Which OS to install for this PC?

[Proteos]

How about these

Win2k
Ubuntu
XP (more ram would help)

UBUNTU FTW

 

[alik4041]

Thanks for the feedback guys, you've been great help I discussed linux with my friend and he said he would really rather stick with windows. So I guess it will be 512mb of ram with XP SP3.
That blackviper website is also very interesting, I just have to learn what to do

 

[Gorankar]

Thanks for the feedback guys, you've been great help I discussed linux with my friend and he said he would really rather stick with windows. So I guess it will be 512mb of ram with XP SP3.
That blackviper website is also very interesting, I just have to learn what to do

Since you are going to 512 megs of ram Xp Sp3 is fine. About Blackviper's site. Well for XP, a few of the tweaks do help a little when it comes to freeing ram and a cpu cycle or two, but most of them give almost nothing, many can break software or OS funtionality. Unless you want to go back and trouble shoot your friends PC again, only disable services that you are 100% certain are not needed by any software your friend has or will ever have. Not that disabling services gets you much anyway. As long as you have 512 or more ram, Xp untweaked should perform OK. If your freind is not tech savvy, I recommend you install anti virus and anti malware apps for him and use scheduler to have Disk Cleanup and Defrag run once a week or something.

 

[skeeder]

I'd toss ubuntu on it...you wouldn't have to worry about finding drivers for old hardware or anything...it'd be a nice machine to start dicking around with.

 

[jb_hafo]

forgot to mention if you install FreeBSD or dual-boot it, you'd *eventually*
want a lot of disk space (50 GB or so, 20 or so more if storing a lot of
media files or files for work).
........................
not all in one FileSystem ( /usr /tmp /var / (latter is "root")
/tmp can be small
/var can be large or small depending if it is a webserver or database server
/usr should be huge
/ (root) is usually tiny, less than a gigabyte
........................
almost everyone installs a /home somewhere which is something I just
went with the defaults
...........................
sorry if this is extraneous information at this point, but mentioning a
unix without the install-space topic usually results in a search elsewhere for the
information, or a search later on on how to backup/restore to
larger partition sizes

 

[Alien]

Thanks for the feedback guys, you've been great help I discussed linux with my friend and he said he would really rather stick with windows. So I guess it will be 512mb of ram with XP SP3.
That blackviper website is also very interesting, I just have to learn what to do

512 mb for XP is adequate.

To a comment made before, the updates that ubuntu downloads actually replace files so it really won take that much diskspace

 

[SilverTalon]

I know personally, I'd go with Ubuntu/Kubuntu 8.04 or Windows 2000. XP is too much of a hog for that configuration, 98 is no longer supported in any way and supported software is almost not happening anymore. Win2k is a good OS, still somewhat supported and software is still available. Ubuntu/Kubuntu would allow for everything that you want, and it would perform pretty well, but the memory thing will hinder you a little.

Best advice, find another 256/512 of RAM and put Ubuntu/Kubuntu 8.04 on it.

 

[chrispycrunch]

No, XP SP3 is the OS to choose. 2K is old, period - I really don't need to expand on that if you know anything about computers. The user wouldn't be able to run IE7 on it as that's XP/Vista only and even if you intended to put Firefox or Opera on the machine, not having IE7 as the fallback default browser is problematic. There are just too many issues with 2K as a "serious" day to day OS anymore it's not even funny.

XP is the one...

I am in the same boat - a friend's laptop is a celeron with 256mb. it is slow. I revived a similar computer (with just 128mb memory) by using W2K. Man, W2k is super-fast and runs most basic apps...

...but is there any point putting XP with SP3 on a celeron laptop w/256mb ram over w2k?

 

[gsr1379]

Ubuntu!

 

[alik4041]

I am in the same boat - a friend's laptop is a celeron with 256mb. it is slow. I revived a similar computer (with just 128mb memory) by using W2K. Man, W2k is super-fast and runs most basic apps...

...but is there any point putting XP with SP3 on a celeron laptop w/256mb ram over w2k?

Do what I did, get some more memory for cheap here in the fs threads and try xp on it. What's the cpu freq?

 

[RavenD]

I download Ubuntu 8.04 and burn the ISO and install it and then hit Update and... wow... 296MB of updates? What gives... my precious hard drive space just got raped not only by an OS that takes more space on my hard drive to install it than XP does (850MB for XP and 1.6GB for Ubuntu 8.04 clean)but then adds close to another 500MB of drive space used when it downloads and extracts the contents of those updates...

You do realize most of those updates replace packages that are already installed, thus not using any extra hard drive space. And the packages the update manager downloads are unnecessary after installation, running apt-get clean will remove them.

Moreso, at 850MB you get XP, internet explorer, and the programs in the accessories folder.

