9UnknownMen Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Windows 7 Hits a New LowDavid Murphy PC World I've always wanted to get a modern operating system to work on my graphing calculator. And we're about there, thanks to the efforts of a fellow (or strangly named lady) on The Windows Club forum. A user by the name of "hackerman1" has installed Windows 7 on his PC, which in itself is nothing to write home about. The catch here is that he's gotten a bootable, working installation on no less than a Pentium II system. No, that's not a typo--Pentium Two. The extreme...ly old machine consists of a 266 MHz CPU, a whopping 96 MB of memory, and a next-generation 4 MB graphics card. Like a stuntperson who just keeps tempting death by pushing the landing ramp farther and farther back, hackerman1 didn't just stop with that meager system loadout. He continued to alter the memory amount, achieving success with two of three setups: 128 MB and 96 MB. Unfortunately, Windows 7 didn't seem to enjoy only having 64 megabytes of memory to work with, marking hackerman's stopping point with that version of the experiment. That's not to say that he's planning on stopping for good, however. Next up? A Pentium I machine featuring a 166 MHz CPU paired with a 1 MB graphics card. After that, maybe hackerman1 can break inject some Aero graphics into his trusty abacus. Although he didn't say how long it took him to install or boot the operating system, other forum users have chimed in and timed the installation for a Pentium III-based system at a low 17 continuous hours. And the boot time? 17 minutes. And I though I was pushing it on my old Dell Dimension I got 7 running on. I'm surprised he was still able the score 1.0. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonhapimp Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 damn XP would even have a problem running that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEVER85 Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Damn, that's basically the specs of my really old computer, and XP was virtually unusable on it. I had to put Windows 2000 on there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nw2001 Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 you cant install it with less than like 512 MB of ram or the installer says screw you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neoxphuse Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 That is freaking impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyF Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 you cant install it with less than like 512 MB of ram or the installer says screw you. But memory is easily removable and replaceable. All you'd have to do is install it with 512MB RAM... Once it's installed, there's nothing (besides usability) stopping you from removing some RAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ba'al Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 This is getting old... first post of Win7 on stoneage computer was still slightly interesting, but this seems to turn into a competition :pinch: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steeley Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 It's one thing to be able to install it; it's another thing to be able to run it at a useable, productive speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEVER85 Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 This is getting old... first post of Win7 on stoneage computer was still slightly interesting, but this seems to turn into a competition :pinch: Then don't view the thread. Simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idoia Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 you cant install it with less than like 512 MB of ram or the installer says screw you. What? You can modify the setup files and can install with 128 MB SD-RAM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saasn Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 you cant install it with less than like 512 MB of ram or the installer says screw you. He must of used Vlite or a slimmer app to remove it from the installation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaramonga Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Boredom setting in now........ :sleep: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notuptome2004 Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=786248 i already posted news on this back on the 18th from the original source forum of the guy who did this so it is old news Mod would ya please merge threads in some form or stop this one TY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie Ride Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 getting Windows 7 to run on those low specs is nothing new, hell i got windows xp to run on a 486 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruNo_ Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 damn XP would even have a problem running that lol, i've seen XP running on Pentium 100 with 64Mb EDO RAM... no jokes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raa Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 The only restriction on XP (and 2000) was you had to have a Pentium Class CPU, IIRC. And 32mb of ram? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie Ride Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 and... with a few light hacks here and there u can get it working Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kizuran Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 This is getting old... first post of Win7 on stoneage computer was still slightly interesting, but this seems to turn into a competition :pinch: Wow Lord Ba'al, I think I sense a bit of irritation/exasberation in your post. Have these non-stop threads/posts about users seeing how low they can truly take the system operation bar started to get to you? I personally can't blame you, but for you state or imply so (intentionally or unintentionally) must mean you may be @ your own limit. :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruNo_ Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 The only restriction on XP (and 2000) was you had to have a Pentium Class CPU, IIRC. And 32mb of ram? 64 on XP and 32 on 2000 http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sysreqs/pro.mspx http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304297 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raa Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Excellent, I knew I was right ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wguimb Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Yes, but running Windows 7 on machines with less than 1 gig RAM causes severe hard drive thrashing. I ran it on a PIII with 512MB memory and was pulling my hair out. Went back to XP and life was good. Oh BTW I have 5 other computers all running various builds of Windows 7. I have no life...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Growled Member Posted June 22, 2009 Member Share Posted June 22, 2009 That is freaking impressive. Very. I had no idea it could run on such a low end machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonhapimp Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Yes, but running Windows 7 on machines with less than 1 gig RAM causes severe hard drive thrashing. I ran it on a PIII with 512MB memory and was pulling my hair out. Went back to XP and life was good. Oh BTW I have 5 other computers all running various builds of Windows 7. I have no life...... i think it was your processor messing you up not the ram i have no hdd thrashing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Udedenkz Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Is this by the same guy who got XP to run on a 7Mhz CPU with 20.0MB RAM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdood Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Wow Lord Ba'al, I think I sense a bit of irritation/exasberation in your post. I think what's annoying is that a lot of people seem to be taking this as some sort of evidence that 7 is a super-duper-ultra-mega-awesome OS that has lower requirements than XP and will run fine and be usable on the most absurdly underpowered hardware, when this just isn't the case at all. You could do the same thing with Vista, and it means nothing. It's not some sort of great accomplishment, it's just a "hehe, funny" thing that is completely useless. It certainly doesn't deserve the ten forum threads that have been started about it so far, and it wouldn't take more than a few seconds to find one of them instead of posting a new one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts