Not good enough to provide the core functionality - pushing adverts.
Windows 11 24H2 can run – sort of – in 184MB
From the department of "because I can" comes news of Windows 11 24H2 running in 184MB of memory. YouTuber NTDEV, the same individual that produced the stripped-down Tiny11 edition of Windows 11, and later updated the code for Windows 11 23H2, has now performed a similar stunt with Windows 11 24H2. Youtube Video The timing of …
COMMENTS
-
-
Wednesday 8th January 2025 06:55 GMT doublelayer
Most of that is going to be the RAM used by the browser. Windows can evict stuff from cache and free up a lot of that RAM, but the browser generally doesn't and happily uses as much as it can.
This is, incidentally, the answer to Richard's question: "The Reg cannot help but wonder why Windows 11 24H2 has the requirements it does, given that the core of the operating system clearly doesn't need them." It has them because they don't want people to use a device with 2 GB, run a browser that wants to use all of that to keep ten tabs open, and blame Windows for why it's awful. 4 GB is not needed for Windows itself, but their recommended minimum for running Windows and having enough room for other applications. They especially don't want people to be manufacturing devices with 2 GB and telling their irate customers that "Microsoft said this was okay" when they call to complain.
-
-
Tuesday 7th January 2025 14:37 GMT theOtherJT
Imagine the world we'd be living in...
...if companies developing software actually put in as much effort as this guy has. Especially in today's world of microservices and containers, if you could actually get an entire OS running in megabytes of memory it would make everything so much more efficient.
-
Tuesday 7th January 2025 14:50 GMT Phil O'Sophical
Re: Imagine the world we'd be living in...
if you could actually get an entire OS running in megabytes of memory it would make everything so much more efficient.
You mean like we did until Windows came along? It makes me both sad and annoyed to see "it runs in only 184MB" vaunted as something positive. Make it run in 4MB and I might offer some plaudits.
-
Tuesday 7th January 2025 14:58 GMT theOtherJT
Re: Imagine the world we'd be living in...
To be fair, it's pretty hard to get an entire OS running in single digits of ram when you have to take into account as many hardware variants as we have today. You'd be back at the whole "compile your kernel for the precise hardware you intend to run on" stage - which I personally could do without going back to.
-
-
Wednesday 8th January 2025 06:58 GMT doublelayer
Re: Imagine the world we'd be living in...
No problem. Just give up all the other things that weren't available when you had 4 MB. That screen of yours, I'm guessing it's a bit higher resolution than you had when it was connected to a computer with 4 MB. Your networking options were probably a little more limited too.
-
-
-
Tuesday 7th January 2025 15:16 GMT Jou (Mxyzptlk)
Server 2025 ist the better Client OS
A fresh installed Server 2025 runs fine with about 1 GB of RAM, does not need all of it. Runs on 30 GB system drive with enough room for a bit, tough not much room left. If you want to run actual applications or want Windows updates to go reasonable fast 2 GB on 40 GB storage is recommended. If you want to run a modern browser 8 GB with 50GB storage is recommended. But the OS itself, still including Windows Defender, does not need that much.
Now to Windows 11, especially 24h2: Don't even try to run with 8 GB, 12 GB (usually 16 GB) should be considered as reasonable minimum.
I will test, as soon as my time/priorities permit, try to "upgrade" an 24h2 to Server 2025... Anybody got some time left to sell to me? Like 20 years or more?
EDIT: Running Server 2025 as "core" needs less of course, but you still want to run an application I suspect. The missing explorer is not the problem, you have your shell to do what you need, but your browser still needs a lot of RAM and 4+ cores if you want to actually use it.
-
Tuesday 7th January 2025 15:30 GMT PCScreenOnly
Re: Server 2025 ist the better Client OS
24H2 on either a couple of years old Lenovo's with 16GB RAM ran like a dog. Down to 23H2 and they are a lot better,l so no idea what spec it needs to run well.
I upgraded "server" over xmas, but went to 23H2 from W10 due to the above. The lenovo's are standard T14s's (i7 and a Ryzen), the server is homebrew so no idea how bad that would run with 24H2
Alas, can't go to Server on my "server" due to backblaze
-
Tuesday 7th January 2025 15:45 GMT Jou (Mxyzptlk)
Re: Server 2025 ist the better Client OS
I think I forgot to mention: Server 2025 and Windows 11 24H2 use the same codebase, mostly the same core. The difference is the crap you have to clean on 24h2 when fresh installed. And then STILL server 2025 is faster. Your T14 (in my case T15 with 16 GB) example: 24h2 is very very slow, but I cannot test Server 2025 on that laptop. It is my work Laptop, having 24h2 on it is already unusual and I am among those in the company with the courage to go ahead there unless they are forced to with a Surface. (Erm: And I am among those which have the rights to do such nonsense with their device, but Server 2025 might get a real blocker once discovered).
