OS

Started by shot571 July 19th, 2011 6:31 AM
  • 863 views
  • 17 replies
Hey I was just wondering what you guys think would be the best OS for a computer with these specs. Im reinstalling Windows XP right now but if someone can offer me a better one I will install that after. It has to be as user friendly as XP though because its for my brother. And yeeah I know the spces suck :P

Gerri Shin

  

Male
Burbank, CA
Seen February 17th, 2014
Posted April 13th, 2013
3,575 posts
15.9 Years
with that amount of RAM, I'd recommend staying with Windows XP. Upgrade the RAM to about 1-2GB and I'd suggest that Windows 7 might be a better option, however at that point I'd have to know the graphics specs to properly recommend it.
Equipment:
Custom PC, MacBook Pro (MBPr), 3DSxl Blue, 3DS Midnight Purple, iPhone 4S Green

donavannj

Age 32
Male
'cause it get cold like Minnesota
Seen 4 Days Ago
Posted 1 Week Ago
22,513 posts
18.2 Years
Linux. Any xfce or lxde based latest distro should do the trick. Linux Mint would be my recommendation.
But is it user friendly for users who will freak out if they see anything other than a Windows layout?

I think XP is your best bet if you're looking for something friendly to the typical user, especially if you think your brother will want to play games on it.
whoops
Age 32
Male
Australia
Seen November 29th, 2016
Posted August 14th, 2011
919 posts
13.6 Years
It's sad that that CPU is suffering because of RAM. In it's current state, I'd say XP like others said; unless you want to go with Linux.

You can get 1GB of RAM in the UK for about £10 and they're easy to install yourself, whether you have a laptop or desktop. Then you could go with Windows 7.

Archer

NSW, Australia
Seen January 26th, 2020
Posted January 5th, 2020
3,956 posts
16.6 Years
It's sad that that CPU is suffering because of RAM. In it's current state, I'd say XP like others said; unless you want to go with Linux.

You can get 1GB of RAM in the UK for about £10 and they're easy to install yourself, whether you have a laptop or desktop. Then you could go with Windows 7.
It depends on what's being done. With the state of most browsers at the moment, 512MB of memory is getting pretty bare. 1GB will make a world of difference, even in XP. Windows 7 is a waste of time on such an old rig, as you're spending too much cash on the license.

If you're comfortable with Linux, then a lighter distro might be a decent option, providing it does what you want, but the lighter distros are generally the less newbie-friendly. As Speedygeek said, Mint is probably a reasonable compromise. It's very polished and intuitive, yet they seem to have cut down on Ubuntu's bloat.

Either way, if you do try Linux, get something recent, as there have been quite a few updates to the memory management side of the kernel over the last few months.

tl;dr - Feel free to try Linux, otherwise stick with XP.

Meganium

memento mori

she/her
Houston, TX
Seen February 1st, 2023
Posted February 1st, 2023
Stay with XP. Upgrading to Vista or even 7 will make things pretty slow, and impossible to manage. so don't go there.. Unless the computer can be upgraded RAM-wise. Like the others here mentioned, you should try Linux...it's pretty useful, pretty, and it's awesome. xD

Dawn

Queen of Magical Girls

She/Her
East Coast, USA
Seen 20 Hours Ago
Posted December 13th, 2022
4,594 posts
14.7 Years
Unless you're willing to upgrade to a computer with specs appropriate for this past decade Linux is your best bet. XP is nice and all, but it's terribly, terribly insecure. Linux will however require learning for those that haven't used it before.

Ironically it appears your system meets the minimum requirements for running Ubuntu. (...By the skin of its teeth. =|)

I might recommend that as an alternative to XP.
Don't let your guard down
just 'cause we're cute!

We'll eat you right up!
Post Templates
[1] Hisui Legends
Male
Seen April 26th, 2015
Posted June 11th, 2012
70 posts
12.2 Years
Uh... no. Ubuntu isn't a good option for this person's computer. I could make it work on the computer but that means I would have to remove a whole load of crap, and that's no easy work.

There is a reason why I suggested lxde or xfce desktop based distro. For most common distros out there Gnome and KDE are going to be too much for a computer with that spec to handle (unless we're talking about Arch, Gentoo, or damn small, but let's not go there).

I'm familiar with several mainstream linux distros, but the best fit for this situation I can think of is Mint 10 lxde. It's light, fast, yet still optimized to be as user friendly as possible. Maybe Lubuntu or Xubuntu, but those 3 are pretty much it.

