notuptome2004 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 ok this is not my system but over in this forum here the guy has installed and tested windows 7 on 2 system Pentium 2 @266mhz 1 with 128 ram and 1 with 96megs ram and over on page 2 someone showed pics of it on a K6-2 system http://forum.thewindowsclub.com/windows-ha...7-dinosaur.html Quote user hackerman1 : hi ! W7 runs on a P2 with 266MHz CPU, 96MB RAM & 4Mb graphic card ! i have done 3 tests: 2 successfull... 1. 128 MB RAM 2. 96 MB ram take a look at the screenshots... on my third test with 64 MB i got some errormessages about "insufficient memory", then it rebooted... i also have a P1 with 166Mhz CPU & 1MB Graphic card, without the powersupply-unit, as i have used it for some tests on another PC. if i can find the Powersupply-unit, i?m going to test the P1 tomorrow... Quote user 2 with K6-2 system user rants##: The 7 runs quite well actually on "millennium" hardware. I've tested it succesfully on AMD K6-2 500Mhz with ~700MB memory AMD K6-2 500Mhz with ~700MB memory (512+256 and off that 32MB to shared with graphics). I did try to drop cpu around 300MHz which was the lowest possible and took out the 512 memory chip... System was still somewhat usable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazhar Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Wow! I mean it is amazing, people who skipped Vista because it needs lot of hardware, can use it with their old PCs! But they can just run it, they will not get the best performance out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notuptome2004 Posted June 18, 2009 Author Share Posted June 18, 2009 yea i mean damn being able to install windows 7 on system like that is awesome and the fact it is running decent to a passable usable system for email and such Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
null_ Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 This is quite interesting, I wonder if Microsoft have removed the minimum memory requirement in order for setup to run (Windows Vista will not install on any configuration with less than 512MB of RAM, the installer will refuse to run). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabron Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 How the hell people was able to install 7 in that type of machine? does the install was hacked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
code.kliu.org Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 I'm not too surprised that it can install, but that is not going to be usable. I have Win7 installed on an 8-year-old 800 MHz P3 Celeron machine, and it's usable, but only barely and for light stuff only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuffloN Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Dinosaur? Try Devonion era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raa Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 More like the big bang era! :rofl: But maen! That's impressive. I was going to test it on a 566 Celery I have here, but i'm not going to bother now... Or maybe I should just for a laugh anyway :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monotremata Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Hah Ill have to try it on my P3 1Ghz I have at home still!! Although I bet itll turn out like my Mac. Yay I can install Leopard OS 10.5 on my old G4 but it runs about as well as Vista would on a P2 heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strelok1911 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 The only way I can think of doing this is CPU underclocking. Since I'm sure it will even refuse to boot the DVD on 266 mhz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Veteran Posted June 18, 2009 Veteran Share Posted June 18, 2009 This is quite interesting, I wonder if Microsoft have removed the minimum memory requirement in order for setup to run (Windows Vista will not install on any configuration with less than 512MB of RAM, the installer will refuse to run). Nope. Either this is bogus or they installed extra memory and removed it again. I tried putting it on a Celeron 400 with 256MB and it refused to install. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subject Delta Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Installing 7 on such a slow machine would be pointless for anything other than bragging rights anyway, even XP would run like a dog on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdood Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 It's a bit silly anyway. Even if you did manage to install it, it's not usable and it means nothing unless you think simply running code on your computer is some great accomplishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason S. Global Moderator Posted June 18, 2009 Global Moderator Share Posted June 18, 2009 does anyone remember the website about the guy who loaded XP on a machine w/ 8MB of ram? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ba'al Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Installing 7 on such a slow machine would be pointless for anything other than bragging rights anyway, even XP would run like a dog on it Yes, most definitely. Just look on the second page, it got even below 1.0 :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petroid Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 That hardware wasn't so dinosaur when XP was in beta... I remember running RC1 on my Pentium MMX 166 with only 32MB ram by borrowing a friend's 64mb dimm to install. Needless to say I quickly upgraded to 256mb! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightIdea Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 does anyone remember the website about the guy who loaded XP on a machine w/ 8MB of ram? LOL yeah, here is the link: http://winhistory.de/more/386/xpmini_eng.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerxes Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 I don't see the point of this? I mean what is the benefit of running Win7 on such an old PC? your better off leaving what it already had on it! the only real reason I see for doing this is so the Vista bashers can use it as amunition for why they think Vista is a POS OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dashel Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 If he had more memory it would probably be usable. I have Vista on a P3-500 w/512. Fine for an internet/email box. Its a lot like comparing it to a netbook, its at least a 5yr time machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2687 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 The K6-2 could barely handle Windows 98.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjrambo Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PyX Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 What's the point? It has to be so stripped down that it cannot be called Windows 7 anymore. Poor resolution? Installer hacked? No aero? Lagging all the time? Not possible to open more than 1 application? Unstable? Impossible to put a desktop picture on the desktop? Gadgets unavailable? Impossible to be in 32-bit colour mode? ... It doesn't even have to do with "how good Windows 7 is"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notuptome2004 Posted June 19, 2009 Author Share Posted June 19, 2009 the point is i think to show anyone who thinks windows 7 is just vista with a new theme that it is not Vista that it is indeed a new OS cause if it was just Vista in a new theme and 100% vista then it would not install only anything less then 1ghz and run Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenomorph Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Yeah, I think some of you are missing it. No one plans on using Windows 7 on a Pentium II system. They are just seeing on how much of a low-end system they can get it to run on. When someone squeezed Windows XP on an 8 Meg system, it was impressive, it wasn't for them to use. Same with this and Windows 7. They just want to see how low it can go. The K6-2 could barely handle Windows 98.... Uh, what? Windows 98 has a requirement of a "486". And that was just too much for the K6-2? I could have sworn the K6-2 was faster than a Pentium II in many situations. Win98 stated minimum (but it could be made to run on lower): 486 @ 66MHz (33MHz BUS) w/ 16 Megs RAM. Possible K6-2 system: 550 MHz, 100MHz BUS, 128 Megs RAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdood Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Did they run the installer from within Windows or something, because I can't get the installer to boot with less than 256MB of RAM. It either gives an out of memory error or crashes with some other arbitrary message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts