Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 28th Jan 2006 16:50 UTC, submitted by Dr. No
Windows This is already a fairly old article, but I'm pretty confident it never made OSNews' front page. In this article, the author proves that Windows XP can be installed, and 'run', on processors with as little as 8MHz. "The target of this project was to find the weakest system where you can run Windows XP. Keep in mind, that Microsoft official requirements are a CPU with 233 MHz an 64 MB of RAM. But that had to be beaten!"
Order by: Score:
Amazing
by ZaNkY on Sat 28th Jan 2006 18:15 UTC
ZaNkY
Member since:
2005-10-18

That is amazing that WinXP will run on an 8MHz comp. I never thought that numbers like that would be possible on WinXP. Is there any similar Linux experiment? Boggles the mind, but I'm sure you could get Linux working on a 1 MHz comp.... LOL


Maybe I should go fetch my 45MHz comp and start underclocking.... ;)

--ZaNkY

Reply Score: 0

RE: Amazing
by sagum on Sat 28th Jan 2006 19:42 UTC in reply to "Amazing"
sagum Member since:
2006-01-23

Boggles the mind, but I'm sure you could get Linux working on a 1 MHz comp.... LOL

Maybe I should go fetch my 45MHz comp and start underclocking.... ;)


A few years ago I was still using a 386 sx/25mhz with 16mb ram as a file server. It was using linux to share files to windows machines over samba. It would use the full 15gb drive and beable to use it without any problems, although the BIOS would only see drives up to 500mb. I had to manually enter the drive settings.

I'd run the machine headless, and just ssh into it when needed, useful when downloading files overnight as the machine wouldn't use too much power and was very quiet.

I've since moved to a bigger 233mhz (fanless) machine with 256mb ram due to the 386 motherboard only having one ide port and the case not having enough space for the amount of harddisks i wanted to use.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Amazing
by Tom K on Sat 28th Jan 2006 20:58 UTC in reply to "Amazing"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

The text console on 1 MHz ... perhaps.

Anyone willing to try X.org and GNOME/KDE on an 8 MHz? Haha.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Amazing
by valeri_ufo on Sat 28th Jan 2006 21:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Amazing"
valeri_ufo Member since:
2005-07-06

No problem, GNOME/KDE versions from 1999 and XFree86 v3 ...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Amazing
by Tom K on Sat 28th Jan 2006 22:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Amazing"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Typical tactic.

No, let's compare apples to apples, and oranges to oranges -- nice try though.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Amazing
by jaboua on Sun 29th Jan 2006 10:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Amazing"
jaboua Member since:
2005-09-08

Since Windows XP was released in 2001, it would be a pretty fair test. To test the newest KDE/Gnome, you should rather compare it against Vista.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Amazing
by CrazyDude0 on Sun 29th Jan 2006 19:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Amazing"
CrazyDude0 Member since:
2005-07-10

No Sir, latest GNOME/KDE just come close to XP in terms of features. We don't compare OS's based on release dates but based on functionality.

If you want to compare Vista, you should compare it with latest release of OSX.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Amazing
by bornagainenguin on Sun 29th Jan 2006 11:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Amazing"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

No he's comparing systems released from roughly within the same time period. These are apples and apples.

:P

--bornagainpenguin (who wonders how you like those apples?)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Amazing
by Tom K on Sun 29th Jan 2006 19:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Amazing"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

I go by functionality/level of technology, not release by year. Everyone knows that X.org/KDE/GNOME are behind Microsoft in terms of functionality/tech.

XFree86 3.x is comparable to XP? Apples to oranges.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Amazing
by archiesteel on Mon 30th Jan 2006 03:55 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Amazing"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Everyone knows that X.org/KDE/GNOME are behind Microsoft in terms of functionality/tech.

That's an opinion, not a fact. For example, I believe that current X/KDE/Gnome is ahead of Microsoft in functionality and technology. So your statement ("Everyone knows...") is clearly false.