Archer

NSW, Australia
Seen January 26th, 2020
Posted January 5th, 2020
3,956 posts
16.6 Years
Maybe Lubuntu or Xubuntu, but those 3 are pretty much it.
Xfce is probably the most newbie-friendly of the three, so if you have to go with an Ubuntu derivative, that might be the pick. Otherwise, I'll backup the recommendation for Mint.
Male
Seen April 26th, 2015
Posted June 11th, 2012
70 posts
12.2 Years
Xfce is probably the most newbie-friendly of the three, so if you have to go with an Ubuntu derivative, that might be the pick. Otherwise, I'll backup the recommendation for Mint.
I don't know... Xubuntu uses very Mac-style appearance. Might not be the best fit. Lubuntu is more Windows-style, not to mention it uses about half the RAM of Xubuntu.

You can't just generalize that this desktop environment is more or less friendly than this. It depends on the distro. Mint for instance is very user friendly for everything except xfce because their only xfce version is based on Debian. For Ubuntu xfce loses to lxde because xfce is developed by the main team (who uses most of their resources on gnome) whereas lxde has a whole team by itself (well, this is before ubuntu recognized lubuntu as official ubuntu family member a couple months ago). Suse you're going to find that KDE is the best of the bunch, and so on.

Dawn

Queen of Magical Girls

She/Her
East Coast, USA
Seen 20 Hours Ago
Posted December 13th, 2022
4,594 posts
14.7 Years
Uh... no. Ubuntu isn't a good option for this person's computer.
If the official Ubuntu minimum requirements are not enough to fully utilize Ubuntu at a "bearable" speed I'd think that'd be a pretty outrageous lie from the Ubuntu team. I'll trust that they wouldn't make such a dumb mistake and keep on recommending it.
Don't let your guard down
just 'cause we're cute!

We'll eat you right up!
Post Templates
[1] Hisui Legends
Male
Seen April 26th, 2015
Posted June 11th, 2012
70 posts
12.2 Years


If the official Ubuntu minimum requirements are not enough to fully utilize Ubuntu at a "bearable" speed I'd think that'd be a pretty outrageous lie from the Ubuntu team. I'll trust that they wouldn't make such a dumb mistake and keep on recommending it.
Have you tried it yourself? MINIMUM requirements. 99% of the time that basically is the bare minimum to run the software in. speed that makes you want to punch the computer. They are not lying. It's the reality. Everyone does it. Try it yourself.

Archer

NSW, Australia
Seen January 26th, 2020
Posted January 5th, 2020
3,956 posts
16.6 Years
I don't know... Xubuntu uses very Mac-style appearance. Might not be the best fit. Lubuntu is more Windows-style, not to mention it uses about half the RAM of Xubuntu.

You can't just generalize that this desktop environment is more or less friendly than this. It depends on the distro. Mint for instance is very user friendly for everything except xfce because their only xfce version is based on Debian. For Ubuntu xfce loses to lxde because xfce is developed by the main team (who uses most of their resources on gnome) whereas lxde has a whole team by itself (well, this is before ubuntu recognized lubuntu as official ubuntu family member a couple months ago). Suse you're going to find that KDE is the best of the bunch, and so on.
Yeah, fair enough. I did mean in terms of Ubuntu, but it's been ~3 years since I've touched Xubuntu, so I just remember it as the light Gnome-clone it was at the time.
Have you tried it yourself? MINIMUM requirements. 99% of the time that basically is the bare minimum to run the software in. speed that makes you want to punch the computer. They are not lying. It's the reality. Everyone does it. Try it yourself.
Exactly. Would now be a good time to point out that XP's requirements are a Pentium 233MHz and 64MB of memory? I'm pretty sure it's horribly sluggish on a Pentium 3 1GHz with 500MB memory, let alone a system of that age vintage. It's going to be the same with Linux distros. Minimum specs are usually more of a hardware limitation than a measure of usability.
Male
Seen April 26th, 2015
Posted June 11th, 2012
70 posts
12.2 Years
Would now be a good time to point out that XP's requirements are a Pentium 233MHz and 64MB of memory? I'm pretty sure it's horribly sluggish on a Pentium 3 1GHz with 500MB memory, let alone a system of that age vintage. Minimum specs are usually more of a hardware limitation than a measure of usability.
I suggest you read what I said again. I didn't say a thing about XP.

Archer

NSW, Australia
Seen January 26th, 2020
Posted January 5th, 2020
3,956 posts
16.6 Years
I suggest you read what I said again. I didn't say a thing about XP.
I know. I was just agreeing that minimum specs don't mean squat. People can just relate to XP, that's all. Edited for clarity.