Sign in
Microsoft.com
 
Microsoft
 
 
 

locked
Processor check function needs to be modified RRS feed

 > 

  • General discussion

  • Discussion
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    I attempted to install on a unit with a 1.3 GHz dual core AMD NEO II processor and it failed the processor check. I know that the requirement is 1.4 GHz but that only really applies to single core. I know MSFT is looking to revamp their stance on Windows 2008 R2 to lower the processor requirement if using dual/quad, etc core processors. My understanding is this will happen later this month. WHS team needs to make the same change and modify the install check to take the core count into consideration. Thanks!

    Steve

    Saturday, August 28, 2010 12:07 AM

All replies

  • Discussion
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 00:07:28 +0000, vegamite wrote:

    I know MSFT is looking to revamp their stance on Windows 2008 R2 to lower the processor requirement if using dual/quad, etc core processors

    How do you know this? Do you have a public statement from MSFT on this?

    Paul Adare
    MVP - Identity Lifecycle Manager
    http://www.identit.ca

    Saturday, August 28, 2010 12:12 AM
  • Discussion
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    Even if Windows Server 2008 R2 has it's CPU requirement reduced, I think it's unlikely that the Vail requirements will be lowered to match. Vail does more than plain vanilla Server 2008; the transcoding in particular needs a lot of CPU behind it.
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Saturday, August 28, 2010 12:34 AM
    Moderator
  • Discussion
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 00:07:28 +0000, vegamite wrote:

    I know MSFT is looking to revamp their stance on Windows 2008 R2 to lower the processor requirement if using dual/quad, etc core processors

    How do you know this? Do you have a public statement from MSFT on this?

    Paul Adare
    MVP - Identity Lifecycle Manager
    http://www.identit.ca


    No public statement that I know of. I was told this is happening as the orginal methods for determining minimum processor requirements are a bit crusty due to increase in use of dual, quad, etc processors.

    Steve

    Saturday, August 28, 2010 12:24 PM
  • Discussion
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    Even if Windows Server 2008 R2 has it's CPU requirement reduced, I think it's unlikely that the Vail requirements will be lowered to match. Vail does more than plain vanilla Server 2008; the transcoding in particular needs a lot of CPU behind it.
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)


    I understand transcode may need some extra CPU but if a 1.4 GHz single core would work, a 1.3 GHz dual core would certianly work as well. I am not saying the minimum CPU speed for WHS should even be that low due to transcode but that is what it is in the last release. What I am looking for is someone in the WHS team to weigh in to see if the RC1 or later will include the same install check or take core count into the calculation for the minimum CPU requirment similar to what will happen for Windows 2008 R2. The whole purpose of doing beta testing is to provide feedback directly to the team responsible so they can make the appropiate decisions based on issues or concerns that have been discovered. Thanks!

    Steve

    Saturday, August 28, 2010 12:31 PM
  • Discussion
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    If you want this to reach the team in the form of a product suggestion (it sounds like that's what you're looking for) this forum isn't the best place for it. Connect is where the team wants to see product suggestions.
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Saturday, August 28, 2010 4:08 PM
    Moderator
  • Discussion
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    If you want this to reach the team in the form of a product suggestion (it sounds like that's what you're looking for) this forum isn't the best place for it. Connect is where the team wants to see product suggestions.
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)

    Ok, thanks. I logged a suggestion over on connect.

    Steve

    Saturday, August 28, 2010 4:47 PM
  • Discussion
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    I voted on your suggestion, and added this comment: "The processor check that Vail does
    prior to installation should surely take into account the *total* processing ability
    rather than just a simply processor speed number - in other words it should do the math to
    calculate the total processing potential."
     
    Art [artfudd] Folden
    I'm a PC and Windows 7 sucks less!
    ----------------------------------------------
    "vegamite" wrote in message
    news:a6b6bd34-ee49-4c95-9aae-94ada22845a0@communitybridge.codeplex.com...
     