However, the point is moot, as I believe it is extremely pathetic to turn this very nice hack into a Linux/Windows flamewar. And I don't care who started it - it takes two to tango.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Amazing
by AmigaRobbo on Mon 30th Jan 2006 08:59 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Amazing"
AmigaRobbo Member since:
2005-11-15

Or even a Windows/Amiga OS flamewar.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Amazing
by SlackerJack on Sun 29th Jan 2006 15:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Amazing"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

Linux is the kernel, so you can do your daily jobs without a window manager or Xorg, can WindowsXP do that?, NO. WindowsXP may run but it's useless. I cannot run the 25 mile marathon but give me a year and I'll do it, but how useless is that!

Edited 2006-01-29 15:25

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Amazing
by CrazyDude0 on Sun 29th Jan 2006 19:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Amazing"
CrazyDude0 Member since:
2005-07-10

Response to SlackerJack:

Windows XP has a kernel as well. You install the server edition and you can simply telnet or ssh into it to do your job.

A kernel in itself is not useful without the other utilities. Linux is useful because of bash shell and other GNU utils.

And for your information, the guy was able to launch full explorer, let aside simple command line apps like ssh etc.

Sometime try to increase your knowledge before giving such baseless statements, just because you have a bias for linux.

Edited 2006-01-29 19:15

Reply Score: 1

Re
by Kroc on Sat 28th Jan 2006 18:30 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

That was on slashdot a while ago, they had got down to 21Mhz, great to see that they've got even lower!

Reply Score: 1

So....
by iMoron on Sat 28th Jan 2006 19:01 UTC
iMoron
Member since:
2005-09-30

How long it took them to get to the GUI.... 2... 3 Years perhaps...

How long untill Internet Explorer comes up... another 4 years perhaps!

intersting I guess...

:p

Reply Score: 1

Amazing
by truckweb on Sat 28th Jan 2006 19:02 UTC
truckweb
Member since:
2005-07-06

It takes 30 minutes to boot at 8Mhz. And the CPU is at 100% just to run the desktop.

At 20Mhz, the CPU was busy at 63% just to run the desktop.

So we can safely say that Windows XP steal 16Mhz of your CPU just to run the desktop. It's a small number I would say... Impressive.

Reply Score: 1

v Useless
by SlackerJack on Sat 28th Jan 2006 19:16 UTC
RE: Useless
by Resolution on Sat 28th Jan 2006 19:30 UTC in reply to "Useless"
Resolution Member since:
2005-11-14

It's called an "experiment". Look up the definition.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Useless
by sappyvcv on Sat 28th Jan 2006 19:41 UTC in reply to "Useless"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Fantastic! This article isn't about linux though.

Reply Score: 2

Bah!
by ApproachingZero on Sat 28th Jan 2006 20:14 UTC
ApproachingZero
Member since:
2005-11-10

This is child's play. The real test will be to see whether these hardware hackers can get Vista running on an 8 GHz rig.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Bah!
by Mr. Dee on Sun 29th Jan 2006 00:05 UTC in reply to "Bah!"
Mr. Dee Member since:
2005-11-13

Yes, Vista will run on a 8 "Ghz" computer.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Bah!
by raver31 on Sun 29th Jan 2006 08:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Bah!"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

What that last guy posted was called "SARCASM", clearly you missed it.

Reply Score: 1

Interesting experiment
by dmrio on Sat 28th Jan 2006 20:24 UTC
dmrio
Member since:
2005-08-26

The guy must have too much spare time...

Reply Score: 1

The Amiga OS 2.4
by AmigaRobbo on Sat 28th Jan 2006 20:27 UTC
AmigaRobbo
Member since:
2005-11-15

Ran on a 7.18Mhz CPU, and ran (admitidly with nowhere near as many drivers/network stacks etc) off floppy faster than a sub 1000Mhz PC running Windows XP.

Progress, don't you just love it?

Reply Score: 5

RE: The Amiga OS 2.4
by sappyvcv on Sat 28th Jan 2006 21:05 UTC in reply to "The Amiga OS 2.4"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

(admitidly with nowhere near as many drivers/network stacks etc)

Case closed.

