Windows 7 installed on a Pentium II-based PC

I suppose anything's possible on old hardware if you've got enough time and patience - is it really worth the 17 minute boot time though? :p


Messugga said:
So pretty much on par with an i7 system running Vista?
Click to expand...

rofl2.gif
good one!
 
I tried it at home but WTF. won't even load. I only got it to load into safe mode.
 
howardb said:
I suppose anything's possible on old hardware if you've got enough time and patience - is it really worth the 17 minute boot time though? :p




rofl2.gif
good one!
Click to expand...

Nope, they are doing it for fun, but it just goes to prove how good the ol tech was. Only slow.
 
I am Penguin said:
for a Pentium III PC. They say it took the antique system 17 hours to install Microsoft’s latest OS, and a patience-shattering 17 minutes to boot
Click to expand...

I ran WinXP on a Pentium II 350 when XP first came out in 2001. It ran with 128MB of RAM and I remember it took virtually the same amount of time it took Win98SE to boot up with but was much more stable.
 
Rather go read the original forum thread http://forum.thewindowsclub.com/windows-hardware-devices/28053-windows-7-dinosaur.html , its much more entertaining than this piece of crap 'reporting'.

for a Pentium III PC. They say it took the antique system 17 hours to install Microsoft’s latest OS, and a patience-shattering 17 minutes to boot.
Click to expand...
This post was a 1 liner with no evidence to support it. His alleged PC is a P III 333Mhz with 128MB Ram. Win 7 won't go any further in the installation if you have less than 512MB and in case you didnt pick that up; there is no such thing as a P III 333Mhz. Whats the lesson? Don't believe everything you read.

There are actually other who supply pics, with rather surprising results. Go read http://forum.thewindowsclub.com/windows-hardware-devices/28053-windows-7-dinosaur.html and don't fall for this sensationalist P-of-C.
 
Last edited:
RoosTa said:
Rather go read the original forum thread http://forum.thewindowsclub.com/windows-hardware-devices/28053-windows-7-dinosaur.html , its much more entertaining than this piece of crap 'reporting'.

This post was a 1 liner with no evidence to support it. His alleged PC is a P III 333Mhz with 128MB Ram. Win 7 won't go any further in the installation if you have less than 512MB and in case you didnt pick that up; there is no such thing as a P III 333Mhz. Whats the lesson? Don't believe everything you read.

There are actually other who supply pics, with rather surprising results. Go read http://forum.thewindowsclub.com/windows-hardware-devices/28053-windows-7-dinosaur.html and don't fall for this sensationalist P-of-C.
Click to expand...

WTF you on about. Who cares who has done the freaking test and who reported it. Just what the man said. So he got the 333 frequency wrong, WTF does it matter. The ram install requirements could have been bypassed as stated.

You know what? I think you think .....
 
dablakmark8 said:
easy there son.:)
Click to expand...

Win 7 is punted by many people as being 'faster' than Win XP. Well the fact that it took 17 hrs to install on a PIII system and an hour to boot up all on a system which is two generations ahead of Win XP minimum requirements (Pentium processor) I have to wonder about the the pro-7 BS.

Win XP runs very well on a Pentium II with 128MB RAM. I know because I ran it that way for a long time. Upgrading RAM to 256MB made the system run incredibly well - I think it took me 6-9 months to upgrade at that stage after starting to run Win XP Home the week it came out in SA.
 
I am Penguin said:
WTF you on about. Who cares who has done the freaking test and who reported it. Just what the man said. So he got the 333 frequency wrong, WTF does it matter. The ram install requirements could have been bypassed as stated.

You know what? I think you think .....
Click to expand...

Do you believe everything you read then?

Just go read the thread and make up your own mind. It was a weak post by someone with a post-count of 1 and the article took it as fact. The rest of thread had people posting pics about how their K5's and K6's perform with 512MB RAM since you can ONLY install Win7 if you have 512MB+. When someone questioned his post there was no reply to backup his statement.

So ye; I'd say a 1-post wonder with no facts or evidence to prove what he achieved is total BS, especially since he claims to install using only 128MB which is impossible on default Win7 installation.

