You can run Windows 11 on just 200MB of RAM – but should you?
- Reference: 1675841411
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2023/02/08/windows_11_ram/
- Source link:
For that, Microsoft [1]says you'll need a 1GHz processor with at least two cores, 4GB of RAM and at least 64GB of storage. Or do you? Last week, Romanian YouTuber [2]NTDEV uploaded a stripped-down version of Windows 11 to Archive.org, appropriately named Tiny11,which you can see below.
[3]Youtube Video
[4]
The custom Windows edition was created by removing as many features as possible while maintaining the core user experience, NTDEV tells The Register . This included manually removing parts of the Windows Store (WinSxS).
[5]
[6]
In the video demoing the release, its creator claims the operating system can run smoothly in environments with as little as 2GB of memory – half that of Microsoft's minimum spec. However, over the weekend, NTDEV [7]tweeted a screenshot showing the operating system running on just 384MB of RAM. "It's terribly slow, but it works," the team said.
That was quickly followed by another Twitter user [8]posting a screenshot showing the operating system running on just 200MB of memory.
[9]Microsoft is changing how it handles device diagnostic data to keep EU sweet
[10]WINE Windows translation layer has matured like a fine... you get the picture
[11]Latest Windows 11 build shares desktop real estate with, er, Spotify
[12]Microsoft injects AI into Teams so no one will ever forget what the meeting decided
The Register spun up a stock Windows 11 VM to see how the unadulterated operating system stacks up and found that while you could technically boot off of 256MB of memory, the system wasn't what we'd call usable. While we were able to make it to the desktop, we couldn't get Task Manager to launch. And when reduced to just 200MB, the OS failed to boot properly.
It seems the minimum amount of memory required for a functional, if very slow experience is 384MB, though you'll definitely want more than that if you plan to browse the web.
[13]
In our testing, stock Windows 11 needed just 384MB of system memory to boot into a functional, if slow, desktop.. - Click to enlarge
But perhaps more important than requiring slightly less RAM than stock Windows is that Tiny11 takes up less than half the space. The stripped-down release consumes just 8GB of storage. That's down from the roughly 20GB of capacity usually required for the OS, putting into perspective just how bloated the operating system has become over the years.
If you, understandably, have reservations about downloading and installing a strange Windows ISO you found on the internet, there's nothing stopping you from creating your own.
[14]
According to NTDEV, Tiny11 was created using a combination of NTLite and MSMG to strip out unwanted features and repackage the operating system for work.
While lighter than stock Windows, NTDEV notes that the release isn't perfect. While removing the Windows Store did make the operating system considerably smaller it also means that it's not fully serviceable and cumulative updates are not possible, NTDEV explained, adding that security definitions and .NET updates still work as intended.
NTDEV says they're working on automating the process to retain the relevant parts of the Windows Store to address these challenges and make releasing future images easier. Well, that's assuming Microsoft's lawyers don't put the kibosh on this little project before then.
[15]
Still, Tiny11's creator says the image isn't intended to be used for "daily driving," but rather for those who want to try Windows 11 on older or weaker PCs or on virtual machines.
So, just because you can get Windows to run on a potato doesn't mean you should. ®
Get our [16]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-11-specifications?r=1
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8YIadhWbho
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8YIadhWbho
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/devops&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Y@OA0H8krG99ITKTtMlEzgAAAEM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/devops&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Y@OA0H8krG99ITKTtMlEzgAAAEM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/devops&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Y@OA0H8krG99ITKTtMlEzgAAAEM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://twitter.com/NTDEV_/status/1622330684026011649
[8] https://twitter.com/XenoPanther/status/1622365705478840322
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/06/microsoft_eu_data_gdpr/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/03/wine_80_dxvk_21/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/03/windows_preview_build_25290/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/02/microsoft_teams_premium_ai/
[13] https://regmedia.co.uk/2023/02/07/windows_11_memory.jpg
[14] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/devops&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Y@OA0H8krG99ITKTtMlEzgAAAEM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[15] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/devops&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Y@OA0H8krG99ITKTtMlEzgAAAEM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[16] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
16GB of RAM is the minimum
Sure, you can run on less, but if you want to run Windows comfortably, you need at least 16GB.
And RAM isn't that expensive any more, so there's really no excuse.
Re: 16GB of RAM is the minimum
Can confirm. We've a few 8GB laptops that struggle to do a days work on Windows 10. Put Windows 11 on one of them and it was bricked basically.
Yet here I am, typing this on a laptop with 32GB RAM running Linux Mint, and I don't even go above 10GB.
Re: 16GB of RAM is the minimum
Win11 on an 8GB laptop works just fine here.
Re: 16GB of RAM is the minimum
I guess it depends what else is installed.
I got an upgrade last year, from a dual core 7th gen i5 with 8GB of ram, which had become unusable due to the amount of enterprise crud that the IT department had larded onto it.
Once it had been released to me, a fresh install of Windows 10 without 14 different enterprise-grade pRoTeCt_ThE_CoMpUtEr applications running meant that it's still surprisingly usable.
Re: 16GB of RAM is the minimum
And yet my 2013 MacBook with only 8GB comfortably runs the latest version of MacOS......
Takes a bit longer to boot due to having to boot Opencore fast but once booted runs pretty quick.....