Reply Score: 0

v RE: The Amiga OS 2.4
by Tom K on Sat 28th Jan 2006 21:09 UTC in reply to "The Amiga OS 2.4"
RE[2]: The Amiga OS 2.4
by AmigaRobbo on Sat 28th Jan 2006 21:32 UTC in reply to "RE: The Amiga OS 2.4"
AmigaRobbo Member since:
2005-11-15

But dosn't it worry you that modern computers are so powerful, and yet so slow?

Also, why the abuse? And for your information I'm using Modern Amiga crap, thank you very much.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: The Amiga OS 2.4
by Temcat on Sat 28th Jan 2006 22:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The Amiga OS 2.4"
Temcat Member since:
2005-10-18

Also, why the abuse?

Because, well, this is Linux is Poo.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: The Amiga OS 2.4
by Tom K on Sat 28th Jan 2006 22:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The Amiga OS 2.4"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Because of the snobby attitude. "Oh well ... AmigaOS could do all of that in the CPU power that Windows XP uses idling!"

Well then, Mr. Snob, how about you step back a little and consider what ELSE Windows XP does, and how much more advanced things are now than in the past?

Modern computers are powerful, but slowness only depends on your perspective. What part are you talking about when you say they're slow?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: The Amiga OS 2.4
by AmigaRobbo on Sat 28th Jan 2006 22:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The Amiga OS 2.4"
AmigaRobbo Member since:
2005-11-15

Slow(er):

When I turn it on and till I get to a usable OS
When I open "My computer"
When I open a folder, any folder. (or Draw, amiga pedants)
When I switch it off.

Did I say that Amiga OS (I specifed, for no good reason) 2.04 could do all (XP?) can do?
In fact, I put in the bit that it didn't anything like as much.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: The Amiga OS 2.4
by Tom K on Sun 29th Jan 2006 02:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The Amiga OS 2.4"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Turn it on == It's called S3 suspend. Modern computers, right? Use it. Instant on, instant off.
Open "My Computer" == What's faster than instant? I fail to see the problem.
Open a folder == See above.
Turn it off == See above.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: The Amiga OS 2.4
by AmigaRobbo on Sun 29th Jan 2006 07:14 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: The Amiga OS 2.4"
AmigaRobbo Member since:
2005-11-15

Even with "Instant off" is still sits there for a few seconds telling me it's shutting down. That's still slower.

Open "My computer" in an instant? I did mention a sub 1000Mhz PC didn't I?

Of course the strange thing is, many users are probably use to these slight but constant little delays. as they wait for the computer to catch up with them.
for example on the 750Mhz 256 Meg PC at work, say renaming a file, I now can press the right mouse button, and move the pointer to where the option that I want to select in the time the Contect menu takes to come up.

Maybe I'm just too fast for this world. (I know about F2, thanks)

No, wait, I've been trolled havn't I?

Reply Score: 1

v RE[7]: The Amiga OS 2.4
by Tom K on Sun 29th Jan 2006 08:28 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: The Amiga OS 2.4"
RE[8]: The Amiga OS 2.4
by viton on Mon 30th Jan 2006 14:49 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: The Amiga OS 2.4"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

Comparing the speed difference between the Amiga500 and, say, 400mhz PII, XP should boot in less than 1 second from cold boot to usable desktop =)

Edited 2006-01-30 14:59

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: The Amiga OS 2.4
by dsmogor on Sun 29th Jan 2006 14:45 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: The Amiga OS 2.4"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

S3 Jea right. You only pray to have the same number of ons and offs.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: The Amiga OS 2.4
by Tom K on Sun 29th Jan 2006 19:17 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: The Amiga OS 2.4"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Next time try not to buy Ching-Chong-Wang-brand motherboards made by a guy in a shack somewhere in the poorest district of North Korea.

All of my systems, ranging from a Duron 1.2 to an Athlon 64 do S3 just fine.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: The Amiga OS 2.4
by bornagainenguin on Sun 29th Jan 2006 11:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The Amiga OS 2.4"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

The point to remember with Amigas are that they were doing twice as much of the stuff we take for granted today at more than ten to fifteen years before the rest of the world caught up.

They've a reason to be smug IMHO!

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: The Amiga OS 2.4
by Tom K on Sun 29th Jan 2006 19:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The Amiga OS 2.4"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Then, not now.

