One thing you guys need to realize (whomever is writing this article) is that a 1GHz processor from nine years ago is nothing like a 1GHz processor today.
Kind of like when we made the jump from the P4 to the Core2Duo. Same clock speeds (sometimes even lower) yet astronomical differences in speed. (And they were only 3 years apart.)

Sometimes I feel like DVICE needs to get some actual techs on payroll so that you can get all the information on a topic before publishing something like this.

So, you basically did nothing here worth anything to anyone.

The first machine was an obvious fail.
The second with 16 GB Ram? Are you kidding?
You forgot the one machine that needs to be tested more than the other two stupid choices.

The 1 Ghz 1 GB Ram not 512 MB Ram Dell from 2003 or 2004 not some idiotic 9 year old machine.... nobody would put OS X in a 9 year old Mac, maybe a 5 or 6, but not 9.

Did you think before writing your story?

How about Linux?
Oh yes. I said it.

@ Barnops; what you say is true about comparing GHz ratings across 'model lines' of CPUs. Let me ask you, tho' -- what kind of CPU do you think people who are reading the minimum requirements are gonna have? A brand new SoC 1GHz processor, or an old beast that someone has convinced them needs an upgrade :|

Seriously? Do you honestly think someone is going to be loading a new OS on a machine from early 2000? Most people adopting Win 7 will either be at least fairly tech savvy and upgrading from XP or buying it as a standard install on a new PC. Most people who have Vista won't see any reason to upgrade to this and if Microsoft can manage to get some good advertising on this one and not get smashed by Apple again in public opinion, it'll do well. The beta ran well for me on a native install on a 4 year old HDD I had laying around and if they don't change it too much, it'll be worth the wait for me to trade up from XP. Oh, and if you're not going to be doing anything with that dual Xeon HP, I could use a machine...

I do feel the need to mention up until last week I was running a dell that is nine years old and I'm dumb enough that had I not gotten a great deal on a computer I would have tried to run windows 7 on it. So this article have a few people whom this would be important to.

Thank you HAM88! I'm guessing none of you other geniuses have parents?

can u try and load it on the first core duo mac mini while your at it..i have a 1.83 and leopard is kinda sluggish and vistas okay but im kinda hoping w7 gives a speed boost

Basically the point of this test is even if you have a old turd computer with half a gig of RAM, it should be good for people who dont do much computer stuff like checking their two emails, and listening to 5 mp3's. Hence the reason why they still have the old turd computer.

This was an entertaining article that I did not take seriously. At least it shows that it should run fine on netbooks....which should be a great combo for students (Win 7+Netbook).

I don't understand why this post is getting criticized so much... I don't think the point of it was to show how it worked on the advertised minimum specs, but to enlighten everyone on how efficient Windows 7 really is. Of course it doesn't directly pertain to most of the people who read this. But it is interesting to show how well it worked on ridiculously outdated and slow hardware. What it does show is that Windows 7 will work very well for the 1GHz and 1Gb netbooks and computers of today.
@Barnops: The fact that the old 1Ghz processor is slower actually makes this little experiment better, because it shows how well Windows 7 can work on a slower, less parallel processor than the processors of today.

I'm pretty certain this wasn't meant to be a literal test(super high-end and super low-end? Give the guys writing more credit than that), and I don't think that anybody doubts whether or not Windows 7 can actually run on 1GHz and 1Gb RAM after reading this, so I'd say they proved their point pretty well. If it works on hardware that is significantly worse that the lowest specifications, I'm pretty sure it would work at the lowest specifications pretty well.

"two quad-core Xeon X5492 processors, 16GB of RAM and 64-bit Windows 7"

If those specs only get you a windows experience index of ~8, I shudder to think what you need to do to get an experience worth a 9 or 10.

acidzebra, the windows experience index doesn't go to 9 or 10. Reread the article with more attention to the comparison insert!! I thought it was a great article and shows windows is really trying to fix alot of the problems that hindered vista. I still use XP-64, maybe I can skip over vista entirely. I've used Vista and it's not the best OS, XP is better.

My PC is

OVER 9000!!!!!!!!!!

What were you thinking when you wrote this article?

A system performance is not only determined by the processor,memory, hdd. but also the quality of those products.

The HDD speed and memory speed of 9 yrs back would be too slow for the latest or may be componets 2-3 yrs back.

Be realistic dude.. think before u write next time.

Naval, reread the comments. If Windows 7 will run on a 9 year old computer anything newer should have no problems. That was the problem with XP and especially Vista when the came out. When XP was released if it was installed on a PC that was more than 3 years old it choked. I went to way too many pc's that originally had Windows 2000 that ran fine. Some idiot upgraded them to XP and they choked. Alot of Win98/Me machines were the same way. God forbid you upgrade an original 2000 PC to Vista. When Vista came out and I was asked about purchasing Vista I informed the customer that unless you had a computer that was less than 6 months old don't do it. Buy a new computer or stay with XP. Most stayed with XP for another year.

