Quote -
I'm not being a jerk. You supposed yourself to be answering a question I'd asked of someone else. Well, I didn't ask what you would recommend, I asked what would the minimum system requirements* *be. That, quite simply is what is stated on the box.

I even went so far as to look up the definition of MSR on wikipedia just to make sure I was on the right track.

*The 'Minimum system requirements' must be satisfied for the software to be usable at all. Computers with lower specifications than the minimum requirements may sometimes also run the software. It is suggested, however, that the user will not have a representative experience of the software this way. Generally this set is regarded more of a rule than a guideline. A system meeting this requirement will provide basic performance of a software application.

I know what "minimum system requirements" means, no need for the definition.
is that what we're reduced to, to supply people with things that "might" work, and have some cold, hard, non-personal guideline  backing up our decisions and helping us to squeak our creations onto others in "good" conscience?

Customer:
I only have 512 MB of RAM, a 700 MHz processor, and I'm running Vista. Is that enough to run Poser 8?
Tech Guy:
Why certainly, that's plenty.
Customer:
Poser will open, but I can't do anything with it. I don't understand, I meet the minimum requirements.
Tech Guy: Well all we guarantee is that it will open. Too bad for you, get a better computer.

Not to say SM is like that, and that's just an exaggeration to show my point. It may be technically correct to list specs like that for a software such as Poser 8, but is it morally correct? That, I don't think so.

And speaking again of Vista...
Home Basic and Ultimate, etc, all list a 1 GHz processor as minimum, which is, IMO, another glaring contradiction in the specs. Why have you failed to comment on any of the Vista discrepencies that I've mentioned three times now and Cage pointed out initially? How can they say "Vista" in general is a supported operating system, while Vista itself has specs above what they list? How are they supposed to "run" the software on a computer that's barely managing to run the operating system? Hmmm? I mean, since you're so involved with arguing on their side, you might as well defend them on that point too. You know, for the sake of completeness and all.

As I mentioned earlier, the "recommended" specs doesn't mean a thing. An ignorant computer user will think, "Oh, that's if I want it to scream", and will be under the impression that "minimum" means he can download all those Vickies with their 4K textures and  make a render with the fancy new GI stuff shown on SM's site.

Obviously you don't seem to understand at all the point I've been trying to make, that it's just wrong to tell people they can run the software that really needs far more power if they're going to actually use it. Not legally or technically wrong, just plain.... wrong.