove the point, someone created a version of firefox compiler optimized for different linux + cpu combinations. it's called swiftfox. swiftfox will actually out perform windows firefox. the only changes are compile time settings.

you are right tho, windows firefox blows the heck out of linux firefox - but it's not an OS thing, it's a compiler optimization thing
0 Votes
+ -
In 1992, I paid over $1700 to put 16MB ...
mwagner@... 30th Apr 2009
... of RAM in my Toshiba T4400SXC. Of course, in 1983, a 5MB hard drive cost $1100! No one can complain about hardware prices these days.

That's why all of these complaints from the Linux fan-boys about Windows 7 being "bloated" is utter nonsense.
0 Votes
+ -
Lamer...
zach.winchester 30th Apr 2009
I ran Win95 on an AMD 386DX40 with 4MB RAM, 120meg HDD, and 1x CDROM!!! On top of being Doublespaced to hell (what a fiasco THAT was...) to boot!!! But, I ran it that way for a year before I got my first P-90!!! That only had 16megs and a 420mb hard drive, and maybe a 4x CD. Ran - and smoked - Win95 Rev.C - still didn't have a USB card, but didn't need one anyway. Had a 486DX4 100MHz that ran circles around the P90, I think that laptop had only 8 megs of ram and Win95b? Oh, and floppy disk only!!! Aside from the trackball popping out all the time because the bezel around it was really loose, didn't really have any problems - till the hinges cracked and that was the end of that poor guy.

To say your Win95 didn't run like that on the supposed hardware is bogus... there's more to the story than what you're posting. How much stuff did you turn on or off? Did you try having every possible networking protocol on like many installs? Did you have a lot of background stuff going at the same time? I didn't, each install was stripped to the point that it just worked, but it worked well.

Anyway...
0 Votes
+ -
Scary, when you think back on it.
FantaStyx 30th Apr 2009
You should have gone to the store I went to. My first 16MB 72-pin SIMM was only $320. Quite a bit off-topic, but I just don't know how we did it back then... $450 for a 600 MEGABYTE hard disk, > $100 for a NIC card... I mean, its not like we had more money back then.
0 Votes
+ -
Expensive hardware
sraduana 30th Apr 2009
My first harddrive, an external with a SCSI connector, cost me $1,300 for a 10MB drive. My company, Fujitsu, built drives for its huge mainframes in Hillsboro, OR. They had 10.5" platters (remarkably small for the time) and cost $12,000 each for a 685MB drive which weighed nearly 300 pounds. We had a cheaper version with 484MB for only $10,000.
0 Votes
+ -
Can you provide a link for your source Adrian?
no_zd_user_name 30th Apr 2009
nt
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Windows 7 - Official system requirements
Cylon Centurion 30th Apr 2009
But with Linux you don't need all that! With Linux all you need is a 2 MHz processor with 512 KB RAM and you're off an running! Who needs 16 GB of storage space anyways?


Sorry, I couldn't resist :P


I can't wait to get my hands on the 64 bit edition... I just bought a new HDD for the sole purpose of dual booting with Vista on my main rig. Also anxious to try out XP mode. Will that be public as well? I saw they made it available for MSDN and Technet subscribers...


0 Votes
+ -
I'd like to see that 2MHz processor with 512 KB RAM
alaniane@... Updated - 30th Apr 2009
Especially since the first machine I touched had a 4MHz processor with only 16K of memory expandable to 32K. Earlier model had a 2MHz processor but only 4K of memory expandable to a whopping 16K. Those were the days CSAVE and CLOAD actually meant something.

I know you were joking about 2MHz processor, but it would've been nice in those days to have 512K to work with.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Windows 7 - Official system requirements
Loverock Davidson 30th Apr 2009
This fits right in with any hardware that was produced over the last 2 years, if not longer. So practically anyone can upgrade to Microsoft Windows 7 and feel the confidence of having a modern operating system on their PC's.
0 Votes
+ -
If you don't care about AERO ...
mwagner@... 30th Apr 2009
... try anything built over the last four years. No problems - even with only 512MB of RAM!
0 Votes
+ -
Want modern?
InAction Man 1st May 2009
Go with Ubuntu.

