backtop


Print 66 comment(s) - last by winterspan.. on Jun 28 at 10:16 PM


One screenshot is worth a thousand words, in this case.  (Source: The Windows Club forums)
Hacker is eager to push the new OS onto a Pentium system next

Microsoft recently released a tool that suggests to users whether or not to upgrade to Windows 7, Microsoft's hot new OS.  However, it appears that the actual hardware requirements may be much lower than Microsoft's suggestions if you have enough determination.

A user on The Windows Club's forum has cooked up the ultimate low-end Windows 7 setup.  The user who goes by "hackerman1" has managed to squeeze a working, bootable Windows 7 install onto a machine with a blazing fast 266 MHz Pentium II processor, a whopping 96 MB of SDRAM memory, and a high-tech 4 MB video card. 

The enthusiast first used 128 MB of RAM, then pushed the total down to 96 MB.  A subsequent push for 64 MB proved too much -- Windows 7 needs at least 96 MB to function properly.

Not to be content, the user is now working on a new setup, trying to install Windows 7 on a Pentium I machine featuring a 166 MHz CPU paired with a 1 MB graphics card.  He's also considered trying to make the new fancy graphics wrapping -- Aero -- work on the Pentium II setup. 

Don't expect a quick install, though -- a Pentium III-based system install took 17 continuous hours, and the Pentium II install likely took much, much more.  The Pentium III based system boots in a mere 17 minutes.

While perhaps not very practical, hackerman1's quest/obsession with putting Microsoft's newest on some rather outdated hardware provides a nice illustration of the new OS's smaller footprint.  The new OS is reported to have consolidated processes, lowered memory requirements, and reduced install size from Windows Vista, allowing it to be installed on netbooks and other non-Vista-ready machines.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Article has a misleading title
By Jackattak on 6/23/2009 12:32:20 PM , Rating: 2
You couldn't put an HD on a 40486SX with enough space to on it to install Vista. I think the biggest HDD you'd be able to get the board to recognize would be like 400MB.


RE: Article has a misleading title
By nidomus on 6/23/2009 1:05:22 PM , Rating: 2
I had a 486DX2 66mhz. It came with an 852mb hard drive, which I upgraded to a 4gb a couple years later, no problems.


RE: Article has a misleading title
By omnicronx on 6/23/2009 1:25:03 PM , Rating: 2
Hes somewhat right.. Older machines had a limit of 528M, but that was a bios limitation, not a CPU limitation. You had a DX which was the fastest and last 486 model, but I had one of the original 486's and it did have the hard limit, not that it mattered to me, my HD was only 100M =D.


RE: Article has a misleading title
By Proxes on 6/23/2009 1:40:35 PM , Rating: 3
You might want to check your 486 history.

All 486's are either SX or DX from the 25 on up to the 100.

The DX4s were the "fastest and last" as you put it. The DX2/66 was one of the first realesed by Intel. Only 486 I had was the DX/33 which I bought in '92.


RE: Article has a misleading title
By dondino on 6/23/2009 10:22:51 PM , Rating: 2
Intel stopped with 486's at 100mhz. The fastest 486DX was by AMD @ 133Mhz. Arguably between the speed of an Intel Pentium 66 and 75.


RE: Article has a misleading title
By Ammohunt on 6/24/2009 2:24:21 PM , Rating: 2
Thats only half correct AMD put out a 486DX-80 which ran at multiples of 40mhz which at the time the intels only ran at 33 mhz i.e. 486DX-66; 33mhzx2 Those particular AMD 486's were the faster.


RE: Article has a misleading title
By dondino on 6/25/2009 12:17:36 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure where I've stated any false info. True, the DX2 maximum with AMD was a DX2-80. However, they made DX4 variants to 120Mhz, the Am486. Their Am5x86 (also pin compatible with Intel 486 processors) was made at a max of 133mhz, making it the fastest commercially available 486 ever, on par with a Pentium 75.


By winterspan on 6/28/2009 10:16:10 PM , Rating: 2
486? How OLD are you guys?? :)


RE: Article has a misleading title
By omnicronx on 6/23/2009 1:31:27 PM , Rating: 2
P.S Unless you had a later version of Windows 95 , you also were not using a 4GB drive as FAT32 did not come along until the second service release of Windows 95 and the update only came as an OEM release, so you would have had to buy a new 486 machine in 1996 =P. Not saying it didnt happen, but I just really doubt it..


RE: Article has a misleading title
By Motley on 6/23/2009 3:17:33 PM , Rating: 2
He said "a couple of years later". Also, you can use FAT16 on a 4GB drive by having two partitions and a really large cluster size, four partitions and a reasonable cluster size, or using an advanced driver like stacker at the time (Which did compression, but ALSO used very large cluster sizes, and could mark clusters as being partially full as well negating most of the drawbacks from the large cluster size).


By killerb255 on 6/24/2009 12:42:43 PM , Rating: 2
In my case, our old family computer that was bought in 1994 had the following:
AST Advantage (I wonder what ever happened to that company?)
486 DX/2 50 MHz
4 MB RAM (fast-page, if I remember correctly)
14.4 modem
480 MB hard drive
Windows 3.1

In the end, it was upgraded to:

486 DX/4 100 MHz
32 MB RAM
56 K v90 modem
6.4 GB hard drive (my first lesson in FAT32)
Windows 98 and...
...a 2x2x16 Memorex CD burner!!!! Woot!!! w. NTI CD burning software!!!

So yes, a board/BIOS capable of running a 486 can use larger hard drives (I'm sure it wouldn't know what to do with the 32 GB cap, though...).

Retired it in 1999 (too long, of course) and built a machine with a Celeron 333 MHz w. 128 MB of RAM (everything else above the same).


By FITCamaro on 6/23/2009 1:52:20 PM , Rating: 2
Had a Packard Bell with the same CPU. 8MB RAM, 1MB video memory, 700 something MB hard drive. Ran Windows 3.11 and later Windows 95 on it.


RE: Article has a misleading title
By Samus on 6/24/2009 8:09:58 AM , Rating: 2
40486SX? it's 80486 if you want to be technical.

and if i remember correctly (and i have a bomb ass memory) ATA-1 IDE (before EIDE) was capable of addressing 137GB, but common BIOS limitations only allowed for 8.5GB which could be fixed by simply putting in a decent controller. this is where promise and siig made their names, while adaptec mostly stuck to SCSI controllers.

so far, all microsoft OS's can be installed within an 8.5GB space.


RE: Article has a misleading title
By omglol on 6/24/2009 10:08:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
(and i have a bomb ass memory)


Also known as wikipedia.org

fyi: everyone here can internets


RE: Article has a misleading title
By Motley on 6/23/2009 3:11:43 PM , Rating: 3
That was only a limitation of IDE drives. SCSI drives didn't have that problem (since the SCSI cards came with their own BIOS).


By MrPoletski on 6/24/2009 3:57:47 AM , Rating: 2
It'll recognise a HDD controller AIB and you should be able to get a 486 on a PCI mobo, therefore you could have huge disk sizes.


"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki