Talk:System requirements

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Systems (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.


Is there a template for Sys Requirements? It would be mighty nice if there is one--sin-man 03:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

System requirements for software tend to increase over time,

One should rephrase that to indicate that it is the software that puts inclreasingly more reuiqrements upon the hardware.


"Microsoft Internet Explorer is a frequent choice of software running on Microsoft Windows, which makes use of ActiveX controls, despite their vulnerabilities."

Should Internet vulnerabilities be mentioned in this article at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Maximum performance?[edit]

I disagree with this statement: "...and a recommended set of requirements (for maximum performance)." In my experience recommended requirements are not the ones for maximum performance but the ones that make the program behave well (minimal wait times or latency, reasonable resolution, etc.). A system that exceeds the recommended requirements almost always runs a program more effectively than one that simply meets the recommended requirements, and thus "for maximum performance" is not the right parenthetical. --DeweyQ 03:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Major Expansion[edit]

Hi All! Considering the potential of this article it is important to expand it. I have started it and your welcome to contribute. It must not take long and you are requested to discuss changes here for a short while (while the Underconstruction template is on the page) to avoid edit-wars and conflicts. Please feel free to update/change/discuss the expansion once it is complete. You can leave a note on my talk page if you need me or think I have been fooling around longer than necessary. :) --Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 00:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is fast becoming a set of favorite edits of mine. The aim applied is to explain various aspects and componenets of the System requirements that software vendors define, and not just listing various SW reqs. --Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 20:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Updates made[edit]

  • The article has been expanded a bit and divided into subheads. --Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 00:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Almost complete. It now contains L2 heads like Minimum sys reqs, Maximum Sys reqs, hardware reqs, software reqs. Various components of each of the L2 heads are mention and explained as L3 sub-heads. I'll remove the underconstruction template once listed TO DOs are complete --Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 20:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Some citations have been added along with a new L2 subhead for other requirements. I have removed the underconstruction template. Work that needs to be done is listed under ToDo. --Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 18:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

To Do[edit]

  • Various components of system requirements need to be included. Would request everyone reading this to discuss things to be incuded here. --Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 00:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Done!--20:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Need to find a way to remove the Examples subhead. Need to Copy-edit for spelling, grammar and style. Need to add sources and citations. Need to completely modify the related articles list. Not much, huh? --Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 20:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Per DeweyQ's suggestions below, need to find and update more citations. A few more related links are pending. Can examples of popular games (in Examples) be replaced with Microsoft Windows 3.x through Vista? Need to discuss and update. --Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 18:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Great work[edit]

It is much easier for me to edit existing stuff than think about what needs to go here! :-) We have to be careful not to let this become original research, so some claims will need citations. I have added one that I felt was particularly critical about Intel's popularity related to pure clock speed instead of throughput. Thank you Vikas for the great work so far! --DeweyQ 13:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

With a closer look it does look like a critical original research. I was unable to find a citation for it. Although it's true, I know we can't put unsourced material. Can rephrasing help? --Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 02:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks DeweyQ! I'll bear that in mind. I also wanted to ask you if it would be better to replace the examples of popular games with [Microsoft Windows] OSs 3.x through Vista? --Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 18:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the original authors thought games provided the best illustration of system requirements increasing over time since game authors tend to design on and then deploy to much higher-end systems. Windows XP has not changed its system requirements since 2001 (at least not substantially), but any game that came out in 2001 would have much lower requirements than a game that came out in 2006. Having said that, it would be more illustrative to show how the same game in a series has increased its requirements over a period of time. A long-running franchise like Madden might serve this purpose. --DeweyQ 20:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Well may be the original authors thought that way. But it would be almost impossible to find the respective system requirements of each of the releases of a long running game. As for MS Windows, what I meant was with every release of a new MS Windows OS, the system requirements go up too, and the one for Vista was a real big leap. Moreover such information is still readily available and verifiable. What do you say? --Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 02:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
We could put across a table to make the MS Windows sys. reqs. more readable! --Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 02:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Good so far. I'd be wary of making it too complex but more detail needed in some sections. Also, can I suggest that "Intel Pentium CPUs have enjoyed a considerable degree of popularity, and are often mentioned in this category" is a subjective judgement. It has implications that are not substantiated perhaps it should be removed?--Krayol (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Total 1337ness[edit]

It's great. ~ Flameviper Who's a Peach? 16:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What is a system?[edit]

This article shows a very limited understanding of a SYSTEM. There are much more elaborate processes for space systems requirements establishment and maintenance worked out since mid of last century. Modern space elements as ISS Shuttle etc. have software embedded in their subsystem suit. The software system approach incl. system requirements contents, useage and verification is not yet mature compaired with space programs. Therefore each one suffered a major delay due to software problems.- The article needs major re-work to cover all other systems or has to be re-named to Software Systems Requirements. Hjpospie 16:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. There are a view more of those articles like for example systems analysis, System integration, System programming, Systems architecture and Systems design that both have meaning in systems engineering and software engineering. In the ideal situation all of those article cover both aspects but that is not yet the case.
If you want to add content here, yoy can create a new section called for example "space systems requirements" and add the notable information you want to add. Good luck. - -- Mdd (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
For an article on 'System requirements' this seems to have a strong software focus. At the System level software isn't allocated yet. Starrymessenger (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This article should be moved[edit]

The current article is not giving an general picture about Systems requirements in Engineering but focusses solely about computer systems requirements. So this article will be renamed to:

The reason for moving this article is, that we want to create a more general systems requirements article, with covers

  • Systems requirements in computer systems
  • Systems requirements in systems engineering
  • Systems requirements in spacecraft systems

And maybe even more specific fields - Mdd (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree - Title not specific enough. Perhaps needs "Software and Hardware" in title? Googling "System Requirements" brings back almost entirely articles related to this, so should should not get confused with Req. Analysis. --Krayol (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I am mistaken. I presume that "System requirements" can refer to both
  • the list of requirements to build and or operate a system; and to
  • the process of determining the requirements to build or operate a system.
But maybe this second process is called Requirements analysis. - Mdd (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
"System requirements" are the results of a requirements analysis which is perforemed in several program phases (in space engineering):
  • Phase A: Feasibility
  • Phase B: Requirements definition.
At the moment is article is very limited considering only computer systems. This area is not so well elaborated as e.g. space systems and therefore re-work is urgently required.Hjpospie (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)