No Room for Windows 7 on Minis

[I-75]

No Room for Windows 7 on Minis

http://reddevnews.com/news/devnews/article.aspx?editorialsid=1221


"Windows 7 requirements are not going to be any less than Vista was," says Rob Sanfilippo, lead analyst of development platforms at Kirkland, Wash.-based Directions on Microsoft. "I don't think it's going to make sense right away to run Windows 7 on netbooks. If you want your apps to be good citizens on netbooks, you need to think about what Windows XP supports."

[shadylookin]

well it would be rather unusual for an operating system to have less system requirements than its predecessor. Netbooks are getting more and more powerful as time goes on so eventually windows 7 will be able to run on them.

[eragon100]

So basically they are going to forbid the use of xp but not offer any alternative windows version for netbooks??

Do they you can use a netbook without an OS or something, or might people just install linux (because macosx may only be installed on macs)??

Is it just me or does this guy have a hull in his forehead?

[I-75]

So basically they are going to forbid the use of xp but not offer any alternative windows version for netbooks??

Do they you can use a netbook without an OS or something, or might people just install linux (because macosx may only be installed on macs)??

Is it just me or does this guy have a hull in his forehead?

It was a curious comment which left me scratching my head. Unless MSFT expects that the netbooks will be powerful enough eventually to run Windows 7.

As I understand it, with the instant on feature of "Splashtop" by Asus it is possible to have a limited amount of apps with embedded Linux in order to check email before booting in Windows. I would imagine it might be possible to have a embedded Linux as a OS...with basically no OS on the hard drive.

Expanding further, there is talk of a $10 laptop from India due to be unveiled on February 3, 2009. Which if it does turn out to be true...one might be very confident that Windows 7 won't run on it.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

Last night I adjusted the settings on a VBOX install of Windows 7. I set the RAM to 256 MB. Windows 7 ran slower with those settings; however, it seems to run just as fast at Vista with 1 GB of RAM.

If Microsoft doesn't mess up something before the final release, it could actually run on Netbooks.

I'm not saying the article is FUD; however, I haven't seen evidence at this time to support the statement that "Windows 7 requirements are not going to be any less than Vista was".

[TBOL3]

I don't think the problem will be RAM, but disk space. I would like to test out windows 7, but I don't have the space on any machines.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

I don't think the problem will be RAM, but disk space. I would like to test out windows 7, but I don't have the space on any machines.

After installing Windows 7, IBM's Lotus Symphony for an office suite, and Thunderbird for e-mail, it is using 7.4 GB of disk space. No, it will not run on an EeePC 701/4G :)

[tom66]

RAM, video requirements (all those blurring effects, those fancy animations, they eat up memory and require accelerated graphics), battery life, hard disk space, and boot time will all be factors important in Windows 7's success in the netbook market.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

RAM, video requirements (all those blurring effects, those fancy animations, they eat up memory and require accelerated graphics), battery life, hard disk space, and boot time will all be factors important in Windows 7's success in the netbook market.

I'm testing Windows 7 out of curiosity. I'm testing it in a VM so I can control some parameters of the environment it thinks it is running in.

I gave Windows 7 only 2 MB of video RAM, and it works. Boot time is faster than Vista. Hard disk space is half that of Vista; however, they don't include some applications that were installed by default in Vista. I haven't tested battery life. :)

One thing I found funny was the connection to their crash analyzer website every five seconds. It is a Beta, so that is not surprising. But when I blocked the connection, Windows 7 crashed, and would not reboot until I unblocked the connection. hehe

[SunnyRabbiera]

Last night I adjusted the settings on a VBOX install of Windows 7. I set the RAM to 256 MB. Windows 7 ran slower with those settings; however, it seems to run just as fast at Vista with 1 GB of RAM.

If Microsoft doesn't mess up something before the final release, it could actually run on Netbooks.

I'm not saying the article is FUD; however, I haven't seen evidence at this time to support the statement that "Windows 7 requirements are not going to be any less than Vista was".

Well for me I dont care how fast or great the beta's are of an os, there have been many times that in software the beta was better then the full product.
Heck we even have that here with Ubuntu!
I am getting annoyed with people already with all this talk that windows 7 has a faster boot time then ubuntu, that its faster then linux and uses less memory.
Well duh it will probably do that, MS after vista probably wants to lure back the crowd that left vista because of its heaviness issues.
But experience should dictate that the final will probably be weighted down considerably, heck for all we know it could take 2 full minutes alone just to load a single icon on windows 7 with a current system!
I remember how promising longhorn was, I remember people talking about how great longhorn would be and that it would be better then XP, blah blah blah...
But Longhorn became vista, the worst MS has had since ME in many peoples opinions.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

Well for me I dont care how fast or great the beta's are of an os, ...

That is why I said, "If Microsoft doesn't mess up something before the final release." :shock:

As of yesterday, I find no evidence to support the original article's statement that "Windows 7 requirements are not going to be any less than Vista was".

When I see some facts or have personal experience, then I'll believe it.

Either way, I'll still be using Ubuntu as my OS of choice because it satisfies my needs. :D

[SunnyRabbiera]

That is why I said, "If Microsoft doesn't mess up something before the final release." :shock:

As of yesterday, I find no evidence to support the original article's statement that "Windows 7 requirements are not going to be any less than Vista was".

When I see some facts or have personal experience, then I'll believe it.

Either way, I'll still be using Ubuntu as my OS of choice because it satisfies my needs. :D

Indeed, its just that I have learned too well about the matters of OS updates.