XP era computers
 

I've helped a few folks here so this is just a synopsis of the advice I've given.

It may still be in good shape but since XP is gone (for the most part), if you want to keep using it you'll need to switch to Linux. Which version will be the key. Mint is currently the "darling" of the Linux world and while it's a fine distro it does not focus on older, slower hardware. I see threads on all the Linux forums about failures installing Mint on old hardware. Even if it installs, if it's the Cinnamon version it will likely be very slow and have issues as Cinnamon is very resource intensive.

Another issue to consider is the graphics system. Many older graphics chipsets are not supported by drivers very well (or at all) anymore. AMD in fact quit supporting their older systems completely a few years ago. If this is the case, you'll have to use the open source driver. Don't expect blazing performance and you'll not be disappointed. I run the open source drive on my AMD system and it works fine; however, I don't do a lot of graphics intensive stuff.

Next, you're system may be 32 bit only so if you try to install a 64 bit distro - it won't work. Also, it may not support PAE either (lets 32 bit systems see more RAM). If this is the case you'll need a non-PAE kernel and many distros no longer offer this. Most machines built in the last 10-12 years are 64 bit, older than that they're likely 32 bit.

WiFi is also a source of frowns, especially with Broadcom based WiFi. Broadcom was/is VERY popular with hardware makers and many older systems have these chipsets. You can get them working but it requires tinkering and manually installing drivers. Some distros support Broadcom OOTB.

Finally, while Linux is efficient and has less overhead than Windows, it will not turn your old PC into a speed demon or gaming rig. Keep realistic expectations.

If you're going to make the jump with an older computer I seriously recommend the MX-15 distro. One of the main developers is also the guy behind antiX - which is HIGHLY regarded as the goto distro for old hardware. It has Broadcom support built-in, it has 32 bit and 64 bit versions, the 32 bit version comes with PAE and non-PAE kernels, and it has a great forum for support. This is a HUGE factor as some tweaks are generally necessary on old hardware and the folks behind MX-15 are very well versed in this area.

I'm not affiliated in any way with MX-15 other than being a fan. I just get tired or reading about the trials and tribulations folks are experiencing trying to get the "cadillac" distros running on old hardware...

http://www.mepiscommunity.org/mx

NGIB,

I fully endorse your sentiments.

Hi...

You can click on the "snowflake" next to the penguin on the bottom left. It will accomplish the same thing. :)

Regards...

Slackware and Mate run just fine on my 2005 vintage Pentium D system. Of the "fast light good on older computers" distros that i have tried, i didnt really see that much difference in speed, so you might as well install slackware and get all the options.
Re graphics, for around 40$ or so you can pick up an NVIDIA card on amazon even an agp card if the computer is that old.
As far as speed and resource usage goes, i agree that staying away from cinnamon, kde and gnome 3 is a good idea, luckily that still leaves lots of options.
One of the keys to making an older computer seem zippy is adding more ram, as much as the box will handle and a minimum of around 3-4 gigs.
The interfaces you would likely be using on an older computer (xfce, fluxbox) arent any more (or not much more) processor intensive than a decade ago, but applications, especially browsers, seem to use a lot more ram these days than they used to.
Another note about graphics, an add in graphics card is a near essential, get one with as much ram as you can buy, with at least half a gig of ram, if you are going to be playing video or any games at all.
Also, onboard sound on computers of that age just sucks, luckily enough pci sound cards last i checked were pretty cheap.

ardvark71,

Yes, thank you, I did click on the snowflake and I left a comment.

@beachboy2

Post #1 is usually a question so it's the answer(s) which will have the "Did you find this post helpful"
Post #2 appears to have the message on my display. Weird! :scratch:

BTW, the "snowflake" looks like it's actually a pair of scales, like the scales of justice, good answer/bad answer.

Sorry, got a bit diverted from the main topic...

Play Bonny!

:hattip:

Agree SlackWare Rocks. I just stopped using only because I enjoy one liner updates, and installs of apps from repo's ;)

Soadyheid,

I did not realise that I had included the original post as well!

I have amended my post #5 accordingly.

I'm not sure Slackware is a viable option for folks that can't even install a Buntu spin without help. After installing a distro and getting some experience, a user can move on to whatever - as we all did. I just wanted to point noobs to something that will probably get them up and running with minimum pain...

on the 15 year old XP box( DELL bought in 2001 ) i run ScientificLinux6.7 .But do to the Nvidia Gforce2 card i have to downgrade Xorg to 1.13 that was in SL 6.3

or run RHEL/CentOS/SL 5.11

SL 6 still has a lot of support left

Linux for the i386 Happy :hattip: Times

slackwear is not that hard, if someone cannot read, and use a keyboard, then they just need to go play outside with the kitties.

Hi...

Now that I've taken a much closer look at it, yes it does. :D

Regards...

I fully agree.

The vast majority of total newcomers to Linux just want to get their "new", non-Microsoft Windows, computer up and running as quickly as possible, with controls that are easy to use, with minimal use of the command line.

I see no sign of Slackware under "Beginner-Friendly Linux Distributions" in the sticky "Newbie alert: 50 Open Source Replacements for Windows XP":

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...xp-4175502495/

I wonder why not?

