Windows 7 Squeezed To 69MB in Proof-of-Concept Build (theregister.com)
- Reference: 0179953250
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/11/03/1816216/windows-7-squeezed-to-69mb-in-proof-of-concept-build
- Source link: https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/31/windows_7_limbos_down_to/
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/31/windows_7_limbos_down_to/
69 MB? (Score:4)
Nice.
Re:69 MB? (Score:5, Funny)
If only he could have removed 2 more MB, all the middle schoolers would be happy
Re:69 MB? (Score:4, Insightful)
In a few years they will appreciate 69 more.
Re: (Score:3)
My 10y old says 'nice' for 69, because video game streamers and other YouTubers say it, and of course all the other kids say it at school. He has no idea what it means, just that you are supposed to say 'nice'.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all about 6 - 7 now man... get with the times.
Re: (Score:2)
Needs to be 67 MB for Gen A to care.
telemetry.dll (Score:2)
But, does it come with telemetry.dll? I think that's the only part that'd make it real genuine Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
> But, does it come with telemetry.dll? I think that's the only part that'd make it real genuine Windows.
Real genuine Windows? That's a hell of a way to make the pre-telemetry crowd, feel even older.
Gather 'round you little cyborgs and let me tell you about the days when you were not the product..
Why is it to huge? (Score:2)
I mean back when I was still using Windows, I once tried to get it as small as possible by boot-formating a disk and putting in more and more files until it came up. I think I ended up comfortably getting it onto a normal HD 3,5 inch "floppy". It's not that hard. Though I have never actually looked into Windows 7, but I can't imagine it's so much bigger than Windows 3.1.
Re: (Score:3)
For starters, 3.1 was a gui shell on top of DOS. Win7 is an iteration of Windows NT, which became XP. Win ME was part of the 3.1/95/98/98se line, which all had DOS under the gui.
So it's pretty silly to compare DOS to the WinNT line.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes when running MS-DOS software you could say it was a shell. But in 386 it ran in protected mode, something that MS-DOS surely didn't do natively. I consider windows 3.1 to be it's own operating system that incorporated MS-DOS as a part of it. I used many MS-DOS shells in my day and windows 3.1 was way more than that. Windows even required its own drivers separate from DOS.
Re: (Score:2)
> I mean back when I was still using Windows, I once tried to get it as small as possible by boot-formating a disk and putting in more and more files until it came up. I think I ended up comfortably getting it onto a normal HD 3,5 inch "floppy". It's not that hard. Though I have never actually looked into Windows 7, but I can't imagine it's so much bigger than Windows 3.1.
I did this as well with Windows 3.11, but it required using Stacker/DriveSpace (can't remember which) and also using XDF to increase the capacity of the disk from 1.44 MB to ~1.8 MB. The end result was bootable and it could load Program Manager.
Interesting (Score:4, Funny)
> @XenoPanther described the project on X as "more of a fun proof of concept rather than something usable."
Interesting - that's how I view the full version of Windows nowadays.
Like a stripped-down car (Score:2)
It might be able to run without a transmission, wheels, and a body, but you can't do anything with it.
I'll consider using it ... (Score:2)
... when they get it on an 8" floppy disk.
L3 cache (Score:2)
You can load it entirely on a Ryzen 9950x3d cache with room to spare.
I'm looking forward to RAM free computing.. just use the cache.
More useless crap (Score:3)
"The OS boots but runs almost nothing because critical files like common dialog boxes and common controls are missing."
Well then it's not a fucking OS if you can't run anything on it.
And it's definitely not an "OPERATING SYSTEM" if it's missing critical files that prevent it from "OPERATING".
To recap, "I reduced my car's weight by almost 50% just by getting rid of the engine, wheels, fuel tank, drive train, and other 'critical' components. But the starter still works, so yippee for me."
FFS slashdot, is this the drivel we can expect from here on out?
So firm, so round, so fully packed (Score:2)
That's just under fifty 3.5" floppy discs! We're back , baby!
Re: (Score:1)
that is cca the same size as 1993-4 linux distro :) (slackware was it?)
i remember it was a box of alphabetically ordered disks, like 30 of them, possibly 50 with X and Emacs.
Who needs this? (Score:2)
15 year old licenseware squashed into a minimal package. So what?
Is this like Linux in a browser tab? No point in bragging even, less than useless.
Come at me jackass.
Impressive (Score:2)
That is an impressive feat, even if it's already been beaten by a mile. I ran a program that stripped Windows down to zero bytes to maximize Windows' usefulness. I don't remember the exact name, but I vaguely remember that it starts and an "L" and ends in "inux". It's right on the tip of my tongue.
Microsoft should be happy. (Score:2)
> The desktop appears and the genuine check remains intact.
It does everything Microsoft really cares about.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What exactly are you doing wrong with your gateway security that giving a device access to the internet causes it to get compromised?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they mean DMZing the item and giving it a real IP address, aka putting it on the Internet versus most client devices will sit behind firewalls and won't be vulnerable to a service the device is running, as why would a client be running service anyway?
My desktop Linux machine is locked down pretty tight. I'd probably be fine with zero firewall, but that's because I'm not providing any services. There's no open ports to knock on or services to exploit. My largest attack vector is likely the web browser.
Re: (Score:2)
> put it on the net and you will be p0ned in a nanosecond
Uh, probably not. Stripped down that hard, it sounds like it has an attack surface about as large as an OpenBSD default install.
Which is to say quite secure.