Again this article maybe idiotic on the surface but read it and think about. If Windows 7 runs on suce an old PC anything made from the past 5-6 years should not have a problem running it. Again some legacy drivers may need to be loaded but that is par for the course.

And "yes" there are people out there that are dumb enough to try and install on a 9 year old machine. Up until 3-4 years ago I still knew people that were using DOS programs to get thier work done.

Good article. The only thing I'd say is that you should've installed it on a 1GB RAM instead of 512MB. 512 is below the minimum requirement. The fact that this thing installed and ran on such a dinosaur is very impressive. Maybe we can finally upgrade those XP machines...

"Would such a lowly PC would be usable?", seriously? I'm pretty sure you just failed your 8th grade proof reading requirements.

Authors: Read the comments above. Those of us who have run *real* tests on machines cringe in disgust at your unscientific post. Oh well, it was good for a laugh.

I think honestly for this to be really successful the author should have a comparison the same "PC" not the same OS with various operating systems like Vista, XP and maybe Windows7. Show the differences in how it operates in a controlled manner opposed to comparing a pinto to a corvette running with different brands of gas.
I thought about doing the same thing a few times and it all boiled down to is it worth the effort to prove that Windows7 is faster than Vista or other operating systems. We all know it’s probably going to outperform Vista because if it doesn't Microsoft is going to look like a bigger fool.

lol, wow. the amount of fail in this article is breath taking

I think what should be said is that the amount of fail in the comments is breath-taking. Seriously, everyone seems to think they were reading Toms Hardware for what computer to buy. The title says all - "Minimum Hardware Reality Check." That does not make me think we will be getting a system comparison among multiple system configurations with detailed comprehensive tests.

Minimum = lowest, least, bottom of the barrel
Hardware = "a definition is that which defines" (If that made no sense I understand why you think the article failed.)
Reality = real-world usage (a hardcore gamer would not use a 9-year old system, someone with a 9-year old system would not be running photoshop, ect)
Check = verification, proof

Now if the article had been titled "Comprehensive Comparison of Vista Running on Multiple Old/Slow and New/Fast Hardware Configurations - With Charts & Graphs!" I would be right there saying it didn't do what it claimed...

Now that sums it up.

So is it out of beta yet. If so then these specs are probably solid, but if not then I hold judgement until its out of Beta and you test all the versions. That would be the most through way to do it.

If you're going to test the minimum specs for Windows 7, wouldn't it make sense to use a machine that meets the minimum specs? I mean if the the OS calls for 1 gig of RAM, why do tests on a machine with 512? I don't understand what you're trying to prove. The only thing we really learn is that if you don't have the minimum specs, 7 will be really slow. I would bet that with double the RAM, most of those processes would be a lot faster.

I do not know how crappy your 1ghz PC is.
I installed windows 7 on my old AMD K7 with 512 Mb Ram.
It took 30minutes.
Internet explorer starts in 4 seconds.
Is this showing us how bad the old Dell/intel PC's are.
The only time the PC was sluggish was when I had 4 Explorer windows open Internet explorer open and installing Norton 360.
Otherwise it was great. More ram would have made it better.
Windows 7 will be a great upgrade for all the old AMD users out there.

I do not know how crappy your 1ghz PC is.
I installed windows 7 on my old AMD K7 with 512 Mb Ram.
It took 30minutes.
Internet explorer starts in 4 seconds.
Is this showing us how bad the old Dell/intel PC's are.
The only time the PC was sluggish was when I had 4 Explorer windows open Internet explorer open and installing Norton 360.
Otherwise it was great. More ram would have made it better.
Windows 7 will be a great upgrade for all the old AMD users out there.

Someone tell me again in what ways Vista, or it's slightly stripped down and less nagging but genetically identical clone 'Windows 7', are better than XP?

Not in security, not in bloat, not in hardware requirements or speed as the same hardware running XP will run circles around Vista/7, not in lack of DRM, nor in hardware driver or software programs support, etc.

So how are they 'better'? Just because they are 'newer' or because they have some eye candy (which can also be duplicated on XP)??

For that matter is there a single valid reason for anyone to replace XP with Vista/7? I know I am still looking for one after several years, both for my home and for my company, and I am not alone in this.

Maybe it's just me, but I would consider it an improvement for a new OS to run faster on the same equipment than an old OS. Requiring double the ram and cpu speed to run the same software at the same speed as the old OS is not what I would call an improvement at all.

The statement 'we need Vista/7 instead of XP because.....' has failed to have been completed for me in any meaningful way, with the exception of '...because Microsoft and it's computer hardware vendor partners want more money'.

Anyone remember 'New Coke'?

After using Vista for 2 years I would not go back to XP.
It does have some nice features.
The one I like the most is when you are merging Folders.
XP will only overwrite files in the destination folder.
With vista it will ask you if you want to merge the folders.
If it finds duplicate file names it will ask you what you want to do ,over write, not copy or put in a second file with another name.

If you bugger up vista you can do a system restore from dos.
These are just 2 good features that XP does not have.