Think about it realistically ... try to sell someone an Amiga with the argument "They did 2x more 15 years ago!" is pathetic. No one gives a damn, because the computers of today can do 5x more.

"Don't buy that Athlon 64, buy the 386DX, because it was the first with an integrated FPU!" <-- Same argument, same lack of logic.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: The Amiga OS 2.4
by jziegler on Wed 1st Feb 2006 22:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The Amiga OS 2.4"
jziegler Member since:
2005-07-14

Mr. Poo, how about you step back a little and consider this: it is not important what a given OS can do. What counts is how much the _user_ can do with a given computer.

If AmigaOS allows a user to do everything he wants to do, then AmigaOS is the perfect OS for him.

(for the record: I've never even touched an Amiga in my life. yet. ;)

Reply Score: 1

What Was The Point?
by tonestone57 on Sat 28th Jan 2006 20:48 UTC
tonestone57
Member since:
2005-12-31

I don't see what the big deal is.

So, Windows XP installed and ran on a Pentium Overdrive @ 8Mhz. Hurray.

I'm sure you can take a Linux distro and achieve identical results. (run on a similar low end system).

Hey wait, Windows 98SE could do the same & would run way better than XP in a lower end system.

Why even install XP on such a low end computer? It isn't usable in everyday life.

What did this experiment prove?
Linux, Windows 98SE, OS/2, BeOS 5, & other OSes could run under the same configuration. And some of these other OSes would run way better than XP on this type of system.

To note: I really like Windows XP & use it regularly, but didn't see any importance to this article and my remarks reflect this stance.

Edited 2006-01-28 20:53

Reply Score: 0

RE: What Was The Point?
by Kroc on Sat 28th Jan 2006 21:26 UTC in reply to "What Was The Point?"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

You successfully missed the point, by about the same distance the Sun is from the Earth.

When dealing with Hacks, To ask why - is to not understand.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: What Was The Point?
by tonestone57 on Sat 28th Jan 2006 22:04 UTC in reply to "RE: What Was The Point?"
tonestone57 Member since:
2005-12-31

@Kroc
Was it me that missed the point or you?

Windows 98SE would also install on an identical configuration and be more usable @ the same time. You could actually do something with Windows 98SE afterwards.

So, Windows XP installed & booted, but you couldn't do anything practical with it.

If I could take a 1 Litre engine and put it into a big, heavy vehicle to show that it could move it. What would that prove? That the 1L engine could move a big vehicle, though with super slow acceleration, but could do it? Now, if that 1L engine could produce the same acceleration (& speed) as the bigger engine, then that would be something else.

Just because you can do it, why would you? Just so you can show that it can be done? Most people will run Windows XP on P4, P3, P2 & Athlons. So, the article served no practical purpose other than to satisfy general curiousity - which appears to have been important to you.

Maybe you are looking @ installing Windows XP on your Pentium 8Mhz system too :-)
Ok, now I understand.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: What Was The Point?
by AmigaRobbo on Sat 28th Jan 2006 22:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What Was The Point?"
AmigaRobbo Member since:
2005-11-15

Sorry, but I still think it's you missing the point.

Sport served no practical purpose
Art serves no practial purpose.
Music serves no practial purpose.
messing about trying to run OS on totally inapropriate HW servers no practical purpose.

They do it because they can climb that mountain, sorry, because THEY find it fun to do.

Wonder if they've got girlfriends?? (Crumbs, says a man on a OS bullitin board)!

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: What Was The Point?
by tonestone57 on Sat 28th Jan 2006 22:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What Was The Point?"
tonestone57 Member since:
2005-12-31

I get it AmigaRobbo. They did it for fun & to satisfy the general curiosity.

I still think it didn't provide anything usefull, but you're right, that we all do different things for fun and to satisfy our curiousities. And they did this test because it was fun for them.

But I'll disagree on the rest because they actually do serve a purpose:
Sport - competition, to show who is better @ playing the game, who will emerge victorious; We are competitive @ heart.
Art - Visually appealing - to show off beauty or ugliness, an expression of thought & feelings, to show the world one's interpretation of an event or object.
Music - created for relaxation, enjoyment, an expression of creator's mood to affect the listener's feelings & attitude.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: What Was The Point?
by AmigaRobbo on Sat 28th Jan 2006 22:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What Was The Point?"
AmigaRobbo Member since:
2005-11-15

"All art is quite useless." - Oscar Wilde

But I think we're drifting OS here...

