Ferret 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 No you didn't - Windows XP requires the CPUID instruction set.... 486 CPU's didn't have CPUID ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiracyX Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Pretty impressive! I got an old laptop which is a PIII, 128MB RAM, 20GB HDD and i might install Windows 7 on that when the RTM arrives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.tony Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Pretty impressive!I got an old laptop which is a PIII, 128MB RAM, 20GB HDD and i might install Windows 7 on that when the RTM arrives. I wouldn't... ...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. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+John. Subscriber¹ Posted June 22, 2009 Subscriber¹ Share Posted June 22, 2009 No you didn't - Windows XP requires the CPUID instruction set.... 486 CPU's didn't have CPUID ! ZING That's a damned impressive feat there, props to Windows 7, I must admit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XerXis 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 impossible, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carmatic Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 No you didn't - Windows XP requires the CPUID instruction set.... 486 CPU's didn't have CPUID ! actually, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPUID , the later 486's also had some form of CPUID Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_dandy_ Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 actually, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPUID , the later 486's also had some form of CPUID I can confirm that. I've written CPU identification code, and the CPUID instruction was introduced in some later generation of the 486--newer versions supported it, older ones didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9UnknownMen Posted June 22, 2009 Author Share Posted June 22, 2009 I just dug up my old IBM Aptiva Pentium 200 w/ MMX. If I only had the patience. :p 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. You , B'aal and the rest are welcome to not click on these threads let alone take the time to post in 'em . We really couldn't give a rats ass if you guys are on the rag and feel the need to queef about particular win7 threads and stories in an enthusiast forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zain Adeel Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 wow.. and i cant get to run the Assessment tool on my pc.. using RC here.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferret Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 I can confirm that. I've written CPU identification code, and the CPUID instruction was introduced in some later generation of the 486--newer versions supported it, older ones didn't. I apologise - I always thought the 486 family didn't have CPUID ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdood Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 You , B'aal and the rest are welcome to not click on these threads let alone take the time to post in 'em . We really couldn't give a rats ass if you guys are on the rag and feel the need to queef about particular win7 threads and stories in an enthusiast forum. Yeah man, it's totally awesome to have ten threads about the exact same topic because people are incapable of even glancing over the forum to find out if it's already been posted! But you're right though, the fact that you can install 7 and Vista and XP and any other version of Windows on hardware that is far too underpowered for it to actually be usable in any way whatsoever is definitely worth so much attention. Keep up the good work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9UnknownMen Posted June 22, 2009 Author Share Posted June 22, 2009 Yeah man, it's totally awesome to have ten threads about the exact same topic because people are incapable of even glancing over the forum to find out if it's already been posted!But you're right though, the fact that you can install 7 and Vista and XP and any other version of Windows on hardware that is far too underpowered for it to actually be usable in any way whatsoever is definitely worth so much attention. Keep up the good work. My point remains. You can assume all sorts of moronic pretenses to make a point no one here is debating or just pop a Midol and go on about viewing the myriad of other window 7 topics and articles available here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosidius Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 I had windows XP running on a P2 400mhz with like 128mb of ram. It's painful to see windows attempt to draw the windows for 1/2 hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+InsaneNutter MVC Posted June 22, 2009 MVC Share Posted June 22, 2009 I had windows XP running on a P2 400mhz with like 128mb of ram. It's painful to see windows attempt to draw the windows for 1/2 hour. Lack of ram I would guess, I had Windows XP running on my 300mhz PC with 512mb of ram for about 2 years, it was my main pc. Back then I didn?t think it was really that slow, ran as quick as Windows 98 once Windows had booted with the added bonus it didn?t crash all the time, infect never crashed compared to 98. I know people wouldn?t dream of doing this today I?m just saying back in 2002 it was more than usable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Udedenkz Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 I had windows XP running on a P2 400mhz with like 128mb of ram. It's painful to see windows attempt to draw the windows for 1/2 hour. Computer or User Error most likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DataCabbitKSW Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 I remember seeing this reported on Bink.nu a week ago. I thought it was pretty damn impressive honestly. Not very usable, but it could work, and I suppose that is all that is important in setting these ultra lows. Even XP would have problems running on that old of hardware. Yes I have seen XP on older as a challenge, but I imagine that they might be able to even drop down another processor notch (if they had the patience). I think seeing it running on this limited of hardware would also speak volumes to how well it could perform under limited virtualized environments as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaHawk Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 Do we need Windows 7 and was Vista that bad. Also, why rush to bring out Vista in the first place. I like Linux as an OS but most people can?t handle Windows so there was no danger Windows was going to lose ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ba'al Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 I had windows XP running on a P2 400mhz with like 128mb of ram. It's painful to see windows attempt to draw the windows for 1/2 hour. Ouch, now that sounds painful :pinch: Ok, who's the first person to try to install Win7 on that thing? :rofl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subject Delta Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 I have XP installed on a 900 MHZ celeron machine with 256MB of ram and onboard graphics, and its painfully slow even with all the visual features disabled. I couldn't even imagine running 7 on a low end machine, but is is impressive that others are able to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts