Creating Windows 10/11 Image for Lower Spec and older architecture Machines

ljburna

New Member
I am in the process of creating an image that is lightweight and can work on low spec computers or computers with older architecture (ex. AMD Athlon x2). I was looking into Tiny 10 but not sure if it is safe to use. Any suggestions?
 
The biggest problem with Windows 10/11 and old hardware is mainly the disk, Microsoft itself is forcing OEMs to sell their machines with SSD. So what will make the biggest difference is using an SSD or in the case of desktops it can also be a recent hard disk of at least 1TB that will be fast enough. Laptops don't have much choice and have to go with SSD.

If you have less than 4 GB in case of Window 10 better use the 32bit version.

Regarding the Windows image, what weighs more are UWP apps because, like Android, they run in the background with their own schedule and you have no control over it. So the more Windows Apps and System Apps you can remove in addition to the Store and its dependencies the better performance you will have.

Some services in Windows 10/11 are enabled by default but are unnecessary such as diagnostics, error reporting, telemetry, etc. You can disable them or remove their components.

I would not run Windows 11 under any circumstances on old hardware.

Using old builds like LTSC 2019 (version 1809) can give you a little boost as well.
 
Tiny 10 is an example of an over-stripped ISO. You're probably better off using the GamerOS preset as a starting point, since it's lean but still functional.
I have a AMD 8350 and have had the exact processor as you before. Many ways to improve the system in the bios in those older systems. Also might want to stick with 7 if I am being honest. 10 can work and got it to work on old systems just not as efficient.
 
W7 would be best on an Athlon x2, 8.1 ok. w10(1809) ltsc(default) would be a struggle unless he uses a custom image.
OP might want w10/w11 features but not be able to afford new hardware due to the cost of living crisis, whatever.
Lets find out what OS OP wants/needs/what pc will be used for first. Lets face it, on an Athlon x2 he aint gaming or running Skynet is he.
 
Last edited:
I agree that Windows 7 would be better but the problem is that support from Microsoft even with ESU is over so most software will end their support too, Chrome is one of them. I don't know Firefox's situation but it won't be long before he jumps ship too. Browsers are critical things to run on older versions because of exploits.

But it is a personal choice to continue on Win7/8.1 even without support. I wouldn't care about it if it was continuing to get updates on browsers.

I think it's worth testing Win10 with all possible optimizations and see if the performance is acceptable for you. If it's really bad you don't have much of a choice.
 
If OP is only doing basic stuff linux might be the better option. 99% of the time for online stuff i could get away with using debian (latest)live.
 
I completely forgot about Linux, usually people don't like this option but I think it would be the best alternative.
 
I think it would be the best alternative.
Depends on OPs needs but for basic stuff debian is good enough and debian live images have got me out of crap creek many times. I am just about to recover files from a broken w7-laptop test install with debian live.
 
Which is more hardware demanding, processor (both system & video) and memory; gaming or HD (1080p or less) video editing?
 
Anything can be more demanding in the right situation. The real question is why you want to know. Do you also have a low end machine? Help me out a bit here.
 
gaming or HD (1080p or less) video editing?
This is like comparing oranges and apples. Games mostly uses GPU and video editing uses CPU unless you use some hardware acceleration feature of video card.

You need to be more specific for us to be able to help.

For gaming you should focus on the graphics card but anything above an RTX 3060 is overkill for 1080p. The CPU doesn't need to be very strong, any recent CPU with 6 cores will be more than enough.

For video editing, the better the CPU, the less time it will take to render the videos. I don't know much about it but I don't think you need a high end video card for that even using hardware acceleration.
 
If you're adding video effects (overlays, transitions), then your software has to temporarily convert the source to uncompressed data. This will put a heavy burden on CPU and disk. And re-compress it back to MPEG when done. This gets worse if your video is 2K or 4K resolution.

The question is how much is your time worth, compared to the PC's cost? That's why pros use such heavy machines.
 
If you're adding video effects (overlays, transitions), then your software has to temporarily convert the source to uncompressed data. This will put a heavy burden on CPU and disk. And re-compress it back to MPEG when done. This gets worse if your video is 2K or 4K resolution.

The question is how much is your time worth, compared to the PC's cost? That's why pros use such heavy machines.
You calling me a greenhorn....that's fighting words lol. Adding on to what Garlin has said. Lower end machines still have a purpose but not as much as modern ones.

Once again what's your plan?
 
Back
Top