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: What Was The Point?
by Kroc on Sun 29th Jan 2006 00:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What Was The Point?"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

dude, typing "at" requires two keystrokes, typing "@" requires holding shift and pressing a key, there is no shortcut in typing @. This is OSNews, not an AOL IM.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: What Was The Point?
by kmarius on Sun 29th Jan 2006 09:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What Was The Point?"
kmarius Member since:
2005-06-30

There are many possible motivations behind this

- Curiosity.
They want do know if it can be done

- Fame.
The page was posted on OSNews and probably many other sites as well.

- Challenge.
From the article, It seems like they had to try a lot of hardware configurations with a lot of tweaking.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: What Was The Point?
by Kroc on Sat 28th Jan 2006 22:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What Was The Point?"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

"Was it me that missed the point or you?"

Nope, it was you. See post above.

Edited 2006-01-28 22:41

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: What Was The Point?
by archiesteel on Mon 30th Jan 2006 03:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What Was The Point?"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Just because you can do it, why would you? Just so you can show that it can be done?

Yes. That's exactly why.

I myself found the experiment quite enjoyable to read about. And I really don't see this as a "XP requires less resources than Linux" kinda thing either. I'm both a Windows and Linux user, by the way. It was a hack, a challenge, and if someone had asked me if it could be done, I probably would have said no. So it's quite amazing for me, in a completely useless way.

And that's just fine. Not everything needs to be useful in life, you know...

Reply Score: 1

RE: What Was The Point?
by AmigaRobbo on Sat 28th Jan 2006 21:38 UTC in reply to "What Was The Point?"
AmigaRobbo Member since:
2005-11-15

I'm sure they did it because they found it fun and enjoyable to do.

They seem happy enough!

there's odd things people do for their jollies, well, you're on the internet, I'm sure you can find examples of them.

Reply Score: 2

PC spec checking during install
by John Blink on Sat 28th Jan 2006 21:41 UTC
John Blink
Member since:
2005-10-11

Doesn't XP check the specs and then refuse to install?

Reply Score: 1

umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

I think the article is a bit fuzzy on whether it was INSTALLED while the machine was running that slow. For all we know, it was installed on a P4 and the HD was physically connected to the underclocked Intel Overdrive machine for the test and screenshots.

"The installation was made with the help of nLite during the night." - I'm not familiar with that process - alternative setup for XP?

No big hurdle really - these are just some people with old hardware in the closet and have nothing better to do with it. I can relate ;)

Edited 2006-01-28 22:03

Reply Score: 1

AmigaRobbo Member since:
2005-11-15

I was think about how they got XP on the Hard drive, assuming it's installed on a different MB, wouldn't it throw a barnie (sorry, I mean go wrong) if you attached it to a different Mobo?

Reply Score: 1

anduril Member since:
2005-11-11

There is a certain registry tree you can delete to force it to auto-redetect hardware after a motherboard type swap. Doesn't always work but it hasn't failed me personally yet. Actually, in every instance I've done a mobo/proc swap the systems booted. it complained, and took two or three reboots to install all the drivers (automatically expect network/video obviously)

Haven't had the same luck with Linux. It ate my desktop once. hehe. No disrespect to Linux (i use it daily)

Reply Score: 1

DeadFishMan Member since:
2006-01-09

There is a certain registry tree you can delete to force it to auto-redetect hardware after a motherboard type swap. Doesn't always work but it hasn't failed me personally yet. Actually, in every instance I've done a mobo/proc swap the systems booted. it complained, and took two or three reboots to install all the drivers (automatically expect network/video obviously)

Neat trick. I'll research more for it as I needed something like this one of these days. It could prevent me from hosing my WinXP setup when I switched the mobo.

