Minimal system requiments...

[Ivanov]

I have simple question: after using vLite, what's the minimal system prefs that Vista need to run?

What's your "best record"?

What's the slower computer that runs Vista?

Excuse me, I can't explain better my question. Hope you understand me

[nismohasan]

i think it would be hard to determine what the system requirements would be for vista after vlite has 'slimmed' it down.. simply because of all the variables involved with what a user chooses to remove or keep.

[Jeronimo]

i think it would be hard to determine what the system requirements would be for vista after vlite has 'slimmed' it down.. simply because of all the variables involved with what a user chooses to remove or keep.

I do not think minimum requirements will change that much. There is off course some performance and disk space to be won. However maybe you can run Vista with lower requirements, but if it will enable an easy user experience, I doubt it?

[roirraWedorehT]

I have simple question: after using vLite, what's the minimal system prefs that Vista need to run?

What's your "best record"?

What's the slower computer that runs Vista?

Excuse me, I can't explain better my question. Hope you understand me

If vLite is ever made to be able set Vista to ignore it's built-in memory and hard disk requirements, like nLite can do for XP, then maybe we'd be able to run Vista under 256 or 384MB, but we probably wouldn't want to.

I'm not 100% positive what the actual minimal CPU requirement is. I know what Microsoft claims (I think 800MHz anything), but I don't know if that actually means that the Vista installation will refuse to install on, say a 766MHz Pentium III or Celeron (or whatever the next closest to 800MHz there was).

I was able to install XP on 166MHz Pentium, but I believe the official requirement was 233MHz. Of course, you could install XP with 64MB of RAM, then remove 32MB and it would run in 32MB, but horribly.

[prx984]

I ran XP on a 100mhz with 64mb of ram and a 4mb video card. It took a really time to boot, but once you got it up and running and doing what you wanted, it was alright (still, very jumpy and slow though).

I would never do that again, but I guess anything is possible if your determined enough.

I bet with vLite, you could drop down the cpu req's to perhaps a 500 or so with 256mb of ram, but by then, you'll have taken so much out that vista may be less useful than 3.1 at this time. I managed to get xp's install source down to about 100mb, but it was so useless to me. It vastly depends on what you want to do with it.

Edited December 10, 2006 by Cygnus

[bonestonne]

i used to have a full version of vista installed on this, a 1.1GHz celeron, the most RAM i had was 512, the least was 256, most of the time it had 384MB in it. celerons are the same class as P2 for those who are wondering....my boot time was 4:11...yea, it ran pretty well, got all the way to 5536, then i decided XP was better for the system, and loads more reliable.

[Stead]

i'm not sure if you could cut corners with the memory requirement for vista, from what i've been able to read up about vista's setup uses some kind of filesystem driver for the cd that allows writing to the cd volume possible in ram, so a certain amount of ram has to be present to run the program, then more for the settngs as it installs, so for once less memory may actually prevent the installer from working!

[roirraWedorehT]

I ran XP on a 100mhz with 64mb of ram and a 4mb video card. It took a really time to boot, but once

OUCH!

[Innocent Devil]

vista could run on a s/m with 256 mb ram if the installer check for 512 mb is removed (like XP for 64)

bcoz i could run vista on VM with 250 mb of 512 used

also if most of it removed it go well under 2 gb

(im running vlited with 2.7gb vista +1.2gb Pagefile+0.9gb hiberfil file = 5gb)

[nismohasan]

vista could run on a s/m with 256 mb ram if the installer check for 512 mb is removed (like XP for 64)

bcoz i could run vista on VM with 250 mb of 512 used

also if most of it removed it go well under 2 gb

(im running vlited with 2.7gb vista +1.2gb Pagefile+0.9gb hiberfil file = 5gb)

i would hate to run the OS on 256mb of ram

[anandus]

On a different forum somebody got a vlited Vista working on a 192Mb machine.

It uses 183Mb, so it's a bit tight

[roirraWedorehT]

I doubt if this is VLite's fault, and that's not why I'm posting this, I just think this is funny. Vista just blue screened (then went straight to BIOS boot screen) when I tried to format an OLD floppy.

[dexter.inside]

I've tested it on this...

and it ran surprisingly well.. the rating I estimate it to be ~1.3 for this system.

[damian666]

wel guys, i know now that the hd demand of vista is down when you vlite it.

it normally asks for 16gb, but after the vlitement, is is satisfied with 8 gb.

so thats cool, but the memory demand wont drop man.

but thats work for nuhi

bye bye

damian666

[David.P]

Hi Forum,

I'm curious about minimal size requirements of the system partition.

I'm running XP from a SATA RAM installation (Gigabyte i-RAM, to be exact), and its 2GB size are plenty of room for XP.

[XP installation took about 12 minutes, boot time now is exactly nine seconds (after P.O.S.T.), making a backup or restoring an image of the system drive takes exactly 15 seconds (because my data hard drive is so slow and the rest of the OS behaves, well, just like if everything always were kept in RAM (what it is ]

Programs and Windows\Installer folder are on another hard drive of course.

So, what is the least partition size that I could fit Vista into?

Thanks,

David.P