That's modern and very efficient.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Windows 7 - Official system requirements
scs9282 30th Apr 2009
you're just as bad as those mactards. All OS's are relatively the same, they all do the same type of thing and they all have their ups and downs. To each their own.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Windows 7 - Official system requirements
bryantrv 30th Apr 2009
What I find interesting is actually how high that is, given the track record of Microsoft recommended minimums, and what was actually needed to run satisfactorily.
I also wonder why the difference between 32 and 64 bit flavors.
0 Votes
+ -
x86 versus x64 ...
mwagner@... 30th Apr 2009
There is no advantage to x64 if you don't have at least 2GB of address-space available for applications. That's why there is a stated difference.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Windows 7 - Official system requirements
durwin_1999@... 30th Apr 2009
Yes, but not likely. Most competitors these days are self proprietary, son any new OS should work with their systems.
0 Votes
+ -
As usual at least double what MS say
Alan Smithie 30th Apr 2009
I assume by those figures that you are running absolutely nothing else. A single ghz, my behind, I wouldn't even want to run xp with that. Those are figures for people who like to bake cakes while your machine is doing something. I'm sure most people here would like their system to feel snappy and would go way beyond these baseline requirements, but 1ghz MS, your having a laugh. Minimum I'd run with is an atom 330.
0 Votes
+ -
YOu haven't
Cylon Centurion 30th Apr 2009
tried 7 on a 1.6 GHz netbook have you? Runs pretty snappy on my Atom 270
0 Votes
+ -
I'd like the extra threads
Alan Smithie 30th Apr 2009
depending on what I'm doing
0 Votes
+ -
Not this time
soonerproud Updated - 30th Apr 2009
The specs posted by Microsoft for Windows 7 will run it quite well. You can even halve the specs they require, except on the video card specs when it comes to Aero. If Aero is not your thing, then that doesn't really matter much as Win 7 flies on really old hardware.

I am posting this on a 5 year old pc with a single core Athlon 64 3200+, 1.5 GB of RAM, Geforce 6600GT and Windows 7 7077 64bit. windows 7 runs circles around XP and Vista on this machine, even below the recommended RAM requirements for Windows7 64 bit.
0 Votes
+ -
Ubuntu is the way to go!
InAction Man 1st May 2009
Those of us who need a responsive machine and a polished uncluttered well designed UI go with Ubuntu.

Ubuntu Rocks!!!
0 Votes
+ -
still heavy in the RAM dept.
Been_Done_Before 30th Apr 2009
I ran it in a VM and i think the video is a little high too.

Looks nice though.. i need to install it on a HD direct and play with with using the full potential of my hardware.
0 Votes
+ -
Considering ...
mwagner@... 30th Apr 2009
... that 1GB of RAM costs as little as $16 and 2GB is selling for $32, I don't see how anyone can complain about the RAM requirements - especailly with the performance you get out of Windows 7.
0 Votes
+ -
Assuming your machine is..
FantaStyx 30th Apr 2009
a new box and has sufficient RAM slots and supports a 2-gig stick. Hint - my laptop has "none of the above".
0 Votes
+ -
Your box doesn't have to be new ...
mwagner@... 2nd May 2009
... but if it was made before 2005, then it is possible that it won't support 1GB of RAM. Not sure about your system? Check it out at crucial.com.

You really don't need 2GB like you did with Vista but most systems from 2005 or later will support 2GB.

If you are still running XP because your hardware is too old, then you really should consider buying a new machine. By fall, netbooks will be running Windows 7 and cost $350 or less. Dual core laptops with 2GB of RAM are selling for $499 or less today and similarly equipped (but "headless") desktop systems are selling for under $300.

If that is not an option, make sure your XP system is up to date and start saving your pennies. You have until 2014 to replace XP.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Windows 7 - Official system requirements
mwagner@... 30th Apr 2009
This is the first set of "requirements" I have seen out of Microsoft that I actually believe. Ever since Windows 2000 shipped, you always had to DOUBLE the 'requirements' to get minimally acceptable performance but Windows 7 even runs well on a 512MB system! My four-year-old Dell laptop (1.6GHz) even runs Windows 7 well!
0 Votes
+ -
History tells us that there is a multiplier needed
chrome_slinky@... 30th Apr 2009
to get decent results with any Microsoft graphical product. That multiplier is usually 2.
0 Votes
+ -
Not this time...
MWPollard Updated - 30th Apr 2009
Not this time.

I have Windows 7 Ultimate beta on an Athlon XP
1700+ (1.4GHz) with 1GB RAM and integrated
nForce 2 (not a typo) graphics. It runs fine,
albeit a little slowly.

This computer is about EIGHT years old; I got
XP for it as soon as it came out. Fully-updated
XP now runs slowly on it. But Windows 7
Ultimate runs about the same as XP - slowly,
but functional. (Umm, except that Aero won't
even try...)