Haven't had the same luck with Linux. It ate my desktop once. hehe. No disrespect to Linux (i use it daily)

It's the exact opposite to me. Linux seems to be more tolerant to hardware changes. Most distros run by default some sort of hardware detection during boot (ala kudzu) that changes system settings accordingly to the respective hardware changes. Mepis survived flawlessly my mobo change. Windows XP didn't.

Reply Score: 1

dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

XP seems to have number of kernels tuned for particular CPU/MOBO combinations on its installation cd. They are selected during installation but, I guess, can't be changed afterwards.

Reply Score: 1

makfu Member since:
2005-12-18

"XP seems to have number of kernels tuned for particular CPU/MOBO combinations on its installation cd. They are selected during installation but, I guess, can't be changed afterwards."

1. The HAL/kernel combo's are specific to 6 different scenarios on 32bit:

Standard PC - (Non ACPI/Non MP capable)
MPS Uniprocessor PC - (Non ACPI/MP capable w/1 CPU core at install time)
MPS Multiprocessor PC - (Non ACPI/MP capable with 2+ CPU's)
Advanced Configuration and Power Interface PC (ACPI/Non MP capable)
ACPI Uniprocessor PC (ACPI/MP capable with 1 CPU core or HT disabled at install time)
ACPI Multiprocessor PC (ACPI/MP capabe with 2+ CPU cores or HT enabled at install time).

2. You can change the HAL/Kernel combo quite easily through the device manager.

Reply Score: 1

Really cool
by CrazyDude0 on Sat 28th Jan 2006 23:50 UTC
CrazyDude0
Member since:
2005-07-10

This is indeed cool. It tells how well XP performs even under low memory conditions. Think about it, 8 MB RAM and the full UI of windows is functional.

There is so many features in XP and loading all that stuff on such an under powered machine is amazing.

I can see the anti MS crowd, saying whats the big deal, but honestly, ask yourself, if it was Linux with GNOME on 8MB machine, wouldn't you feel proud?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Really cool
by dsmogor on Sun 29th Jan 2006 14:54 UTC in reply to "Really cool"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Generally that's only matter of swap space available and your time. I'm not sure the default 2.6 ker. would boot on as little as 6M but I used to boot RedHat 6.x on 6M machine.
Given the source availability you could compile all the stuff with 586 instructions stripped and try to run it on 386SX.

Reply Score: 1

Swapability is a virtue
by JustThinkIt on Sun 29th Jan 2006 02:20 UTC
JustThinkIt
Member since:
2005-09-04

I've run XP on systems with 64MB to 1.5GB and it is always interesting to run Task Manager and see how each core program's footprint changes accordingly. It is a good sign, and has other advantages. On that 64MB machine it had been running ME and an upgrade was necessary to get things working properly -- after they saw the new system and ran it for a week or two they went and upgraded the RAM themselves at Fry's.

Firefox could learn more than a little from this lesson.

By the way, 98SE does not exactly purr on an 8MB system. I put it on a laptop with 5MB of RAM and it also achieved 100% activity while "idle". In my books XP is a modern marvel ...at swapping.

Still, it was weird to see he had loaded MSN -- that is a memory dog and quite unnecessary. He must be a glutten for punishment.

Reply Score: 1

486
by Jimmy on Sun 29th Jan 2006 05:57 UTC
Jimmy
Member since:
2005-07-06

I remember having an old Zenith computer and trying to install Windows 98 on that thing. It had a 100 mhz processor and a whooping 16 mb of RAM.. but the problem was it was a 80486 DX4-100, and not a Pentium. That thing could not handle Windows 98 at all! It took forever to boot W98 and was just too sluggish to get anything done.

Too bad they couldn't get a true 486 processor to boot Windows XP, I really wanted to see the results.

Don't get me wrong; the 486 processor was a great processor for the DOS age, but the Pentium processor in my opinion was so much better.

Reply Score: 1

RE: 486
by mormon on Sun 29th Jan 2006 09:49 UTC in reply to "486"
mormon Member since:
2005-08-13

that's strange. i installed win 95 on intel 486dx2 66 and it worked quite good. it was installed with ie 4. it booted in 36 SECONDS. you maybe forgot to turn on TURBO switch.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: 486
by Jimmy on Sun 29th Jan 2006 16:00 UTC in reply to "RE: 486"
Jimmy Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh the machine could boot Windows 95 fine. I am talking about Windows 98. With all the junk MS added, it killed off the reasonable w95 functionality for older processors.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: 486
by mormon on Sun 29th Jan 2006 17:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 486"
mormon Member since:
2005-08-13

that's way, i said that i installed version with IE 4.0 integrated. this is very close to win98 (not sr2).

