3 ms·

Windows 10 can install on a typical 2005 PC? I'd be surprised if that's the case. Anyway, the point of the article isn't that five years is all that long, it's

Windows 10 can install on a typical 2005 PC? I'd be surprised if that's the case. Anyway, the point of the article isn't that five years is all that long, it's that Android's two-year policy is despairingly short.

mister_hn 6y ago
If it has enough free ram and a good graphic card, probably yes
ComputerGuru 6y ago
I believe so. The 32-bit variant, at least doesn’t even use SSE2 acceleration, iirc. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-10-specifications https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-10-specifica... 1 GHz CPU, 1GB ram, 800x600 display, 32GB drive. Those are not 2005 specs, those were easily around in 2000.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  Yes but Linux will run on these same specs, while actually being usable (including for web browsing) and even snappy at times. In fact, you could even halve the amount of RAM and still be quite fine. (And 2000 is definitely pushing it. Mid-2000s seems more likely.)
  - lostmsu 6y ago
    I run Ubuntu on 2017 PC (8700K, 32GB RAM, admittedly, HDD), and it is nowhere near snappy. Boot takes over 2mins until apps actually start to show up, starting new Terminal instance takes over 3sec (if not over 5). Regular programs like VS Code or Firefox are about the same as on Windows.
    - rescbr 6y ago
      Software are more bloated than 3 or 5 years ago. Performance with a HDD will suffer as everything has to be loaded to RAM before the CPU runs the code. Put a SSD in this machine and for most tasks your experience will be the same as with a brand new PC.
      - lostmsu 6y ago
        That would contradict a claim about 2005 machine being snappy with Linux. 2005 machine probably does not have an SSD.
    - AshamedCaptain 6y ago
      The beast you mention is even more spec'd than my current main workstation, which has half the RAM, and the entire default install of Ubuntu fits in the cache after boot. The HDD is not to blame; there is something else wrong.
      - lostmsu 6y ago
        So when the Terminal is not running, how long does it take to start on your machine (e.g. to the first output from the shell is printed)? The boot time (to the first app running) is likely due to Nvidia blob, but who knows?
        AshamedCaptain 6y ago
        It takes around 2-3 seconds on the first attempt, future launches are instantaneous (cache plus gnome leaves a gnome-terminal-server process floating around).
- pdpi 6y ago
  > Those are not 2005 specs, those were easily around in 2000. It's harder to look up RAM numbers, but AMD launched a 1600MHz CPU (and a few others above 1GHz) in 2001.
core-questions 6y ago
Sure. I installed the 32-bit version on a "tablet" Lenovo that came with Windows XP, a dual core Centrino, and 2GB RAM originally. Works fine, it's not quite as fast as XP was but no issues. All the pen features work perfectly. If I got the upgrade card to switch it to an SATA SSD and added more memory it would probably be a fully usable machine, thanks mostly to being dual core.
discreditable 6y ago
I've installed Windows 10 on HP EliteBook 2730p from 2008, and Toshiba Protege M400 from 2006. For the most part if the machine ran Windows Vista acceptably it will run Windows 10. Disk access is pretty slow. Windows 10 really needs an SSD.
- JohnBooty 6y ago
  Windows 10 really needs an SSD Additionally, on extremely underpowered CPUs, you realistically need to turn off Windows Defender's real-time virus scanner in order for the machine to be usable. I got an 11" Dell Inspiron with a puny A6-9220e (1.7ghz, 2 core) CPU that is roughly comparable to an Atom, but with a somewhat better GPU. Replaced the HDD with a SATA SSD. Thought it would be a cute little beater netbook. For all intents and purposes, it's just not usable unless that real-time protection is turned off. Things freeze up for multiple seconds while clicking any button, apps take dozens of seconds to launch, etc. With real-time protection off, it's pretty decent - good enough for web, YouTube, iTunes, Spotify, whatever. Unfortunately, Windows turns real-time protection back on automatically after a certain amount of time. Apparently you need Win 10 Professional or higher to permanently disable it via group policy or something.
vmception 6y ago
No, but it could install on flagship hardware for a 2005 PC which is what we are comparing here.
muststopmyths 6y ago
>Windows 10 can install on a typical 2005 PC? I'd be surprised if that's the case. I had it on a 2006 Sony VIAO laptop until last year. It ran better than Windows 8 with 2GB of RAM. Slow without an SSD, but tolerable as downloader/media server. Some of the OEM drivers (bluetooth, fingerprint scanner etc.) had stopped working in Windows 8 (it was an XP laptop that I upgrade to 7 onward) because Sony stopped supporting them. The hilarious thing was that in Windows 10 those started working again with builtin drivers from Windows. I could probably have kept the laptop around longer, but I went on an ecycling binge last year and got rid of a lot of tech crap that was just lying around.
wenc 6y ago
> Windows 10 can install on a typical 2005 PC? I'd be surprised if that's the case. I have Windows 10 running dual boot on my Dell Inspiron 530s from 2005. It's a Core 2 Duo 2.33 GHz. I don't run Windows 10 full time because it's a little sluggish, but it works ok. (I did upgrade to an SSD + 8GB RAM + Nvidia GT 610 but everything else is 2005). On the same note, I also have Kubuntu 18.04 on the same machine. Now this is my daily driver. Runs Chrome, plays Youtube etc. and everything else just fine. Things are extremely responsive. It's almost inconceivable to think I'm using a 15 year old computer in 2020 as my main machine but here we are.
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
  > (I did upgrade to an SSD + 8GB RAM + Nvidia GT 610 but everything else is 2005). What everything else? You kept the CPU, motherboard, and case? That's not a "typical 2005 PC" anymore.
  - wenc 6y ago
    True. The original 530s had a spinning platter drive, 4GB of RAM and Intel integrated graphics. But the original was also a low-end Dell PC. With these upgrades, it would be a higher-end 2005 machine. The performance boost was unnoticeable with the added RAM and video card (primarily for driving dual monitors -- the GT 610 was a cheap $70 card, not a high end card by any means). What really changed the performance was the SSD -- which I added much later -- now that was noticeable.
ac29 6y ago
I dont know that "Android" has a two-year policy - certainly all of Google's recent devices were updated longer than that. Pixel 1: Release Date October 2016, Last Update Dec 2019 (3 years, 2 months) Pixel 2: Release Date October 2017, still current (2 years, 8 months and counting). Android 11 beta also available. If it is kept updated throughout the 11.0 cycle, that will be ~4 years or so. Pixel 3, 3a, and 4 are newer but also still current. Android 8.0 (released August 2017) was updated this month: https://android.googlesource.com/platform/build/+/refs/tags/android-8.0.0_r47 https://android.googlesource.com/platform/build/+/refs/tags/...