The manufacturers don't even have
Vista drivers (not even nVidia), but Windows 7
auto-detected almost everything. Not the
Promise PCI ATA controller, but ATA is almost
obsolete now anyway - I might move them to
another box. I didn't bother to check Promise
for a driver.
0 Votes
+ -
Actually, prior to Windows 7, the multiplier ...
mwagner@... 30th Apr 2009
... for DECENT performance was FOUR. To get ACCEPTABLE performance, you needed to double it. Examples:

XP claimed to need 300MHz & 128MB RAM but it needed at least 500MHz and 256MB RAM to "get by". XP didn't really perform on an 866MHz machine until it had 512MB RAM on board.

Vista was no better. The claim was 800MHz and 512MB RAM. With 1GB RAM, Vista Limped along on a 1.6GHz system. 2GB RAM was required for decent performance.

Windows 7, on the other hand, runs very well on a 1.6GHz system and will run acceptably with as little as 512MB of RAM.
0 Votes
+ -
Bet it runs Wordpad...
FantaStyx Updated - 30th Apr 2009
...like a bat outta hell with 512MB of RAM...
0 Votes
+ -
Actually, I am running ...
mwagner@... 2nd May 2009
... Outlook 2007 connected to an Exchange Server via VPN on my lame little system. I keep it open with at least 2 IE8 tabs at all times and I see no degradation when I stream audio while also running Word or Excel 2007 and Office Communicator 2007 in the background.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Windows 7 - Official system requirements
Maurizio Albera 30th Apr 2009
IMHO, if only a half of which I'm hearing about Win7 is true, it's worth at least a loooooooooooooooong trial happy
0 Votes
+ -
Lot's of things Rock
Mectron 30th Apr 2009
in the stone age
0 Votes
+ -
official bull
billw1234 30th Apr 2009
i think my cell phone meets those minimum requirements... wont be long until windows will install onto one.
id like to see windows on my wifes 16 gig iphone... its pretty close to minimum reqs
0 Votes
+ -
That would kick ass!
Cylon Centurion 30th Apr 2009
I'd surely buy it grin
0 Votes
+ -
bring back win 95
billw1234 30th Apr 2009
face it, plug up the holes in win 95, add the support for all the new devices since its departure. 95 ran good on 512 meg. imagine how fast itd be on 16 gigs.
pointless build faster machines just to bog it down with stuff we all complain about
0 Votes
+ -
They did that.
FantaStyx 30th Apr 2009
"face it, plug up the holes in win 95, add the support for all the new devices since its departure."

And you'd have Windows 2000!
0 Votes
+ -
Except...
Wolfie2K3 30th Apr 2009
...Windows 2000 is not running on top of MS DOS. Win 2K is NT based code - which is an entirely different critter.
0 Votes
+ -
True, but...
FantaStyx Updated - 30th Apr 2009
Win95 wouldn't "run on 16Gigs", either...

I thought "running on MSDOS" was one of the holes they plugged. 8^)
0 Votes
+ -
True.. Win 9x is a 32 bit OS and as such...
Wolfie2K3 Updated - 30th Apr 2009
...it won't do anything more than 3.x GB of RAM. Then again, given Win 2K is likewise a 32 bit OS, it won't see more than 3.x GB either.

You'd have to go to a 64 bit version of XP, Vista or Win 7 to make use of that full 4 GB - let alone 16 GB...

DOS was indeed an issue to a degree. The NT codebase is a lot more stable than DOS.

Then again, Win 2K wasn't a replacement for 9x. Win 2K wasn't worth spit when it came to playing games and the like. You had to go for XP for that.
0 Votes
+ -
i got 4 time this for vista pish
not of this world 30th Apr 2009
i seriously doubt anyone would fall for it...
vista is such a piece of crapp....


---- official hardware reauireminets -----

Does not spin the hard drive at every boot
making the sytem un-operable during the
10 min
it takes
0 Votes
+ -
XUbuntu runs on 256Mb RAM
obvio.capitao@... 1st May 2009
Here's a video of Ubuntu running on a 256Mb virtual machine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z39n5Tleo0A

Note: it only uses 128Mb RAM.
0 Votes
+ -
256Mb...
danyetman 1st May 2009
So, what's it like being a poor fanboy who can't afford a computer with better specs? Oh, well, I'm sure that your word processor must simply fly. You must be so giddy of the sheer possibilities afforded by your underpowered, underproduced OS.

"Take my HUB, Take my RAM, take me where I cannot SCRAM, I download IRC, You can't take Windows from me..."
0 Votes
+ -
Some of us...
guyonearth 28th May 2009
Are all grown up now and can't use daddy's credit card to buy new computers with. Some of us just don't need to have a new system every year to do mundane tasks. Ubuntu is not "underpowered", in fact, if you compare two fresh default installs, it is far more capable and useful, (as would be almost any linux) Some of us see the usefulness of a minimalist system that can function well with modest resources, rather than joining the race to see who can be the most power-hungry resource hog.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix