All right, first thing...I already have a few PCs running Linux and this one here is sort of just a low priority experiment. So nothing mission critical here. If I can squeeze a little more life out of it great...if it dies tomorrow, no big loss.

This is another one of my wife's older unused laptops...we've tried to sell it in the past and no one wants it. So it is now become just a Linux experiment.

For some reason, some sites listed the CPU as 64 bit capable, and from my experience already with Linux and this machine, it's not. CPU is dual core 1.6Ghz, 80GB HD, and an updated 2GB RAM (originally was 1GB). The current built in wifi is flaky (it was before when it had Windows), so I've ordered a USB wifi adapter to replace it.This is a link to the adapter here:

https://www.newegg.com/wavlink-wl-wn...9SIA6PF6ZU1159

In the mean time, I've sampled a few distros on it. I really wanted to try Peppermint but I actually found it's performance a little disappointing. Just wasn't as peppy as I thought it might be. It uses the LXDE desktop environment. I then checked out AntiX after seeing it listed as a good distro for older computers, its performance was a lot better using IceWM. I should mention, I am still learning about the lightweight desktop environments and what performs best with using less resources. I remember IceWM from my Puppy Linux days...so the appearance wasn't anything new. But like I said, AntiX with IceWM performed pretty good on this machine...definitely better than Peppermint/LXDE.

I went through Peppermint's installer a few times and I remember not seeing much in terms of custom installation. So I don't recall seeing any way to switch Peppermint from LXDE to IceWM or any other DE. I suppose I could've downloaded IceWM and configured the system to boot that environment instead (which I've never done before, but don't mind to get my hands dirty).

So...I've been unsure on which option to pick and these are the ones I have thought of...

1) stick with AntiX
2) Put Peppermint back on and try to configure to load a different desktop environment
3) Try a major distro (Debian, Fedora, etc) and custom build the system with my choice of desktop environment, apps, etc.

Just 1 question. ON the CPU, is it a Core Duo (32-bit) or Core 2 Duo (64-bit)? It's old enough that it could be either, and that was the end of the 32-bit line for Intel. The Core Duo was literally the last CPU family to offer 32-bit CPU's, once Core 2 {Solo,Duo,Quad} was released, Intel never released another MAINLINE CPU that was 32-bit only.

Looks like Core Duo since it comes back to say it's a 32 bit CPU in AntiX. If it helps, it is an Intel CPU T2060.

Yup, that's the lower end Pentium based on the Core Duo. So you are correct in your belief that it's 32-bit only.

If you're an adventurous type, you MIGHT find that core 2 duo's will fit in there ( most of the core duo & core 2 duo used the same socket) and if you could find one CHEAP to throw in there, it would drastically increase your options for what you could run. Probably not worth it for you since this is just an experiment...but might be fun to test. I did this with a bunch of Dell D620 (maybe 630, can't remember for sure which), replacing 32-bit Core Duo's with 64-bit Core 2 Duo's just so I could play around with early 64-bit OS's.

1 members found this post helpful.

Interesting Timothy Miller. Sounds like a neat addition to this experiment. I may give it a shot. I did look up and found a matching socket CPU of the Core 2 Duo type and it was running about $15. So pretty cheap upgrade.

There's the additional question of Intel graphics; I think their worst (and most Linux-incompatible) atrocities fall into that era...

Generally speaking I recommend something conservative, maybe if possible even more conservative than Debian stable?

How's the battery?

I haven't investigated the battery too much but it still is the original one. I did have to get a new power supply for it. The battery sat depleted for years. Last thing I noticed was the battery kept a charge, but it went down pretty quick.

I do remember my wife said this was one of those laptops that came shipped with Windows Vista. Remember that good ol Microsoft monstrosity? I eventually got it "downgraded" to Windows XP just b/c it at least ran better with XP.

Timothy Miller...I want to thank you again for the CPU upgrade suggestion. I've got a Core 2 Duo CPU ordered and on its way (only paid $7...I didn't wanna spend too much if it ended up not working...plus I'm poor).

Right now, I've got it disassembled and it was quite the adventure for that. Turns out the CPU socket was technically located on the bottom of the laptop.

Oh I did give the battery a good test run. I was running AntiX just leaving the desktop up...no other programs running. In an hour and 20 minutes it went from 100% to 3%.

If the CPU upgrade is successful, is it possible that I could upgrade to 4GB of RAM or better? Originally Sony limited this laptop to a 2GB memory maximum. I know 32 bit has its limit on amount of memory, BUT are limits applied to the motherboard as well?

So, the limitation for memory for that generation is usually a combination of Motherboard and BIOS limitations, CPU has nothing to do with it. Manufacturers could intentionally limit the amount of ram that a chipset could address within the BIOS for whatever reason. And even without, the chipsets all had limitations on how much they could address.

Now, a COMMON thing would be to have a manufacturer say that a system was limited to X ram, but they didn't built it into the BIOS and the chipset supported more, so they actually WOULD support more. This is still common. I had a Latitude E5470 (Dell said at the time it supported a max 16 GB ram) with 32 GB ram in it and ran fine (didn't actually like the laptop, but that's neither here nor there). So it's POSSIBLE it could support 4 GB. But by no means is it a guarantee. Generally if you try searching the manufacturers support forums (assuming they have them), you might find some threads of people asking if it's possible, and maybe a few posts about people who had tried it.

Choose 1) - stick with AntiX (actually antiX) - but I'm biased ...

FYI... CPU upgrade was successful. Thanks again, Timothy Miller! Now running a Core 2 Duo @ 2.0Ghz. Still have to find out if memory can be upgraded. I accidentally must've hooked up the touchpad wrong when I was putting the laptop back together as it doesn't work now...BUT that's ok, I hate touchpads anyways and will be using a mouse with this laptop.

Well, now that you've got a 64-bit cpu, pretty much any modern supported linux-based OS will run on there. Just a manner of how well!!

Well I sampled a few different distros... (all 64 bit)

-Peppermint - still just didn't care for it on this machine
-Linux Lite...it was "ok"
-Arch ... all I can say is "wow"! I thought something broke during the install when it gave me command line. Rebooted and retried...did the same thing. Then I found an install guide on how to install it through running all sorts of commands. Had I known that, I would've better prepared myself. As cool as that sounds and I would be willing to try it, I think I will save that for another machine to test out. I've got a couple of older desktops that I might experiment with Arch.

Ended up doing a pretty minimal install of Debian with MATE desktop environment. So far I am pretty happy with it for the little bit of time I played with it. Pretty good performance.

Basslord1124,

If you are tempted by Arch, why not try Manjaro Xfce on one of your machines later before tackling Arch?

Just a thought.

https://manjaro.org/download/official/xfce/