So let me complete your sentence: "I think you think ..... with your own brain"

Edit: PS I'm critising the article, because otherwise you'll get people like PeterCH take it as fact.
PPS: The moderator of the forums deleted that guy's post - says a lot about the credibility of "17 min boot up and 17 hours install"
 
Last edited:
RoosTa said:
Edit: PS I'm critising the article, because otherwise you'll get people like PeterCH take it as fact.
Click to expand...

Orly? I guess you and I must have read my replies to this thread differently then. I know bigotry is hard to get over, but pls read my reply next time before inserting "PeterCH" into your posts.
 
Do you even read your own posts?

PeterCH said:
Well the fact that it took 17 hrs to install on a PIII system and an hour to boot up all on a system which is two generations ahead of Win XP minimum requirements (Pentium processor) I have to wonder about the the pro-7 BS.
Click to expand...

Game. Set. Match.
 
RoosTa said:
Do you even read your own posts?

Game. Set. Match.
Click to expand...

"Fact" in terms of this post. You defeat your own argument further because by your own arguments Win 7 won't even install on a PIII system (irrespective of any factual data) - the scenario is even worse - my point is made even more salient.

Then again I could just have been using a common expression or figure of speech viz "while in fact" or "as a matter of fact".

Let's grow up please.
 
Last edited:
PeterCH said:
"Fact" in terms of this post. You defeat your own argument further because by your own arguments Win 7 won't even install on a PIII system (irrespective of any factual data) - the scenario is even worse - my point is made even more salient..
Click to expand...

Please enlighten me ... exactly ... where I wrote that? Did you even bother reading my posts?

Maybe its time you take those blinkers off?

Roosta said:
His alleged PC is a P III 333Mhz with 128MB Ram. Win 7 won't go any further in the installation if you have less than 512MB
Click to expand...
Roosta said:
The rest of thread had people posting pics about how their K5's and K6's perform with 512MB RAM since you can ONLY install Win7 if you have 512MB+
Click to expand...

But, "whatever", PeterCH - Arguing with you, is like arguing with a wall.
 
Last edited:
RoosTa said:
Please enlighten me ... exactly ... where I wrote that? Did you even bother reading my posts?

Maybe its time you take those blinkers off?




But, "whatever", PeterCH - Arguing with you, is like arguing with a wall.
Click to expand...

You said

"Edit: PS I'm critising the article, because otherwise you'll get people like PeterCH take it as fact."

then you said (quoted me), when I asked why you mentioned me,

"Well the fact that it took 17 hrs to install on a PIII sys..."

Anyway since you've learned the error of your ways, no problems. :)
If you don't see any insult in...
"Edit: PS I'm critising the article, because otherwise you'll get people like PeterCH take it as fact."
then I can't help you.
 
Last edited:
Well, I have seen XP run on a p1 133Mhz with 128MB ram. Don't care if anyone disputes that.
 
Why does everyone think windows 7 should run on a p1 or 2. You should be asking if it can run on a celeron.

Xp was designed and released when pc's were p1's and 2's. Windows 7 main objective was not to run on 7 year old computers was it?

So you comparing chalk and cheese for some odd reason. You cannot even buy 128 or 256 meg ram new anymore unless some company has seriously old stock. Does windows xp run on a 486 computer with 8mb ram? WTF would anyone want to go on about the fact it will not run. It was not designed to run on old shyte just like windows 7.
 
Last edited:
RoosTa said:
Rather go read the original forum thread http://forum.thewindowsclub.com/windows-hardware-devices/28053-windows-7-dinosaur.html , its much more entertaining than this piece of crap 'reporting'.

This post was a 1 liner with no evidence to support it. His alleged PC is a P III 333Mhz with 128MB Ram. Win 7 won't go any further in the installation if you have less than 512MB and in case you didnt pick that up; there is no such thing as a P III 333Mhz. Whats the lesson? Don't believe everything you read.

There are actually other who supply pics, with rather surprising results. Go read http://forum.thewindowsclub.com/windows-hardware-devices/28053-windows-7-dinosaur.html and don't fall for this sensationalist P-of-C.
Click to expand...


I still have a old PIII 333mhz that's t my parents house.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X