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 8th January 2025 00:46 GMT It's just me
Re: Server 2025 ist the better Client OS
I was going off what I'd heard recently from https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-996.txt
"I did run for a while, a server edition of Windows as my desktop machine... But I hit a big problem. The installers for many of the desktop applications I wanted to run would complain and refuse to proceed when they saw that I was running on a Server release of Windows. I fought against that, and put up with it for a while. I remember looking around, seeing if there was like some way I could create my own hack to make the Server edition look like the desktop version. I didn't end up doing that. I just ended up learning my lesson and deciding to go to a desktop."
-
Wednesday 8th January 2025 06:30 GMT Jou (Mxyzptlk)
Re: Server 2025 ist the better Client OS
Thanks for that podcast!
I also read "back in the Windows XP era that I did try running, and I did run for a while, a server edition of Windows as my desktop machine". That was the time when XP and Server 2003 (R2) were not using the same code base. Even the version number at the prompt was very different.
From Windows Vista on it is the same code base. They failed, probably due to lack of caring or someone inside MS vetoed, to have exactly the same code base for Windows 11 and Server 2022 (I am SO happy about that!).
Others who tried later, for example Server 2016 vs. Windows 10 (1607 to 1803) did have less problems. The only thing they noticed was that Windows 1o 1803 was a bit faster in games than Server 2016, which is not that much of a surprise since a few speedup tweaks made it into the client OS which the Server OS did not get. Another thing is: With published-application style available not only via Citrix, but via normal Terminal Server as well, the applications couldn't refuse in many cases since there is no way to know how it is used in the end.
A list of such applications which refuse would be good, 'cause I am using the Server version more and more like a Workstation version, and yet have to come across a program which straight out refuses. But now I have to drive to work, not time to check :D.
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 7th January 2025 16:48 GMT Pascal Monett
"Microsoft's requirements call for 4GB"
And that has always been complete bullshit.
Windows needs 8GB to run, and if you do anything more than Internet and email, you'll probably need 16GB to be comfortable.
If you're a gamer, you need 32GB.
And an SSD card for booting Windows, and another one to store your game data.
-
Tuesday 7th January 2025 19:51 GMT Jou (Mxyzptlk)
Re: "Microsoft's requirements call for 4GB"
You describe my Server, former Gaming machine. i7-4960x, 32 GB RAM, SSD, the first GTX Titan with whopping 6 GB video RAM. Built in 2013. Allowed me to go to above 4k in 2013 (downsampled) and a bit later in 2014 to 16k (downsampled too with additional tricks). That machine is 11 years old now and still working fine. The replacement was around 2018 with the Ryzen 2700x, 64 GB ECC RAM. With a few upgrades later (CPU/GFX card, storage) still my main gaming machine - allowed me to create 3DMark Port Royal benchmark as 8k 120 fps video in 2019 (WTH nearly five years ago???). And yes, the actual recording speed was not 120 fps, rater 1.5 seconds per frame during recording...
-
-
Tuesday 7th January 2025 20:18 GMT Kev99
I've often wondered why windows doesn't the user the option to select what to include during the install. If you pull a list of DLL files, there are dozens, if not hundreds language files that are not necessary to install. I've done everything I can think of to purge my laptop of all references and instances of edge and copilot. I ran Ultra File Search and found 46,440 DLL files. Why on earth do I need a dll for Oracle, Enterprise Services, GAC, Visual Studio, umpteen dozen installer files, ad infinitum, ad nauseam when I either do not have that software or the program is already installed? And so many appear to be duplicates (four copies of WindowsCodecsRaw.dll?) And why do I need 32 bit dlls in a 64 bit OS?
I'm not at all surprised NTDEV was able to shrink win11 down so far.
-
Tuesday 7th January 2025 20:38 GMT Jou (Mxyzptlk)
I think I need to update on a part this. Since Windows Vista NTFS-Hardlinks are extensively used to save space, i.e. the file is only stored once but is visible in more than one directory. With every iteration after Vista that usage has improved. You can check on your own! Download Hard Link Shell Extension. It will mark every file which utilizes this with a little red arrow. If you look into the properties of such a file you will have a new tab "Link Properties", showing how many links are there. So check on your WindowsCodecsRaw.dll example, there may be one, or two actual versions and not four. Maybe you will find more if you open
CMD.EXE
, enterdir C:\WindowsCodecsRaw.dll /b /s /a
which will REALLY list all places that file is found.Technically Microsoft could have used that trick for the OS itself back with Windows NT 4.0 already, but Vista was the first where it got used.
-
-