508461 - Add Windows 7 to the System Requirements for Thunderbird 3 Release Notes

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(www.mozilla.org Graveyard :: Thunderbird, defect)

Description

[Kohei Yoshino [:kohei]]

+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #508460 +++

Windows 7 will be available in a few days.

Comment 1

[Roland Tanglao needinfo please :rolandtanglao, :mohnkuchen, :adobo, :sinigang, :roland]

Yes we have the same system requirements as Firefox 3.5.3

so need to remove:Windows 98, Windows 98 SE,Windows ME,Windows NT 4.0

and add Windows 7
and perhaps add a note about 64 bit builds not supported but can run 32 bit build in 64 bit Windows

Comment 2

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

should we make a new bug for items not related to win7 or do we globalize this bug?

note the TB3 betas point to http://www.mozillamessaging.com/en-US/thunderbird/system-requirements/prerelease.html which is a clone of FF requirements.  This version of specs doesn't mention min hardware for linux.  

IMO ms-windows' min HW memory specs are lame, at least in terms of thunderbird. Perhaps also true of Mac?

Do we get ourselves in a bind if we be nice and cite where people can get unsupported 64bit builds?

Comment 3

[Ludovic Hirlimann [:Usul]]

globalize

Comment 4

[Nikolay Shopik]

Mac OS X 10.4 barely can work with 256 RAM. http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1514 even with 512 and just safari and some other program you may fell sluggish perf already.
And MS-windows sys.req need to updated, currently shredder eats about 50 megs after startup with just 2 IMAP accounts(w/o gloda). And according Win2000 sys.req + TB memory allocation 256 should be recommended.
This is important because when we say it works on 64mb ram we shouldn't mean it work for you slow as hell. People may check sys.req and try to run app on old hardware and find this almost impossible due constant swaping issue.

Comment 5

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

suggest
w2k - 256 MB min (512MB recommended) [based on my old w2k PC]
XP and up - 786mb min (1gig recommended)
if you choose to list win7 and vista - 1gig min

Comment 6

[Nikolay Shopik]

(In reply to comment #5)
> suggest
> w2k - 256 MB min (512MB recommended) [based on my old w2k PC]
> XP and up - 786mb min (1gig recommended)
> if you choose to list win7 and vista - 1gig min

Highly support that. But still don't understand what motivates Firefox folks to keep their sys.req at such low level - http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/system-requirements.html. Because all we know Fx is more ram hungry itself compare to TB.

Comment 7

[Alexander L. Slovesnik]

(In reply to comment #6)
> Highly support that. But still don't understand what motivates Firefox folks to
> keep their sys.req at such low level -
> http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/system-requirements.html. Because all we
> know Fx is more ram hungry itself compare to TB.
Because listing high level system requirements is bad for PR. One can imagine a lot of bad press like "Mozilla acknowledge that Firefox is hungriest browser in the world" etc.
 
(In reply to comment #5)
> suggest
> w2k - 256 MB min (512MB recommended) [based on my old w2k PC]
> XP and up - 786mb min (1gig recommended)
> if you choose to list win7 and vista - 1gig min
Do you know any mail client that requires at least 1 GB RAM on Windows? Just wondering.

Comment 8

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

I have always taken the system requirements cited as being inclusive of an OS in a usable condition. But I would be happy to be incorrect, because that would greatly simplify the requirements list. But if that's the case, the text should be slightly more explicit on that point.

Comment 9

[Nikolay Shopik]

(In reply to comment #7)
> Because listing high level system requirements is bad for PR. One can imagine a
> lot of bad press like "Mozilla acknowledge that Firefox is hungriest browser in
> the world" etc.
> 
Ok you've made point but current sys.req is even lower when sys.req for Mac OS X 10.4 itself. And while sys.req are correct for MS Windows 2000 other version have different requirements.
You can at least double sys.req from current numbers. And PR have nothing to do with user experince when app doesn't response in like few minutes for command.

Comment 10

[Rafael Ebron (:rebron)]

http://trunk.mozillamessaging.com/en-US/thunderbird/system-requirements/

current draft.  

need feedback on this:
    *  Pentium 233 MHz (Recommended: Pentium 500MHz or greater)
    * Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows XP: 786 MB RAM (Recommended: 1GB RAM or greater)
    * Windows 2000: 256 MB RAM (Recommended: 512 MB RAM or greater)
    * 52 MB hard drive space

Comment 11

[Nikolay Shopik]

I think we could go down on Windows XP for 512MB.

Comment 12

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

I know of an XP box with thunderbird that has 256 or 384MB (I forget which) and perf stinks. 512 *might* be OK. dunno.

Comment 13

[Rafael Ebron (:rebron)]

We're going to keep at 786 for XP. I'm liking our sys requirements a bit better in the sense that it's the minimal requirements with good performance vs. absolute minimal requirements/functional but lackluster performance.   

Marking fixed (fixed on trunk) and really fixed when we update to production.