On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Jason Hsu, embedded engineer, Linux user <jhsu802701 at jasonhsu.com> wrote: > I don't get it. "Upgrading" the Windows OS inevitably means downgrading the speed and stability. Compare '98 era linux distros to today's. I recall running a full Redhat desktop on a 486 with 32MB of RAM. Things change. Needs change. Such is life. > I'm part of the local IEEE's Project Phoenix group, and we have an old laptop with only 256 MB of RAM and a 500 MHz processor. This laptop originally had Windows 98, which was upgraded to 2000 > and then to XP. 256MB of RAM and 500Mhz is sufficient for running XP. Do a clean install of XP SP2 Pro and you should see adequate performance. You'll want to tweak some things like swap file size though for optimum. > Thus, in my opinion, "upgrading" a Windows OS on a computer is just as idiotic as installing a 4-cylinder engine in a Lincoln Town Car. Except eventually the Honda engine dies too, as will your prized '98 laptop relic. Did I mention things change? > At least everyone recognizes the idiocy of the latter feat, which I doubt has ever been done. You must not have cable TV, huh? > I've since made the REAL upgrade to the old laptop. I installed antiX Linux, which I consider to be the gold standard for distros. antiX Linux is lightweight enough for computers from the Windows 98 era, yet is user-friendly and is compatible with the superior Debian software respository (which you need for engineering). antiX Linux version M8.2 also works with our WPC54GS v1.1 wireless card. I'm glad you found a Debian distro that runs well on your laptop. Debian testing running xfce seems to be light enough to run on most common hardware (such as your relic from '98). I have no idea what this rant was about, but I'm glad you found success with Debian. Brian