I think it's amazing how W7 with run on a PC with such low specifications, I had a whole lot of pro's about the new OS and now I've got more reason to look forward to it's release.

Ubuntu Linux 8.04 runs on my 10 year old Pentium 3 500 megahertz with 256MB of RAM. That's what I call low system requirements. My cousin need this old rig and it runs beautifully.

@Jared,

You should try Vista/7. It's better than XP in dozens of ways. I could never go back to XP now.

Your comments are just wrong. Vista/7 is FAR more secure than XP. User account control makes your PC much safer and less prone to virus and malware. The interface is better and the file stucture has been completely redesigned for the better. The search function is 1000 times better and you can do things you simply couldn't do on XP. 7 also outperforms XP on the same hardware, and by a wide margin. The better the hardware, the wider the margin. Heck, even Vista outperforms XP on modern hardware (dual core or better).

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236&page=1

I'm constantly amazed at how uninformed some people are while at the same time, they think they know what they're talking about.

But my Uncles friends bosses wifes hair dresser said vista / W7 was no good, this has to be right because my work mates girlfriends bosses wife also said it was no good.
This is the real reason people do not like vista/w7.
Somebody told somebody who told somebody who told somebody who did not like it.
Maybe they do not like change.
Maybe they had an old printer or software.
Didn't we have the same problem 6 years ago when XP came out?
People did not like it, now they love it.

"Seriously? Do you honestly think someone is going to be loading a new OS on a machine from early 2000? "

Yes! And, that is plenty of power for the likes of Ubuntu Linux. Ubuntu is actually fairly large compared to some Linux distros, but runs fine on a 1ghz P3 with *256*MB of RAM. I've run it on a P2-300 with 192MB, and it runs about like you describe Win7 running -- very slow but usable. Xubuntu needs a little less memory, I think it can run on a 128MB system.

If you have something REALLY old and low-spec, Puppylinux *flies* on a Pentium 3 w/ 128MB (seriously, the slowest app included launches in about 1 second), it's recommended minimum is roughly a Pentium (1!) with 128MB, but there's only 1 or 2 apps that need the 128MB, most will run well with 64MB. Damn Small Linux runs fine on a 486 with 32MB (no joke!), it's pretty barebones but does have a full browser etc. still.

Still, though, it's interesting to see Win7 didn't simply go to pieces on that box. A followup with 1GB in the box would be interesting.

"Did you think before writing your story?

How about Linux? "

This just proved you're nothing but a biased Linux geek, no better than the (cr)Apple geeks. Begone!

I'm loading Windows 7 on an Old HP ze4400 w/ 448mb or ram (64 on mb + 128mb + 256mb) :) It has rebooted, and is 52% insatlled. Fingers crossed. It has a 1.7ghz AMD athlon XP and I upgraded it to a 40gb IDE drive. I plan on upgrading it to 1gb ram, and it should be fine then, but was curious if it would run faster than XP, cause it's SLOW. Updates to follow.

SUCCESS! Windows 7 on my 5 year old ZE4400 !! w/ 448mb of Ram. I had to manually add the driver for my wifi card, loaded and XP driver, and it's working fine, now I'll have to update the Audio driver, but so far so good. And its' faster than XP!! I still want to get 1gb ram and then i'll probably be using this laptop more. But will I pay $199 for Windows 7 Ultimate when it comes out? My notebook is not worth that much :)

Sounds like most of comentators have PMS.

I thought it was an intertaining article - and one that didn't take itself as seriously as some of the readers have . . . Like someone else here posted, if Win7 runs at ALL on such an older PC, then it bodes well for it running well on newer hardware at the lower requirements. Relax, people.

I did some testing in a VM, and found that W7 will actually run at reasonable speeds with a single-core, 2.33GHz processor and 108MB of RAM.

My pc is old... and I want W7 on it.. but.. why?

The public in general only goes for something new cause it is new... companies upgrade cause they need more power (64 bits and support to old windows apps while new versions comes out). Home users are a different target.. they only want something to chat and hear music... most of all... but there are ones that buy monster machines for homes just to say "oh I got a monster on home" but its useless... they are not making 3D movies.. they are very bussy saying to the world the great they machines are.. but their brains are empty..

old machines are ok if you no need more.. for what? just to follow the wave? what you wil do next? say it to the world that your pc is new? ha... worthless and a waste of money..

linux.. oh linux... run even on a toaster (seriously)... but you dont have those "amazing" apps that ppl cannot live with.. alot... snes.. direct x... linux is only good if you are a geek that know what is a shell and you can write your own drivers.. double ha!

Mac... yeah.. they are lucky that a great company does that amazing apps for mac.. those big apps that edit photos, videos, create and edit full flashy websites... and u cannot live without sync your life with a single click. with the awesome integration the another devices of the same family...

Three families... Three different stories.. the same story allways a new child born... a child that can do more things than the previous one.. a neverending story...

I keep on windows.. I will upgrade to 7 naturally... will say goodbye to all my apps that runs great and wait till the new versions come to light.. cause that happen naturally...

naturally...