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While perhaps not very practical, hackerman1's quest/obsession with putting Microsoft's newest on some rather outdated hardware provides a nice illustration of the new OS's smaller footprint.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

Quite interesting
By sprockkets on 6/23/2009 4:47:12 PM , Rating: 2
The whole bootup time of Windows has often baffled me. Our old P2 300mhz machine from Gateway arrived with 64MB of ram, and took a reasonable amount of time to boot win98 (delivered 1 day before its launch).

Then, an old Monorail all in one computer, with maxed out ram of 64mb of ram on a 5x86 AMD CPU, could boot win98 in about a quarter of the time it took that Gateway to boot, even though the Gateway had more than twice the clock speed. It shut down instantly too, while the Gateway never did.

Heck, this computer, a Dell 700m, boots Vista and 7 just as fast as it does XP. Though on other systems, it takes much longer to boot Vista than XP.

To be sure, a newer computer will still encode videos faster whether it takes longer to boot or not, but still, makes you wonder...




"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

Related Articles













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