mister_hn 6y ago

If it has enough free ram and a good graphic card, probably yes

ComputerGuru 6y ago

I believe so. The 32-bit variant, at least doesn’t even use SSE2 acceleration, iirc. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-10-specifications https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-10-specifica... 1 GHz CPU, 1GB ram, 800x600 display, 32GB drive. Those are not 2005 specs, those were easily around in 2000.

zozbot234 6y ago
Yes but Linux will run on these same specs, while actually being usable (including for web browsing) and even snappy at times. In fact, you could even halve the amount of RAM and still be quite fine. (And 2000 is definitely pushing it. Mid-2000s seems more likely.)
- lostmsu 6y ago
  I run Ubuntu on 2017 PC (8700K, 32GB RAM, admittedly, HDD), and it is nowhere near snappy. Boot takes over 2mins until apps actually start to show up, starting new Terminal instance takes over 3sec (if not over 5). Regular programs like VS Code or Firefox are about the same as on Windows.
  - rescbr 6y ago
    Software are more bloated than 3 or 5 years ago. Performance with a HDD will suffer as everything has to be loaded to RAM before the CPU runs the code. Put a SSD in this machine and for most tasks your experience will be the same as with a brand new PC.
    - lostmsu 6y ago
      That would contradict a claim about 2005 machine being snappy with Linux. 2005 machine probably does not have an SSD.
  - AshamedCaptain 6y ago
    The beast you mention is even more spec'd than my current main workstation, which has half the RAM, and the entire default install of Ubuntu fits in the cache after boot. The HDD is not to blame; there is something else wrong.
    - lostmsu 6y ago
      So when the Terminal is not running, how long does it take to start on your machine (e.g. to the first output from the shell is printed)? The boot time (to the first app running) is likely due to Nvidia blob, but who knows?
      - AshamedCaptain 6y ago
        It takes around 2-3 seconds on the first attempt, future launches are instantaneous (cache plus gnome leaves a gnome-terminal-server process floating around).
pdpi 6y ago
> Those are not 2005 specs, those were easily around in 2000. It's harder to look up RAM numbers, but AMD launched a 1600MHz CPU (and a few others above 1GHz) in 2001.

