# What OS for this OLD laptop?



## Harpmaker (Oct 28, 2007)

I'm about to change the OS on my very old Toshiba 7020CT laptop. It has a 366 MHz Intel Pentium ® II processor and 192MB of RAM (I think I remember it having as much as possible).

I got it used with a version of Win95 on it. I blew that away and tried a version of Linux, but my mother wants to use it and she is clueless about Linux. I don't know how in the world she does it, but every word processor/text editor she has used under KDE has locked up for her or become unusable until I can fix it. 

Anyway, I want to put either *Windows 2000 Pro* or *XP Pro* on it. It has a logo on it that states is was "designed for" Win2k so I'm thinking about installing that. 

Is 192MB RAM enough for even a slow XP install? I don't need the laptop thrashing it's poor little HD to death.

The projected use of this machine is as a word processor and surfing the internet. No games or watching movies (even though I did get the docking station that has a DVD drive). :bigsmile:


----------



## Mike P. (Apr 6, 2007)

I have a old Dell Latitude with a 400 MHz Celeron processor. It's running Windows 2000. It is fairly slow loading pages on the net but for word processing it's fine. 

Microsoft states the minimum requirements for XP Pro are:

# Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (300 MHz is recommended)
# At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended)
# At least 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available space on the hard disk
# CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drive
# Keyboard and a Microsoft Mouse or some other compatible pointing device
# Video adapter and monitor with Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher resolution


----------



## Harpmaker (Oct 28, 2007)

Well, I threw caution to the wind and installed XP Pro. The install went without a hitch, but it took almost 2 hours.

I don't have internet set up yet since I need to get my router hooked back up on my main system before I can do that; all the other drivers seemed to have been in the XP disc. It didn't auto-set the correct video resolution, but that was easily corrected.

That old CPU does do a fair amount of grunting and groaning trying to do much of anything, but it should do for the jobs I need it for.


----------



## Mike P. (Apr 6, 2007)

Are you intending to update with the Service Packs?


----------



## Harpmaker (Oct 28, 2007)

It has SP2. Do I need any others?

Oh, and I was wrong about the laptop having "designed for Win2k" on it; it was "for Win98/NT".

Also, I'm new to XP so are there any CPU sucking features I can disable? I bought some books on XP some time ago at a local store that deals with products that are being discontinued/dumped; guess it's time to open them. :reading:


----------



## Mike P. (Apr 6, 2007)

Due to ongoing security issues there is a Service Pack 3 available. As long as the laptop meets the minimum hardware requirements XP will run. I'm not sure about the "CPU sucking features", a Google search would be a start.


----------



## 1canuck2 (Jul 14, 2009)

That's pretty low specs to happily run WinXP. RAM in particular would be a concern. Have you considered a Linux install? Linux will be much happier on those specs than Windows...

If you want to stick with Windows, visit this site: http://www.blackviper.com/ for info on services that can be disabled in WinXP. Its been around for years (but gets updated) and is a pretty good resource, if a little outdated style-wise!


----------



## Harpmaker (Oct 28, 2007)

1canuck2 said:


> That's pretty low specs to happily run WinXP. RAM in particular would be a concern. Have you considered a Linux install? Linux will be much happier on those specs than Windows...
> 
> If you want to stick with Windows, visit this site: http://www.blackviper.com/ for info on services that can be disabled in WinXP. Its been around for years (but gets updated) and is a pretty good resource, if a little outdated style-wise!


Yeah, I know I'm running one the edge of acceptable hardware (just found out my laptop only has 128K RAM), but so far is does run with acceptable speed for all I want to do with it.

I tried Linux, but I must admit that having to mount and unmount drives really irritates me; also the version of Linux I was using didn't see any mouse I connected to the laptop and I had to use the stupid, imo, "pencil eraser" mouse of the Toshiba - I hate that thing... :wits-end: I will try Linux again (a different version) on my new desktop that runs a Intel Quad-Core CPU, but it will be a dual-boot system with XP Pro.

Thanks for the link to blackviper; I knew about it, but keep forgetting it!