    If you want this to reach the team in the form of a product suggestion (it sounds like
    that's what you're looking for) this forum isn't the best place for it. Connect is where
    the team wants to see product suggestions.  I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
     
    Ok, thanks. I logged a suggestion over on connect.
     
    Steve
     
     
    Saturday, August 28, 2010 7:15 PM
  • Discussion
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    Somewhere in this forum (can't find the post ATM) Microsoft mentioned that you will need a WinSAT CPU score of approximately 6.0 to transcode HD video "on the fly". Your CPU probably won't reach that, so you won't meet a "real world" recommended minimum. Microsoft's minimum specs won't come anywhere near a WinSAT CPU score of 6.0, of course; I sometimes wonder who comes up with those specs...

    I expect i5 CPUs (or AMD equivalent) or better are probably going to be the recommended minimum hardware in the real world. 

    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Sunday, August 29, 2010 2:19 PM
    Moderator
  • Discussion
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    You should be able to skip the processor check by tweaking your install DVD slightly, with the help of the Windows Deployment Toolkit.  (I know it looks like a huge complicated download for the relatively simple task of creating an OEM-like .INI file, but trust me, doing it the supported way will save you headaches.)
    Monday, August 30, 2010 1:03 AM
  • Discussion
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    And after that you come back complaining about performance?
     
    Way to much "lower the requirements" based on "the stuff I now have-discussions" here.
     
    Let's face it, the time WHS was able to run on an old (left over) machine pc is over. Get used to it.
     

    I attempted to install on a unit with a 1.3 GHz dual core AMD NEO II processor and it failed the processor check. I know that the requirement is 1.4 GHz but that only really applies to single core. I know MSFT is looking to revamp their stance on Windows 2008 R2 to lower the processor requirement if using dual/quad, etc core processors. My understanding is this will happen later this month. WHS team needs to make the same change and modify the install check to take the core count into consideration. Thanks!

    Steve

    Have a nice day!
    Monday, August 30, 2010 7:08 AM
  • Discussion
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    "... doing it the supported way ..."

    As soon as you step outside the System Requirements specs, you're no longer "doing it the supported way". And frankly I think the minimum requirements are too low, not too high. If streaming HD video with "on the fly" transcoding is in the product (and it is) then the minimum requirements should reflect the hardware needed to perform that task.

    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Monday, August 30, 2010 12:36 PM
    Moderator
  • Discussion
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    Somewhere in this forum (can't find the post ATM) Microsoft mentioned that you will need a WinSAT CPU score of approximately 6.0 to transcode HD video "on the fly". Your CPU probably won't reach that, so you won't meet a "real world" recommended minimum. Microsoft's minimum specs won't come anywhere near a WinSAT CPU score of 6.0, of course; I sometimes wonder who comes up with those specs...

    I expect i5 CPUs (or AMD equivalent) or better are probably going to be the recommended minimum hardware in the real world. 

    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)

    If they did that then I would agree to some extent. The point at hand is they currently list a 1.4 GHz processor which can easily be exceeded by slower multicore processors. I also do not think transcode will be used for everyone so it is not unreasonable to have a minimum for the base functions and then some kind of different minimum/recommended for specific functions.

    Steve

    Monday, August 30, 2010 1:18 PM
  • Discussion
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    And after that you come back complaining about performance?
     
    Way to much "lower the requirements" based on "the stuff I now have-discussions" here.
     
    Let's face it, the time WHS was able to run on an old (left over) machine pc is over. Get used to it.
     

    I attempted to install on a unit with a 1.3 GHz dual core AMD NEO II processor and it failed the processor check. I know that the requirement is 1.4 GHz but that only really applies to single core. I know MSFT is looking to revamp their stance on Windows 2008 R2 to lower the processor requirement if using dual/quad, etc core processors. My understanding is this will happen later this month. WHS team needs to make the same change and modify the install check to take the core count into consideration. Thanks!

    Steve

    Have a nice day!


    The processor being referenced here was released in April 2010 so we are not talking about an old crusty PC. It is a lightweight processor targeted for the netbook market but there are some products being released that will support Windows 2008 R2 which WHS is based on.