I would say the XFCE is one of the better desktop environments for older computers.

they do not really want to run Linux, they're just Windows Users that want to brag that they run Linux to try and get all of the Nerdy girls .. LoL

Easy Install

Slackware

...
ps and it was a Slacker that wrote that listing you posted btw ...

BW-userx,

onebuck made that post but the original article was written by Cynthia Harvey:

http://www.datamation.com/open-sourc...dows-xp-1.html

onebuck is a Moderator on these forums, so would it have made any difference to the content of his post had he been using Linux Mint or Debian or Zorin OS?

that little window on the left side that tells what distro one uses if they are so inclinded to fill it out said, Slackware.

honeslty,

I think it doesn't matter what distro one starts out with, per se, it all depends on that persons aptitude in order for it to make it seem easy, or not so easy or just a bugger to deal with. That pretty much applies to all things in life.

Me, I started with Slackware, went to Debian, and it's derivatives, along wit Ubututututut and some of its derivatives, and a few others just to see what I could see. Didn't like Ubututut too much like Windows and very HEAVEY on the GUI.

Stayed with Debian/CrunchBang because of it simplity, until its demize.Then went looking for something to replace that, used Debian base and just built off of that, but still it was too much bluk, then just went to looking around again for a Base GNU/Linux with a simple DT/WM with config files to allow one to customize to ones own liking, and not have to deal with the "what that other person thinks has to be, idealizium.

Went back to Slackware, it is a good distro, just too much typing to my liking when installing, even though it is made rather easy to do so, install programs with Slack Packages, then went to Disto Watch found Void Linux -- messed about with it for a bit then installed it along with xfce4 to get networkManager and use i3 as a WM.

very light weight, easy to install, and maintain, and the user installs only what he or she needs or wants to have in the system for them. no bluk, none of the, I didn't know that was in here apps, or, what's that doing in here, do I even need that? apps

Linux Mint 13 xfce is serving me well on an ancient non-PAE Dell Inspiron 700m, previously infested with Windows XP.
( 1.8GHz, Pentium M, 512MB of RAM )

Personally I wouldn't run hardware older then around 2010, unless I was flat broke and didn't have any choice.

Just my personal opinion, but anything Core2 and newer works for me, so that would put me back at 2007-ish timeframe.

Ditto. My laptop from 2007 (Lenovo 3000 N200, Intel Core 2 Duo 1.86GHz) still does everything I need. I've upgraded to 4GB RAM and a larger disk drive (Seagate 500 GB hybrid drive). It runs CentOS 6 and Windows 7 dual boot just fine. Those machines were considered overpriced when they came out, but I got mine at the end of 2008 for under $400.

HP Elightbook 6930p CORE 2 vPro 2.66GHz 4GB Ram - I pulled the CD player/burner then slapped two 1TB HDD's in it. 80$ PawnShop Special. Works great for everything I do with it, which is a lot of resampling Movies and mp3's handbrake for movies or running 4 seperate scripts resampling mp3 at the same time while playing DOOM or watching Movies on it at the same time. No Hang up or slow downs. I'm happy with it.

I play games at 2560x1600p so I would need a somewhat current video card.

or glasses and a smaller screen :D

I already have glasses and there no way I'm going to anything smaller then 27-30" and 1440p/1600p. In fact I would like to very much to upgrade to 4k and 40".

I actually found I need bigger than 30" to go to 1440p. I had a 27", and got rid of it to get a 1080P 27". Tried a friends 30", still too small a monitor for that resolution. So I imagine (haven't used 4K as a monitor yet) that I'd want minimum 50"+ for 4K. Given that my desk with twin 27's is pushing the boundaries of avaialable real estate, I don't see myself ever going 4K for my computer.

flatscreen I guess, remember them OLD 17" CTR monitor monsters that take up half a desk, and almost two people to pick up? Maximum resolution of 1,280 x 1,024.

I like the PC in the monitor Idea a lot.

I tend to run debian stable on my older machines. a) I don't have to worry about bleeding edge for compatibility. b) I'm probably not going to be updating them much, or have the bandwidth to do that. c) I might only have a 4GB HDD in there, and having -doc and -dev chopped out of the usable binary parts saves a lot of space. But mostly when I update them that once a year that I might, I'm not debating fresh install versus the update that would use twice the bandwidth times however many machines.

As far as screens, 23" and 1080p is about my lower limit if I have a current prescription and wear my glasses. The problem with bigger screens or more of them is that I find myself sitting further from them. So I need ever bigger ones to walk that line. Despite wearing glasses most of my life, I only recent found out that I'm near sighted, and to see things in close proximity I should remove my glasses. What I really need is a 4K screen that comes with a stand that put its 18" from my face so I can see all the pixels without my glasses. And small enough that I don't have to turn my head at that distance. In the meantime I've spent a bit of time converting old bitmap fonts and variants of them scaled by a multiple to compensate for my aging eyes.

I had to increase the font sizes to make my display useful at 2560x1600p. I still think that a 40"@4K display will be very useful.