core-questions 6y ago

Sure. I installed the 32-bit version on a "tablet" Lenovo that came with Windows XP, a dual core Centrino, and 2GB RAM originally. Works fine, it's not quite as fast as XP was but no issues. All the pen features work perfectly. If I got the upgrade card to switch it to an SATA SSD and added more memory it would probably be a fully usable machine, thanks mostly to being dual core.

discreditable 6y ago

I've installed Windows 10 on HP EliteBook 2730p from 2008, and Toshiba Protege M400 from 2006. For the most part if the machine ran Windows Vista acceptably it will run Windows 10. Disk access is pretty slow. Windows 10 really needs an SSD.

JohnBooty 6y ago
Windows 10 really needs an SSD Additionally, on extremely underpowered CPUs, you realistically need to turn off Windows Defender's real-time virus scanner in order for the machine to be usable. I got an 11" Dell Inspiron with a puny A6-9220e (1.7ghz, 2 core) CPU that is roughly comparable to an Atom, but with a somewhat better GPU. Replaced the HDD with a SATA SSD. Thought it would be a cute little beater netbook. For all intents and purposes, it's just not usable unless that real-time protection is turned off. Things freeze up for multiple seconds while clicking any button, apps take dozens of seconds to launch, etc. With real-time protection off, it's pretty decent - good enough for web, YouTube, iTunes, Spotify, whatever. Unfortunately, Windows turns real-time protection back on automatically after a certain amount of time. Apparently you need Win 10 Professional or higher to permanently disable it via group policy or something.

vmception 6y ago

No, but it could install on flagship hardware for a 2005 PC which is what we are comparing here.

muststopmyths 6y ago

>Windows 10 can install on a typical 2005 PC? I'd be surprised if that's the case. I had it on a 2006 Sony VIAO laptop until last year. It ran better than Windows 8 with 2GB of RAM. Slow without an SSD, but tolerable as downloader/media server. Some of the OEM drivers (bluetooth, fingerprint scanner etc.) had stopped working in Windows 8 (it was an XP laptop that I upgrade to 7 onward) because Sony stopped supporting them. The hilarious thing was that in Windows 10 those started working again with builtin drivers from Windows. I could probably have kept the laptop around longer, but I went on an ecycling binge last year and got rid of a lot of tech crap that was just lying around.

wenc 6y ago

> Windows 10 can install on a typical 2005 PC? I'd be surprised if that's the case. I have Windows 10 running dual boot on my Dell Inspiron 530s from 2005. It's a Core 2 Duo 2.33 GHz. I don't run Windows 10 full time because it's a little sluggish, but it works ok. (I did upgrade to an SSD + 8GB RAM + Nvidia GT 610 but everything else is 2005). On the same note, I also have Kubuntu 18.04 on the same machine. Now this is my daily driver. Runs Chrome, plays Youtube etc. and everything else just fine. Things are extremely responsive. It's almost inconceivable to think I'm using a 15 year old computer in 2020 as my main machine but here we are.

yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
> (I did upgrade to an SSD + 8GB RAM + Nvidia GT 610 but everything else is 2005). What everything else? You kept the CPU, motherboard, and case? That's not a "typical 2005 PC" anymore.
- wenc 6y ago
  True. The original 530s had a spinning platter drive, 4GB of RAM and Intel integrated graphics. But the original was also a low-end Dell PC. With these upgrades, it would be a higher-end 2005 machine. The performance boost was unnoticeable with the added RAM and video card (primarily for driving dual monitors -- the GT 610 was a cheap $70 card, not a high end card by any means). What really changed the performance was the SSD -- which I added much later -- now that was noticeable.

ac29 6y ago

I dont know that "Android" has a two-year policy - certainly all of Google's recent devices were updated longer than that. Pixel 1: Release Date October 2016, Last Update Dec 2019 (3 years, 2 months) Pixel 2: Release Date October 2017, still current (2 years, 8 months and counting). Android 11 beta also available. If it is kept updated throughout the 11.0 cycle, that will be ~4 years or so. Pixel 3, 3a, and 4 are newer but also still current. Android 8.0 (released August 2017) was updated this month: https://android.googlesource.com/platform/build/+/refs/tags/android-8.0.0_r47 https://android.googlesource.com/platform/build/+/refs/tags/...