At 1.6GB Ubuntu, you get a full office productivity suite, web browser, email client, IM client, graphics editing software. You basically get a computer that's ready for use without having to install any additional software. Not so with XP.


That being said, my vote goes for Ubuntu or Xubuntu.

 

[chrispycrunch]

Do what I did, get some more memory for cheap here in the fs threads and try xp on it. What's the cpu freq?

Dell Celeron 1.3Ghz with 256mb shared memory.

Update: I re-installed XP w/ SP3. Wow. The thing was fast!!! I added a 512mb kingston memory module but didn't really notice things run faster. I am sure things will speed up if there are more applications run concurrently.

 

[requiemnoise]

PcLinuxOS or Ubuntu are both great for beginners.

 

[Catweazle]

I'm trying to restore this PC for no more than $15. And I have decided to buy an extra 256mb of memory (haven't done so). XP is currently installed on this machine and it is slowwwwwwwwww.

It's actually not for me, this is someone's computer and they wanted me to "bring it back to life" because they can't afford anything right now. To be honest, I was being a bit dumb by saying that it is slow. Infact, I don't think that this pc has had a fresh install in more than 3 years so, yeah . But still, should I install 2k just to help it from $hitin the bed?

Finally someone who agrees with me. Man this place is full of Windows apologists, and those who recommended a Linux, recommended regular Ubuntu.

To be quite honest, the fact that only about 50% of respondants have voted "Windows XP" in this poll is indication only of how poor advice given on internet forums can often be. This poll should have attracted a 100% Windows XP vote, because basically the answer to the dilemma presented isn't to change installed OS's but instead to to 'fix' the installation which already exists.

Excuse the frank bluntness, but....

• This is obviously a PC owned by a technology naive 'mom and pop' type user.
• The fact that the "Which OS?" question was even asked indicates that the topic poster was struggling in ability to assist.
• The genuine 'problem' is too little RAM (exacerbated by the fact that some of the scarce RAM is being used for integrated graphics) and the wear and tear of 3 years of usage.
• The genuine 'answer' is to add more RAM and cleran up the install.

For anyone with even rudimentary computer troubleshooting expertise this topic should be a 'no-brainer' to respond to, and the fact that so many people have responded inappropriately is embarrassing to the point of being downright lame!


In a scenario like this, as a person offering assistance or advice, you stress the need for additional memory. You also check the amount of available drive space, and attend to freeing some up if that is needed. Then it's the maintainence tasks of Disk Cleanup, AV/Spyware scans, removing unnecessary installed software and ensuring that stuff isn't hogging resources by loading at startup, and then defrag and maybe a registry cleanup.

Jumping straight in for a format/fresh install could well be irresponsible, if the PC owner hasn't got backups of necessary files or media to reinstall necessary software.

Advising an OS change is just downright ludicrous, because it is an exercise in forcing a whole new learning curve on the PC owner, and for absolutely no need. Hell, even a revert to Windows 2000 is a completely unecessary change. People who advise such changes in a scenario like this'n either lack computer expertise or lack wit.

 

[chrispycrunch]

• This is obviously a PC owned by a technology naive 'mom and pop' type user.
• The fact that the "Which OS?" question was even asked indicates that the topic poster was struggling in ability to assist.
• The genuine 'problem' is too little RAM (exacerbated by the fact that some of the scarce RAM is being used for integrated graphics) and the wear and tear of 3 years of usage.
• The genuine 'answer' is to add more RAM and cleran up the install.

For anyone with even rudimentary computer troubleshooting expertise this topic should be a 'no-brainer' to respond to, and the fact that so many people have responded inappropriately is embarrassing to the point of being downright lame!


In a scenario like this, as a person offering assistance or advice, you stress the need for additional memory. You also check the amount of available drive space, and attend to freeing some up if that is needed. Then it's the maintainence tasks of Disk Cleanup, AV/Spyware scans, removing unnecessary installed software and ensuring that stuff isn't hogging resources by loading at startup, and then defrag and maybe a registry cleanup.

Jumping straight in for a format/fresh install could well be irresponsible, if the PC owner hasn't got backups of necessary files or media to reinstall necessary software.

Advising an OS change is just downright ludicrous, because it is an exercise in forcing a whole new learning curve on the PC owner, and for absolutely no need. Hell, even a revert to Windows 2000 is a completely unecessary change. People who advise such changes in a scenario like this'n either lack computer expertise or lack wit.

Well-said. I love linux though. As AN EXPERIENCED computer person, I would recommend it. But let's be realistic. Linux is not for the beginner to set up. It's only good if someone knows how to set it up and that the end user just needs basic stuff like email and internet and videos.