Reply Score: 1

Memories :)
by Lorinel on Sun 29th Jan 2006 06:58 UTC
Lorinel
Member since:
2006-01-04

Brings back memories hehe. I used to run linux on a 386 with 8mb of ram... herculese monocrome graphics and etc etc. When I upgraded to a 486 I lost 4mb of ram... (8 slots on the 386, 4 on the 486). Good ol days ;)

Reply Score: 1

the point.
by frank on Sun 29th Jan 2006 08:12 UTC
frank
Member since:
2005-07-08

It doesn't seem that the experimentors are out to make a point, but their results tell us that modern OS's have so much extra baggage and overhead. Most of our hardware is used for frills. It also stands to reason that the kernel and gui framework for XP is rather stable. I bet that some of the driver engineers, given a specific hardware platform, could make it run quite smoothly with those same specs.

Meanwhile, I'd welcome if PG could find a way to reduce most of that overhead for the rest of us.

Reply Score: 1

real progress...
by Anonymous. on Sun 29th Jan 2006 09:14 UTC
Anonymous.
Member since:
2005-12-04

kolibri would probably run much better on a similar setup...
here's a screenshot i just took, it's still quite snappy at ~48MHz with 20MB of ram...
http://maeboard.net/r/imgboard.php?res=38

Reply Score: 1

What I don't understand
by Ronald Vos on Sun 29th Jan 2006 14:22 UTC
Ronald Vos
Member since:
2005-07-06

One thing I don't understand is how they got the processor to work at 8 MHz. The article isn't quite clear, and the pictures make it look like one mobo is plugged into the other via an ISA slot, which would make it run at the speed of the ISA slot (8 MHz?). Is this possible?

Reply Score: 1

Interesting
by jmony on Sun 29th Jan 2006 16:30 UTC
jmony
Member since:
2005-10-31

Wow, this is one of the most interesting experiment I've seen recently. Instead of overclocking, they underclocked various CPU down to 8 MHz... Just imagine how much you can spare on cooling in an enterprise where people just watch their screen and do nothing else than talking to their neighbor...

Reply Score: 2

minimum processor speed
by JoeKayzA on Sun 29th Jan 2006 16:53 UTC
JoeKayzA
Member since:
2006-01-27

First of all, it's an impressive experiment, yes. And it will probably run at 500Khz too. I can't see why an OS should stop running (or even crash) when a certain clock frequency isn't met. It's different with RAM, here you need a certain space, if the machine is too short on memory, the system will most likely panic. (but the test machine had more than 32MB of memory installed anyway)

The only issue I could think of with underclocked cpu's could be interfacing with certain hardware. There are pieces of hardware out there which are quite timing sensetive, and when the cpu is simply too slow, timing problems are likely to appear.

But about the official minimum cpu speed of 233Mhz: This value is probably assumed the minimum to do some serious work.

cheers
Joe

Reply Score: 1

I know it dosn't work like that..
by AmigaRobbo on Sun 29th Jan 2006 23:25 UTC
AmigaRobbo
Member since:
2005-11-15

But I'd be more impressed with Vista if it gave all the features of XP/2000 but ran it on lower specified Hardware, maybe turn the cute little fade effects off by default and all that.

But as I say, I know that's not the way the world works, just saying it would impress me more.

Reply Score: 1

Possible Snickers commercial?
by andrewg on Mon 30th Jan 2006 06:06 UTC
andrewg
Member since:
2005-07-06

Not going anywhere in a while...Grab a snickers!

Reply Score: 1

Gentoo
by SodaAnt on Tue 31st Jan 2006 00:37 UTC
SodaAnt
Member since:
2005-11-15

I'd like to see him try to do a stage 1 install of Gentoo on that machine. I'd bet it would take months to complete.

Reply Score: 1