Penguin icon because no Apple icon and mac is almost unix......
Re: 16GB of RAM is the minimum
Just checked, my work PC has 8GB and has been fine. I didn't even notice it wasn't 16.
Storage is NVME though which may help.
So basically calling this post nonsense.
Re: 16GB of RAM is the minimum
Another me too. Old Dell laptop with 8GB RAM, runs fine.
I've found the biggest problem is if you only have a single CPU core. Default when creating a VM is 1 core, hence finding the problem. 2nd core and it's fine.
Re: 16GB of RAM is the minimum
We have mainly 4GB desktop PCs and 8GB laptops. Generally they work very well. Only when doing 5-way+ Teams video do they struggle. But Teams is a bloated mess anyway.
I ran this Tiny11 in a vm, with the 2gb, it ran, but without activation ya can't change the flippin background, and I couldn't look at that default 11 wallpaper. So, there it sits, installed and abandoned.
> I couldn't look at that default 11 wallpaper. So, there it sits, installed and abandoned.
Dare I suggest opening an application and using that to cover up the wallpaper? How much time does anyone spend with the wallpaper visible anyway?
Okay, your 2GB won't be enough for anything that really requires some oomph, like The Modern Web Experience, but you can fire up a sensible code editor!
WinSxS != Windows Store
WinSxS is the Windows _Component_ Store, where it stores various versions of Dlls after system updates (the SxS stands for Side-by-Side). It's been around since Windows 7 - https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/windows-client/deployment/address-disk-space-issues-caused-by-winsxs.
Now, there's...
an Ian Betteridge's Law headline, if ever I saw one! :-D
How did we get here?
What has caused so much bloat that we've gone from operating systems which need 16MB of memory to be usable (I'm thinking of Windows NT here so it's a sort of like-for-like comparison with the Windows of today, other operating systems comfortably ran with less) to operating systems which need 16GB of memory to be usable?
I can't point at one specific feature and I can't say that we're doing much more complicated stuff than we were doing 25 years ago either.
Re: How did we get here?
It's only my perception of course, but I find that the factor that mostly accounts for deterioration in performance over time is the amount of memory and cpu time that is required just to display stuff.
Browsers are getting more demanding and desktop environments seem to need more and more to get a smooth experience (I know many can be tweaked, but that shouldn't be necessary).
The presumption that memory is cheap, therefore there's no excuse to run with < 8GB (eg) doesn't help.
The above is all from the Linux perspective. How Microsoft have managed to make it so bad with Windows 11 vs What Windows 10 used to demand, I don't know.
Re: How did we get here?
"Browsers are getting more demanding"
And when was a browser part of the OS? I know it isn't because under competition law MS allow alternative browsers to be installed - don't they ...?
I do think you are correct - there are developer or bean-counter perceived basic "requirements" for services that actively build the bloat - prettiness, helpful features, telemetry, more telemetry, update checking, licence checks, mandatory connection remote services etc etc, none of which are generally driven by the user.
There are two types of os - quick, small and modular that calls in services as required by the user and fat, bloated, monolithic systems that have everything built in. The former allows easy development of third party modules, customisation and extended longevity of the system. The latter gives the developer more (or total) control over their system and it's longevity based on updates applied to any part of the system and thus control of the income stream it generates and the push development of hardware on which it will run. Guess which direction the monopolists have decided to go?
Re: How did we get here?
it might sound impressive to run Windows 11 with those RAM requirements, but you could run Windows 2000 in 256MB of RAM and taking up less than 1GB of disk space. And I would argue that the Windows user experience hasn't vastly improve since then. In fact its worse in some aspects such as data slurping and forced feature updates
Re: How did we get here?
Just like how no matter how many cupboards and shelves you have at home, you never run out of stuff to put in/on them, an OS will expand according to the resources available. All the abstraction layers and frameworks and libraries that come with a modern OS are arguably unnecessary, and you could build a much smaller OS without them, but they make things much easier for developers, and it doesn't make sense to not have them when the resources needed for them are there in every PC.
You can run Windows 11 on anything
if you really want.
But the most important question is: why would you run Windows 11 in the first place? OK, I can understand running Win7/10 for those impossible to avoid programs, but Windows 11? Really?
What disk?
What type of disk was used on those 200MB+ experiences? I see HDD on the picture but was it a fast SSD?
I can remember the days of running NT4 SP6 on 32Mb of RAM for better performance... and it did it quite well, alhough using IDE HDD's was a serious bottleneck.
NT4 SP6 on 32Mb RAM and on an NVMe and an i7 should give some impressive speeds, if you can get drivers to compile for WinNT...
With Windows 10/11 Microsoft should have done what Apple did when they switched from PowerPC to Intel To ARM, scrap legacy support and reduce bloat. You either keep up with the architecture, pay us lots of $$ to support your old systems or accept risks involved. Yes, consumers would be left to fend for themselves, but they have same options, pay for support if feasible, upgrade software/hardware, switch to Linux.
I have something like six 3.2GHz Xeon cores, 16GB RAM (on my never used except for testing HP Z800, hence the uncertainty about the exact spec) - and Windows 11 won’t run. So Microsoft’s minimum specs are something of a fantasy anyway.