Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 8th Jan 2010 23:09 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Windows As inevitable as the tides rolling in: every time a new Windows version is released, someone with too much time on his hands tries to install it on extremely outdated hardware. Sure, it won't be usable by any standard whatsoever, but it's still a fun thing to do. Of course, Windows 7 couldn't lag behind.
Thread beginning with comment 403262
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

I had win xp running comfortably on a pentium 166 with 64 mb memory. By comfortably, I mean, I didn't get bored waiting for applications to start, but your attention span may be shorter than mine. I think those were the specs. It was several years ago, and I had 5-6 computers around with similar specs, So it might have actually been a 233 AMD, instead.


Anyway, I remember having to put more memory in during the installation, then moving it down to 64 mb and having it run ok. Why? Need to test win xp at its worst, to see if our app would run okay. Cause that's the stupid thing one of our biggest customer would do: Spend tons of money on stupid things ( office pool table, jukebox, soda fountain, Beer keg) , but not computers.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

I rememember using standard WinXP professional on a DELL 8200 machine with 128MB RAM and Pentium 4@2.4GHz. It nearly killed me and almost gave me an ulcer. I had to use that shit for over a year. The 8200 Dimension used RDRAM and it was expensive as hell. So I could not upgrade RAM, stuck on 128MB.

Each time someone says that standard WinXP runs fine on a 128MB RAM machine, I get bad, very bad memories back. I dont wish this experience for my worst enemy, actually. I cant imagine how WinXP worked on 64MB, trying to do real work.

However, WinXP on a 256MB machine worked well.

Reply Parent Score: 2