I disagree with you about not formatting an XP installation. Correct me if I am wrong, but those tools you mentioned will still be no match to a fresh installation. This, of course, is AFTER the user has been advised to back up all documents first.

I do like to hear more about the tools you mentioned: have you ever been able to use them all to reduce a boot up from say, 3 minutes and get it down to 30 seconds? My fresh XP install on the celeron resulted in a 30sec boot up, and that's before adding memory.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

I disagree with you about not formatting an XP installation. Correct me if I am wrong, but those tools you mentioned will still be no match to a fresh installation. This, of course, is AFTER the user has been advised to back up all documents first.

The OP mentioned in his original post, he's trying to do this job for no more than $15.00.
The memory would consume that..and a little.
Add to this..it's for someone "else".

A format and fresh install would require
*Time required in backing up
*Research on drivers required for the hardware, and obtaining those drivers
*Time involved in the wiping, installing, installing drivers, updating drivers

That's a lot of "volunteer time". Unless this is a really good friend, family, or some hot babe he's trying to... ..that's a lot to ask of someone.

Versus...adding RAM, doing a little house-cleaning of the OS (CCleaner, chkdisk, defrag, some adware scanning/removal), laying down fresh drivers, some updates.

Any "fresh install" will back to back clock faster than an existing long term install. Probably no updates yet, no antivirus, no utilities, no etc etc.

 

[Catweazle]

Well-said.

Thank you.

It's a bugbear of mine that I really dislike seeing poor and/or innappropriuate advice handed out with regard to a machine owned and used by a less than technologically competant user.

I disagree with you about not formatting an XP installation. Correct me if I am wrong, but those tools you mentioned will still be no match to a fresh installation. This, of course, is AFTER the user has been advised to back up all documents first.

The comment I made was "could well be irresponsible. I never suggested that a fresh install should not be performed "no matter what". Of course it's the ideal 'fix' for a cluttered up old install, and if that old install is corrupted beyond repair then it'd be the ONLY option available. In circumstances where the owner/user of the machine doesn't have anything stored on it (either data or software) which is important to retain then a fresh install would be the first option taken. But often, usually even, it's better to tidy up the rig and restore it to efficient operational state than it is to nuke the thing and start over again, because nuking it destroys stuff the owner/user wanted. And remember, that "stuff the owner/user wanted could well be even the software settings configurations performed (and forgotten about) over time, which would never end up replicated again because the owner/user wouldn't remember how to, and the lack of which would make the machine uncomfortable/inconvenient to use afterwards.

The owner/user of the machine is the important factor in a consideration like this, not the soapbox platform pet preferences of the person assisting, or the people offering him so-called 'informed advice'.

I do like to hear more about the tools you mentioned: have you ever been able to use them all to reduce a boot up from say, 3 minutes and get it down to 30 seconds? My fresh XP install on the celeron resulted in a 30sec boot up, and that's before adding memory.

With the exception of AV/malware scanner and perhaps a Registry Cleaner tool if required, there are no 'tools' I mentioned which aren't built in to Windows itself. Basic system maintenance tools which any competent 'computer help' person should be educating end-users about.


The number of 'seconds' taken for bootup is about the least important indicator of an 'efficiently performing' machine that there is. Snappy performance during actual operation is what's important, and what should be maximised as far as the hardware allows. Nevertheless, yes! Attending to disk fragmentation, the removal of redundant or unnecessary startup entries, registry cleanup etc etc etc WILL reduce boot time considerably.

That's a lot of "volunteer time". Unless this is a really good friend, family, or some hot babe he's trying to... ..that's a lot to ask of someone.

Yes, it most certainly IS time-consuming. Even more so for the (somewhat incompetent) tech-help person or self-styled tech help person who has only ever really learnt "format" amongst the arsenal of trouble-shooting procedures.

But we've been presented with a scenario of assistance offered through friendship, and does friendship get measured by a stopwatch? Does "Oh, that's going to take some time" justify "I couldn't give a fuck about your stuff"?

I most certainly don't think so. Instead I think it is the obligation of the person providing assistance to a naive user to explain the potential costs and inconveniences involved, and negotiate the way forward BEFORE drastic measures are taken. Yes, that's right. Format/fresh install is a DRASTIC MEASURE, and should be considered and explained as such.

 

[chrispycrunch]

Catweazle, the post-XP reformat/reinstall now has the following installed on her system:
- driver reinstall (it was easy: went to dell site, entered model number, downloaded drivers
- CCleaner
- Antivirus software
- A nice run of windows Defrag
- Service packs installed and updated
- Security packs (XP) installed and updated
- Winamp (mp3 playback), Windows media (just in case) and VLC Player
- k-lite (codecs)
- firefox (move over IE7)