Hey guys I saw some guys installing and running Windows 7 on pretty much ancient desktops and it runs, though what they did is remove the RAM after installation back down to 96MB. I want to try it on my old desktop with P4 2.4GHz and 128MB RAM but most likely it won't even install. Anyone has any site links for the LITE version whereby I can install it with a CD and with my amount of RAM? Thanks.
Windows 7 on antiquated machine
I doubt it will run any good anyway...
Don't worth a try.
I saw how slow was it with 1.14GHz and 512MB ram. Too much slow compared to XP.
PS: It is also posible to run XP on an 8MHz processor (no typo :nod
, but that does not means it is actually useful at all haha
I saw how slow was it with 1.14GHz and 512MB ram. Too much slow compared to XP.
PS: It is also posible to run XP on an 8MHz processor (no typo :nod
, but that does not means it is actually useful at all haha
#4
- Becky Rose
I would be suprised - and in a very geeky way overjoyed.
The 8088 and 8086 processors (the only Intel series chips that I can recall being clockable at 8mhz) don't have built in MMU's and have insufficient memory address range to load Windows without the use of VMM, creating a paradox of fail.
If someones pulled that off they deserve a great big geek award, and to be protected from that scary sunshine stuff and those unfamiliar daunting girls for the rest of their life.
The RAM is a problem. Win7 really struggles on anything that hasn't at least 1GB RAM. The CPU isn't be that much of a problem if you turn Aero and stuff off, but with just 128MB of RAM there's nothing that can help you
Don't want to sound pedantic, but that actually wouldn't work
Don't want to sound pedantic, but that actually wouldn't work
had 7 installed to a laptop which had a sempron @1.4 ghz and 256mb ram... it worked decently, unless you wanted to open stuff..
I know it's not worth it but I wanted to try it out lol. Come on, less naysayers and give suggestions on how to do it or links to the LITE version capable of running at least 96MB RAM.
#8
- bunder9999
i had the vista beta on my laptop (p4m-2.0, 1gb ram) some ages ago and when it booted, it used ~900mb just to boot to the desktop. opening IE (or any program for that matter) would push it into swap.
i refuse to buy RAM so the OS can pig it all. i know you can go in and strip down all the services, but i shouldn't effing have to do that. since W2K is EOL, i'll probably be one of the last users of XP... after that, i don't even know what i'll do, because there is no way i'm buying a computer with 4gb of memory just so windows can use it all, instead of all the other bloaty apps people create these days...
i refuse to buy RAM so the OS can pig it all. i know you can go in and strip down all the services, but i shouldn't effing have to do that. since W2K is EOL, i'll probably be one of the last users of XP... after that, i don't even know what i'll do, because there is no way i'm buying a computer with 4gb of memory just so windows can use it all, instead of all the other bloaty apps people create these days...
#9
- Becky Rose
Yeah and i'm sticking with an Apple Newton, all this modern mumbo jumbo iPhone crap will never catch on
RAM is not that much needed actually, I managed to run Win7 SP1 on a virtual machine with 256 MB of RAM and no pagefile with a very few tweaks.
My laptop ain't ancient but this might still interesting to some, perhaps. I'm running Windows 7 on a IBM t42 (released 2005). 1,7Ghz Pentium M CPU and 1GB DDR2 SDRAM. It scores a whooping 1,0 in the "windows experience index" but in all seriousness, it actually works very very well. I would definitely not switch to XP.
10 years ago the experienced performance increase between the previous generation and the next was huge, but for the last 5 years or so you don't have to upgrade as often if all you are doing is running laptop applications.
10 years ago the experienced performance increase between the previous generation and the next was huge, but for the last 5 years or so you don't have to upgrade as often if all you are doing is running laptop applications.
?
i have no use for a palm pilot. that's why the one i have is sitting somewhere collecting dust. i don't even think i can charge it to turn it on.
You can buy a computer today without 4 GB of RAM? The cheapest laptop I could find here is $600 and has 4 GB RAM. In the $1000+ range you can find 6-8 GB.
Unless we're talking about those tiny 10" ones, I fail to understand how you can't have 4 GB of RAM. This cheap desktop I'm on from 2006 has that amount.
I was just asking myself the same
....Unless he's thinking of buying second-hand one...wich for me is like buying used underwear (you never know how much of sh*t it has been filled with before)PC hardware mostly doesn't wears out, except maybe SSDs.
... And HDDs that produces faulty sectors, and fans that wear out and causes damage to both gpu and cpu, and monitors that looses brightness or turns green (especially CRTs), and keyboards that looses their "springyness" and PSUs that eventually die. Etc.
1. HDD is one of cheapest parts
2. fans are $5 each, and they dont really wear out fast
3. monitors are not part of PC
3. neither is keyboard
4. PSUs.. maybe, but usually people put overkill PSUs in their PCs, so that wear out is unnoticeable.
Now M$ will make Windows, Calculator Edition?
The windows itself will install but probably allot of your devices will not have support AT ALL.
There's already Windows FLP.
My point wasn't wether PC parts are cheap and can be replaced or not. I simply commented on your silly statement about PC components not wearing out. And you just proved my point.
what they did was to serverly underclock some pentium 1
ended up with a boot time of 30 minutes... quite nippy if you ask me
Hrmm. Clever, but i'm not sure that really counts because underclocking doesnt meen it worked on older hardware. What they've done I would say is created an emulator, which does neatly get around the issue of addressable memory space, but doesn't prove Windows will run on early 80's hardware.
Was that really the point? WinXP is compiled for i586 instruction set so it needs at least the oldest P5 Pentium to run.
Only interesting thing about this "test" was that XP was able to handle all the interrupts, task and IO scheduling and a helluva lot of background services with just 8 MHz CPU. It actually kind of impressed me...
1
2
Windows 7 on antiquated machine
(26 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG