Kevin's Watch

My fiancée broke her laptop a couple months ago. We've been sharing my computer. That's good and well, but this is our only source of entertainment and I'm bored stiff when she's online.
I took it upon myself to revive an old laptop, as my cell phone has very limited internet functionality-- and it tires my thumbs too!
First off, the previous owners had maxed the hard drive out to 7 mb of free space!
I took it back up to 4 gigs which is HALF its capacity!
Second the OS is XP, which right there takes up half of its storage!
It originally came with windows 95!
My RAM is only 250 mbs!!!!!!
When I monitor the CPU usage, it goes up to 30% when I drag the mouse! It is closer to 70% most of the time, and I saw it peak at 95% during one operation.
I have cleaned the registry and optimized my processing capacity-- but I think basically, this machine was not built for XP or anything like it.
It has a pentium III, which I used in my last computer until 2009 with no problems. I think it just doesn't have enough RAM to handle XP, which in my opinion is still far superior to vista and 7.
I do not think the unit is expandable, and I only plan on using it until my fiancée's computer gets fixed.
Still, I can't help but thinking 4 gigs of OS is overkill. Is there some kind of "windows lite" OS I can put on this baby? At no cost, of course...
How about Linux?
Or could I possibly load a cell phone OS in there and expect it to run?
Perhaps this fossil is simply not made to endure, but it is, after all, my liferaft!
Anyone have any advice?

PS, have not run a defrag... would it help?

Two questions:
1) What do you want to do with it?
2) Why do you think that XP is better than Vista or 7 (Real answer please, not fanboism or flamewar).

XP has advantages over Vista when run on older processors and limited memory...like what LZ is stuck with.

Suggestions:

• Yes, defrag it!
  
  Shut off every startup program, browser add-on and other gee-gaw that you can possibly get by without.
  
  Reclaim your computer and have Pee Wee (nicknamed with the utmost respect, I assure you!!!) use the secondary computer as much as you have to. It was her box that died; why should she get full possession of your computer and force you to use a museum piece?

Yes, I know full well the answer to that last question I posed. Y'all have noticed the theme of my sigs for the last year and a half, nu?

Go to windows classic mode.

Remove any screen savers, power savers, desktop backgrounds, themes, and mouse and frame animations.

Hit the windows button and r. Type in "services" Go through and stop and disable any that you're sure you're not going to be using. This probably includes remote access, the print spooler (unless you're printing), smartcard, etc.

Win+r. Type "msconfig" Go to startup and make sure everything that runs when you start up is absolutely necessary.

Download and run Spybot. Check your antivirus software. If you're running something big and bloated, dump it, especially if it's something that charges for updates. AVG used to be good and light, but I've heard bad things lately. These days I'm running Comodo. Update and scan.

Clean disk (application, system tools). Dump everything you can.

Yes, defrag.

Restart.

Some people like Google Chrome. It's supposed to be lighter and faster than Firefox (and needless to say, Explorer).

Also, I suggest that you check your windows page file settings. If your disk is partitioned, make sure the Windows page file isn't being throttled by low remaining space in its partition. Increase the page file max size. This won't really make the system run faster, but it should allow you to have more than one thing open at one time without slowing down to near-frozen.

I think Syl already covered this part, but definitely go through all installed Windows features that are optional, and uninstall everything you can do without.

Oh, and put one dollar in a jar every day you are still using this computer. On this day next year, if you are still using this computer, take that jar full of dollars, and go buy a new one.

dw

Syl wrote:Go to windows classic mode.

Remove any screen savers, power savers, desktop backgrounds, themes, and mouse and frame animations.

Hit the windows button and r. Type in "services" Go through and stop and disable any that you're sure you're not going to be using. This probably includes remote access, the print spooler (unless you're printing), smartcard, etc.

Win+r. Type "msconfig" Go to startup and make sure everything that runs when you start up is absolutely necessary.

Download and run Spybot. Check your antivirus software. If you're running something big and bloated, dump it, especially if it's something that charges for updates. AVG used to be good and light, but I've heard bad things lately. These days I'm running Comodo. Update and scan.

Clean disk (application, system tools). Dump everything you can.

Yes, defrag.

Restart.

Some people like Google Chrome. It's supposed to be lighter and faster than Firefox (and needless to say, Explorer).

This.
100X.
Just started using Chrome last week when I noticed Firefox slowing down. I like it.

Your RAM sucks but it's passable.
My guess is if it's still a clunker after you do what Syl posted is that the hard drive is old and beat.
They typically last only 3-4 years before they start to slow to a crawl.
If you hear any clicking noises those are it's death sounds.
Nothing you can do about that, sorry.

I know they have OS's that run off flash drives.
You could browse the net off it.
That would bypass the hard drive.
I've never done it though.

Rigel wrote:Two questions:
2) Why do you think that XP is better than Vista or 7 (Real answer please, not fanboism or flamewar).

Having some degree of industry knowledge, I can confidently state that there is almost no disagreement that XP is better in near on every way than Vista.

First off, when it comes to older systems, Savor Dam's absolutely right - XP is far less resource-hungry (and a whole heapload more stable) than Vista. Looking at corporate uptake in the UK, latest figures I saw were that c. 70% of corporates avoided Vista altogether in favour of sticking with XP. They're now looking at migrating to Win 7, which is pretty much what Vista should have been in the first place.

Here's the hard and fast (and long-proven) rule with Microsoft operating systems... skip every other one, because the boys in Seattle invariably rush some new shiny-looking pile of crap out and effectively get the end-user base to pay to bug-test it.

Think about it...

Windows 3 was good and shipped for 5 years.
Windows 95 was badly flawed and shipped for under 3 years.
Windows 98 was very good and shipped for well over 3 years.
Windows ME was literally appalling and shipped for only a year.
Windows XP was excellent and shipped for almost 4 years.
Windows Vista was very poor and only shipped for 2 1/2 years.
Windows 7? Now that Service Pack 1 has been released, it's looking fine, provided you've got a reasonably recently specced system.

See a pattern in the above? Yep, internal marketing pressures from on high force the Microsoft techy guys to rush operating system product to release way before it's ready. Neither Windows ME or Vista were meant to exist... it's just that XP and 7 weren't ready, so these half-assed releases got forced through.

The sad and shocking thing is that the general public don't tend to get a choice on Windows version when they buy a new PC - though tellingly in corporate land, most hardware manufacturers are still shipping their B2B Win 7 systems with a first-boot downgrade back to XP Pro option.

You have been warned...

Yep.
Windows 7 is nice.
I've been able to install it on every pc/laptop that has had XP on it.
It's very agreeable with old hardware.

No upgrade from XP though.
It will make a little "old windows" folder for your documents and pics though.
Which is nice.


My company skipped vista based on my recommendation, thank god.


Best thing about 7 is a restore option from the boot menu.
Saves me a lot of work when the user gets a virus.

Thanks to a much lower resource consumption rate I recommend Linux. I use Ubuntu Linux which is among the least difficult versions to install. If you aren't familiar with Linux, once you have it installed, it functions similarly to windows and has free apps that duplicate microsoft programs very well.
IMHO of course.

Rigel wrote:Two questions:
1) What do you want to do with it?
2) Why do you think that XP is better than Vista or 7 (Real answer please, not fanboism or flamewar).

1: run old ms dos games, watch video and hear audio streamsm perhaps install and use a word processor. My most ambitious use would be to load a free standing midi triggered moog synthesizer so that I could use the audio output to record with those sounds.
2: Newer versions of windows, in my experience, have less functionality than xp.
There does not seem to be any sorting options you can apply to folders.
My biggest disappointment came when I tried to determine what programs I needed to install on my dad's new computer-- when you open "add/remove programs" vista and 7 no longer allow you to sort by frequency of use-- I have no clue what my dad needs or uses. He himself can not tell me, as he is somewhat like a stone age man when it comes to these things.
Besides that windows has a pattern of being written in a poor version like 2000, trying to improve that version, but making it worse, like millenium
, and then finally starting over and give you a better version, like xp.
They alway skip an OS or two before offering you anything better.
I will try removing start up programs, but start up is actually fast on that computer so I don't think there are many.
A nice old fashioned defrag is the best suggestion yet-- I highly doubt one was ever performed on this machine.

aTOMiC wrote:Thanks to a much lower resource consumption rate I recommend Linux. I use Ubuntu Linux which is among the least difficult versions to install. If you aren't familiar with Linux, once you have it installed, it functions similarly to windows and has free apps that duplicate microsoft programs very well.
IMHO of course.

I'd like to try that, but I need to make sure the networking card will function with that OS. I may have to locate installation software and use wine to apply the driver.

Lord Zombiac wrote:

aTOMiC wrote:Thanks to a much lower resource consumption rate I recommend Linux. I use Ubuntu Linux which is among the least difficult versions to install. If you aren't familiar with Linux, once you have it installed, it functions similarly to windows and has free apps that duplicate microsoft programs very well.
IMHO of course.

I'd like to try that, but I need to make sure the networking card will function with that OS. I may have to locate installation software and use wine to apply the driver.

That is a reasonable concern. My experience with Linux and Ubuntu specifically is that the primary OS installation driver archive is quite extensive. I've been surprised over and over at how complete the initial install has been on a variety of computers I've setup with Linux. The best use so far is giving life to older machines, similar to the one you describe. Small hard drives, low ram and slow procs are all part of the deal. In addition I have to say that I have managed to find drivers in every instance where Linux's initial install came up short. I can't guarantee anything but so far so good.

I typically run AutoCAD, Cakewalk Sonar and a variety of windows compatible games that prevent me from using Linux on my primary computer however if it weren't for those limitations I would without hesitation. The open source application database is enormous. Pretty much any software you use under Windows has a counterpart with Linux and since I rarely have much disposable income getting to use all of that software for free is in a word priceless.

As to Wine it is one of the first things I install and comes in quite handy however there are limitations, especially with older computers that might begin to struggle running that extra layer of software. Your ram issue is your biggest problem.
If you lived nearby I'd be happy to give you some older sdram I think I have in one of many computer parts boxes I have in my garage. It's possible I have 2 256 mb chips that would likely be compatible with your machine. However I'd have to check. I assemble and give away older computers to friends and co workers routinely so who knows what parts I have left.

TheFallen wrote:
Think about it...

Windows 3 was good and shipped for 5 years.
Windows 95 was badly flawed and shipped for under 3 years.

I ran Windows NT 4.0 for a couple of years, both the workstation and server and I found it highly stable, especially compared to it's home based sister Win 95.

Windows 98 was very good and shipped for well over 3 years.
Windows ME was literally appalling and shipped for only a year.

I also found Windows 2000 to be very stable both as a work station and server. I hung on to 2000 like grim death for as long as I could. Again it's retarded sister Windows ME was pure crap.

Windows XP was excellent and shipped for almost 4 years.
Windows Vista was very poor and only shipped for 2 1/2 years.
Windows 7? Now that Service Pack 1 has been released, it's looking fine, provided you've got a reasonably recently specced system.

I'm a conceptual fan of Linux - anything Open Source that sticks it to the man in Seattle floats my boat. Having said that, I'm too lazy to do anything other than play around with it. It's just easier to go with Windoze, provided you know which version to go with... see my post above.

Of course, the other route is to get hold of a tablet running Android and wait for O/S independent cloud-based apps to enter the mainstream. I wouldn't hold your breath, though - I'm entirely unconvinced on tablets as of yet as anything more than game-lette playing, media-streaming web-browser devices. At a retail price of maybe $170 for a 10" screen version, I could see there being some merit, but we're not there yet.

Okay the Ipad suits the fervent Apple fanbois, but it's a triumph of style over substance... clever man, that Steve Jobs, selling the emperor's new clothes time and time again.

As for non dead-end tablets, Microsoft is all over the place and hasn't properly worked out what to do re Tablets and Win 7. Currently Wintel-based Tablets are way WAY too expensive, because the hardware needed to run the O/S forces the bill of meterials further up, on top of what is a bloody expensive operating system in the first place. So get a Netbook instead... at least you get a keyboard with it. Maybe once Windows finally does port onto the ARM platform, as has been announced, things might change... Bill will still ask for his pound of flesh for his O/S, though.

As for Android Tablets, some promise here maybe, because the required hardware to run Android is of low low spec... i.e. cheap. But still way too early to dive into the market as yet. I'd let the early adopters with more money than sense suffer at the bleeding edge of technology for the moment

The funny thing is, internally, Vista and 7 are nearly identical. The kernel and core systems are vastly improved over XP, but Vista had some UI annoyances (and, of course, problems with legacy applications) that were mitigated in 7.

Other than the fact that they have heavier resource requirements, I would heartily recommend either Vista or 7 over XP any day of the week.

In your case, though, it sounds like a light Linux setup would be a far better decision. It would do everything you want it to, while being much snappier and usable.

Since I last posted I was trying to run MSconfig on the thing. It froze, I shut it off, and it would not reboot. I tried getting my setup utility to boot from a copy of ubuntu I had on a thumb drive, to no avail, and then replaced the hard drive with another laptop HD that someone had given me.
This would not boot either.
I guess it just wasn't meant to be.
I'm writing this on my dad's Vaio touch screen machine with windows 7, an intel quad and 8 gigs of ram. I think the HD is nearly a terabyte!
This thing is sweet!
I've "borrowed" it so I could "install his software."
He's not getting it back until my fiancée's laptop is repaired, he he he!

Syl wrote:Some people like Google Chrome. It's supposed to be lighter and faster than Firefox (and needless to say, Explorer).

Meh. It also takes up 250+ Mb on my drive, while Firefox 4 takes up 30Mb. Chrome does appear to be a little lighter on resources. But just a little.

(The new Firefox is nice. Been waiting for it for ages, finally out. Seems pretty quick too.)

--A

omfg my dad's computer is so cool.
I am typing this on his touchscreen.
I must not allow myself to get used to it.
the old man barely knows how to load netflix.
he is still runninghis computer in the same word processor idiom that he bought our first computer for in 1980!

Avatar wrote:

Syl wrote:Some people like Google Chrome. It's supposed to be lighter and faster than Firefox (and needless to say, Explorer).

Meh. It also takes up 250+ Mb on my drive, while Firefox 4 takes up 30Mb. Chrome does appear to be a little lighter on resources. But just a little.

(The new Firefox is nice. Been waiting for it for ages, finally out. Seems pretty quick too.)

--A

Chrome is lighter when you only have a few tabs open, but Firefox does better when you have dozens of tabs.

Of course, I like the start page for Chrome (where it lists your most common websites). So I use that.