    Steve

    Monday, August 30, 2010 1:20 PM
  • Discussion
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    "... doing it the supported way ..."

    As soon as you step outside the System Requirements specs, you're no longer "doing it the supported way". And frankly I think the minimum requirements are too low, not too high. If streaming HD video with "on the fly" transcoding is in the product (and it is) then the minimum requirements should reflect the hardware needed to perform that task.

    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)


    I don't disagree with this at all. I think one of the main advantages of Apple products is they own the hardware and software, thus the overall experience. I think MSFT in most cases is way too low on the HW specs and than people complain about performance, etc. The minimum should be what will allow the product to run without alot of pain, waiting, etc. With that said expressing minimum requirments with just a GHz rating is not appropiate due to multicore processors. They now have Intel 8 core processors running as low as 1.866 GHz (L7555). The raw GHz rating does not give the real basis for what that CPU can do.

    Steve

    Monday, August 30, 2010 1:28 PM
  • Discussion
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    Ken, I agree that the system requirements are set too low for streaming HD video, etc. However, there are those of us who do not do that; me for one. My server is for the specific requirement of backing up my various computers. Two GB RAM are sufficient for that purpose.

    Having said that, it would seem to me that minimum/maximum requirements should be a little more realistic. Maybe something on the order of: Minimum requirements for backing up computers only - 2 GB; Maximum requirements for more than that - 4 GB.

    Of course, these "specs" are only as a 'fer instance' and not meant to be accurate, because I only use Vail for backing up my computers.

    Nancy Ward
    Windows 8 BetaFerret

    "Ken Warren [MVP]" wrote in message news:9c5ec5eb-3108-4c5e-a7a6-cc24919ebdc2@communitybridge.codeplex.com...

    "... doing it the supported way ..."

    As soon as you step outside the System Requirements specs, you're no longer "doing it the supported way". And frankly I think the minimum requirements are too low, not too high. If streaming HD video with "on the fly" transcoding is in the product (and it is) then the minimum requirements should reflect the hardware needed to perform that task.

    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)

    Nancy Ward
    Monday, August 30, 2010 8:18 PM
  • Discussion
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    While I understand that some users don't use the streaming capabilities, Nancy, Microsoft has an extremely long history of unrealistic minimum specs for operating systems. And the minimum hardware requirements should always fully support the functionality you get "out of the box" in my opinion. Since streaming is available to all users "out of the box", it should be fully supported even if some of those users don't need the capability.

    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Tuesday, August 31, 2010 1:20 PM
    Moderator
  • Discussion
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    I too have just bought a HP microserver, the perfect box for VAIL but the processor doesn't pass the abitary ghz check, even though it's way faster than most higher clock speed Atom machines. 

    Can anyone add more detail to if it's possible to use the Windows Deployment Toolkit to override this issue?

    James

    Sunday, September 26, 2010 11:16 AM
  • Discussion
    Sign in to vote
    1
    Sign in to vote

    Can anyone add more detail to if it's possible to use the Windows Deployment Toolkit to override this issue?

    No, it's not. There's an ini file for unattended installation that can override the hard stop on hardware at this time, but there's no guarantee that it will make it into the RTM product.
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Sunday, September 26, 2010 12:38 PM
    Moderator
  • Discussion
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    awesome thanks, will give it a try

    James

    Sunday, September 26, 2010 1:20 PM
  • Discussion
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    Yup, I had to add the cfg.ini file to skip the processor check on my HP Microserver.
    Sunday, September 26, 2010 7:19 PM
  • Discussion
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    Yes, this worked perfectly for me. It's interesting in the end the processor is three times the performance of my current server (an Atom 1.6ghz) but is still blocked. I really hope they're taking notice of this, it's such a simple fix and would combine to make a stunning product.

     

    Sunday, September 26, 2010 8:00 PM
  • Discussion
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    Looks like the Windows 2008 R2 requirements have finally been changed:

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/system-requirements.aspx

    Hopefully the WHS team will adopt this same stance.

    Steve

     

    Friday, October 1, 2010 3:27 PM