----------



## 1canuck2 (Jul 14, 2009)

For Linux, I am an OpenSUSE fan myself. Setup is pretty straightforward and there's pretty good driver support. Another good Linux to try would be Ubuntu since there's tons of info from people running it on all kinds of hardware, but I have never been taken with it. Strictly for the hardcore would be Gentoo Linux. I used to run it and would say it is the best choice for squezzing the most out of any hardware since you basically build a custom kernel with only the stuff you need, but its a tough distro to get into if Linux aint your thang.

I currently dual boot OpenSUSE 11 and Windows 7 RC on my laptop and am pleased with both.

I assume you mean 128MB RAM (not K). If there is any way to find a squeeze even 64MB more in there (128MB ideal) then you should, but running through the BlackViper services you can stop list will also help big time.

Good luck!


----------



## Harpmaker (Oct 28, 2007)

1canuck2 said:


> For Linux, I am an OpenSUSE fan myself. Setup is pretty straightforward and there's pretty good driver support. Another good Linux to try would be Ubuntu since there's tons of info from people running it on all kinds of hardware, but I have never been taken with it. Strictly for the hardcore would be Gentoo Linux. I used to run it and would say it is the best choice for squezzing the most out of any hardware since you basically build a custom kernel with only the stuff you need, but its a tough distro to get into if Linux aint your thang.
> 
> I currently dual boot OpenSUSE 11 and Windows 7 RC on my laptop and am pleased with both.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the tips on Linux distros! Have you by any chance tried PCLinuxOS?

Yeah, I meant 128MB RAM... man, I'm mistyping all over the place the last few days.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Oh come on Don, Give win3.1 a try It will run well on that laptop:heehee:

I agree with others Linux is probably the best way to go.


----------



## Harpmaker (Oct 28, 2007)

tonyvdb said:


> Oh come on Don, Give win3.1 a try It will run well on that laptop:heehee:
> 
> I agree with others Linux is probably the best way to go.


Don't laugh (well, okay, go ahead ), I still have Windows 3.11 on a mess of floppies around here somewhere. I also have OS2 from IBM; anyone remember that one?

The reason I went with XP over Win2K is I was hoping XP would have the required drivers, and so far that has proven to be the case. I could also go back to Win98SE if I wanted to... I don't.

I don't mean to anger Linux users out there, I really don't, but the problem with Linux is that it's so... not Windows. There was a time in my life when I loved popping the hood and delving deep into the bowels of a new OS. Unfortunately, those days are gone.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

For the average user like you and I XP serves its purpose its just bloatware. If I had the choice I would still be using my Amiga 4000 for most things but internet browsing has become almost impossible on it now.


----------



## Ray in Kingwood (Jul 16, 2009)

Linux will be much happier with those specs than Windoze!


----------



## 1canuck2 (Jul 14, 2009)

Much like those who develop DIY screen paints  OS users can be very passionate about defending the superiority of one OS over the other. I am pretty agnostic, I use Windows the most, I like Linux the best, I appreciate OSX; and I have multiple machines and run a little bit of each.

It depends what you want to do with the machine. For a PVR, MythTV on Linux cannot be beat (and its cheap $$ - but expensive time-wise as it REQUIRES tinkering with, not an option)! For ease of use, Mac is hard to beat, their stuff just works well (but its expensive). For all round decent at most things with tons of nifty free stuff available, Windows is pretty good, and for corporate use, its the most compatible with Enterprise systems. And I'll happily tinker with them all.

I have not played with PCLinuxOS myself, but have heard positive rumblings, particularly from folks who left Ubuntu for some reason or other...


----------



## Harpmaker (Oct 28, 2007)

Great description of the OS situation, 1canuck2. It really is just a matter of time before I have to go with Linux since XP is the last version of Windows I intend on running. To tell you the truth, I have always had a hate/hate relationship with Windows, but it was what people I supported used. That is changing and I'll soon be only supporting ME. :bigsmile: When that happens I will gladly kiss M$ goodbye! I hope to use WINE to run any Windows programs (like the one for my spectrophotometer) that I can't find a Linux version of. Also, I can, for the foreseeable future, keep an old system with XP on it for such if needed.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

You can use Windows XP, if you trim it down to size and lower it's memory profile. Search the web (or engadget) and you may find a guy who's managed to install XP on CPUs that's older than yours with only 64-96MB of ram installed. Alternatively, there are several linux distros out there specifically for older hardware or versions of pocket linux.


----------

