Testers: Windows 7 on the "Low End"

[gkarris]

To the Windows 7 Testers:

Have you tried Windows 7 on low end machines, like the 1.5 Core Solo Mini with 512 Megs and Intel GMA950?

What about low end PC's such as Netbooks?

It's supposed to run really well on low end machines, compared to Vista.

Any feedback will be appreciated!

Thanks!

 

[fpbecker]

I've installed Windows 7 build 7000 on an older Dell laptop (Latitude C610). Pentium III-M 1.2 GHz, 1 GB RAM, 40 GB hard drive, ATI Mobility Radeon.

Obviously the machine isn't capable of running Aero. Other than that Windows 7 runs surprisingly well on a machine like that. The performance is not much slower than that of XP (subjectively spoken; I haven't run any exact benchmarks).

Say what you want about MS, but they seem to get it right with Windows 7.

 

[iParis]

Say what you want about MS, but they seem to get it right with Windows 7.

Finally! Took them two years and the final result is a working version of Vista that doesn't require as much hardware (Windows 7) and a bunch of features stolen from OS X and the aqua interface.

 

[Markov]

My brother installed it on his macbook 2.0 ghz core duo with 2gb of ram and a 950 GMA, and it ran quite well. He said it was almost as snappy and stable as XP. He ran it with and without aero with no difference in performance.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Finally! Took them two years and the final result is a working version of Vista that doesn't require as much hardware (Windows 7) and a bunch of features stolen from OS X and the aqua interface.

Don't you mean seven and a half years, since they haven't "gotten it right" since XP?

 

[iParis]

Don't you mean seven and a half years, since they haven't "gotten it right" since XP?

Well two years since the release of Vista.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Well two years since the release of Vista.

Oh, okay. Two years since they reminded the world, "We're still working on something that works better than XP. Here's what we have so far. How'd we do?"

 

[iParis]

Oh, okay. Two years since they reminded the world, "We're still working on something that works better than XP. Here's what we have so far. How'd we do?"

And the world replied with "keep working on it. You're good on the idea and everything. Nice try but Vista's a no-go."

 

[gkarris]

I've installed Windows 7 build 7000 on an older Dell laptop (Latitude C610). Pentium III-M 1.2 GHz, 1 GB RAM, 40 GB hard drive, ATI Mobility Radeon.

Obviously the machine isn't capable of running Aero. Other than that Windows 7 runs surprisingly well on a machine like that. The performance is not much slower than that of XP (subjectively spoken; I haven't run any exact benchmarks).

Say what you want about MS, but they seem to get it right with Windows 7.

Cool, thanks...

I'd have to give cudos to MS for trying to keep up with Apple and fixing Vista with the release of Windows 7...

 

[stainlessliquid]

I would think 512mbs is still too low end for Windows 7. You cant even run Leopard without lag with 512mbs and its considerably less "fancy" in the effects than Windows 7.

 

[nodaclu]

For what it's worth, I'm running Windows 7 Build 7000 on a Samsung NC-10 netbook right now with 1GB of RAM.

It's smooth and quick and light feeling. I eventually found drivers for everything. It's as usable as XP was on it, and much, much better then Vista.

 

[gkarris]

I would think 512mbs is still too low end for Windows 7. You cant even run Leopard without lag with 512mbs and its considerably less "fancy" in the effects than Windows 7.

Supposedly, Windows 7, like Snow Leopard, will run fine in 512 Megs RAM. Obviously, just for running 1 or maybe 2 office-type programs at a time.

This is so that us poor folk with older computers (like the original Minis) can run new OS without tearing them open, or using older PC's where the memory is still expensive (like DDR) and don't want to invest in upgrading it.

 

[Stridder44]

And the world replied with "keep working on it. You're good on the idea and everything. Nice try but Vista's a no-go."

20+ million users is a "no-go"?

 

[XianPalin]

I saw somewhere the system requirements were the same as Vista. I would assume it would run comparably, but who knows.

 

[gkarris]

I saw somewhere the system requirements were the same as Vista. I would assume it would run comparably, but who knows.

Here are the published requirements for Vista:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/get/system-requirements.aspx

Essentially, the PUBLISHED requirements:

1GHz Processor, 512 Megs RAM, GMA950 graphics or better

That's one of the bad raps about Vista, in my own experience, I'm finding the ACTUALS are about 4 times that:

Dual 1.5 GHz Processor, 2 Gigs RAM, GMA x4500 graphics or better

So, Windows 7 will actually run fine with the PUBLISHED Vista specs, hence people are saying it runs well on NetBooks (the PUBLISHED minimum Vista specs)...

 

[Eidorian]

I've heard good things about Windows 7 on netbooks. I might have an Athon XP laying around with 512 MB of RAM laying around though.

 

[uicandrew]

well, according to the article here, windows 7 is coming in 3 versions, one of which is SPECIFICALLY netbook.

people have already installed on the msi wind.

as long as the OS is efficient with the resources, it will be a good thing.

http://www.macnn.com/articles/09/01/08/windows.7.variants/

i have windows vista ultimate on my aluminum 24 imac and i turn off aero and indexing so i don't have to deal with resource zapping extras.

 

[gkarris]

^^^ thanks for the info!

Is this because they need a smaller footprint for the Netbooks?

 

[Eidorian]

^^^ thanks for the info!

Is this because they need a smaller footprint for the Netbooks?

I think it might be more the bundled applications and features vs. the footprint of the operating system.