What OS & programs should I install on an old 2.6GHz celeron PC

rubadub

I have a friends Dell Dimension 2400 2.6GHz Celeron with 1.25GB ram. It had gotten very slow. I stuck in a 80GB HD I had and did a fresh install of XP, I put on an old version of firefox I had and it was reasonably OK, I think it was 3.X or so. This would probably have done him for his needs, just basic internet, outlook, word & excel.

Then I upgraded to the latest firefox 17.0.1 and put on the latest Avast and it seems to have gotten a lot worse already.

So I am wondering should I have kept the old firefox? do the latest ones expect a better system and so run a lot slower? -same with the AV software, is there one out there better suited to an old PC like this? e.g. can I have an old one that can still get up to date updates

What about the OS itself, would linux or something else be better. I had a ubuntu disc I tried running off the disc but it didn't work, not sure what version. If the like of ubuntu would be better should it be an older release? if so which.

Any other tips on what to do with it would be appreciated, though might be time to dump it.

yoyo

Lubuntu works perfectly on slower machines. Also try avoiding Chrome or Firefox as they can be quite heavy, Opera is a good lightweight browser.

Nick

rubadub

Cheers I am going to try Lubuntu so. Does anybody know of any good sites with basic guides about it? or is their site the best place. i.e. best practice like setting up different partitions etc or how the HD should be formatted.

yoyo

rubadub wrote: »

Cheers I am going to try Lubuntu so. Does anybody know of any good sites with basic guides about it? or is their site the best place. i.e. best practice like setting up different partitions etc or how the HD should be formatted.

Lubuntu is essentially a lighter version of Ubuntu, which uses the LX Desktop Environment. Their site like the wiki and forums are probably the best places for support and info, but as it is based on Ubuntu driver support and installing it is very straightforward. I use Lubuntu these days for lots of stuff due to it being much less bloated than newer Ubuntu revisions. I usually don't bother partitioning the primary OS drive, just use all the space. But if you want to keep Windows, the Lubuntu installer will allow you to dual boot and configure a bootloader accordingly

Nick

Freddy Smelly

rubadub wrote: »

I have a friends Dell Dimension 2400 2.6GHz Celeron with 1.25GB ram. It had gotten very slow. I stuck in a 80GB HD I had and did a fresh install of XP, I put on an old version of firefox I had and it was reasonably OK, I think it was 3.X or so. This would probably have done him for his needs, just basic internet, outlook, word & excel.

Then I upgraded to the latest firefox 17.0.1 and put on the latest Avast and it seems to have gotten a lot worse already.

So I am wondering should I have kept the old firefox? do the latest ones expect a better system and so run a lot slower? -same with the AV software, is there one out there better suited to an old PC like this? e.g. can I have an old one that can still get up to date updates

What about the OS itself, would linux or something else be better. I had a ubuntu disc I tried running off the disc but it didn't work, not sure what version. If the like of ubuntu would be better should it be an older release? if so which.

Any other tips on what to do with it would be appreciated, though might be time to dump it.

how many ram slots are on it? xp will run great with 2gb ram in it. and even better with 3gb ram in it.

im assuming that uses DDR PC3200 RAM which you should be still able to find on ebay or adverts.ie

if the pc has 2x ram slots 2gb (2x 1gb) will be it's limit
if the pc has 4x ram slots 3.25gb (even with 4x 1gb installed) will be it's limit due the cpu only being a 32bit cpu

Chet T16

I have one of these since new and its still my only desktop. I'm running XP pro with 2GB of ram (only 2 slots, 256MB when new)

It doesn't run very well any more i have to say!

rubadub

Chet T16 wrote: »

I'm running XP pro with 2GB of ram (only 2 slots, 256MB when new)

I think it can take more ram, I did put new ram in it a few years back and didn't notice too much difference. I also did upgrade another guys to 2GB on XP and again did not notice great difference.

I put lubuntu on it but cannot get the wireless to connect, will start a new thread in the unix forum. I like the look of lubuntu, I also ran it off the disc on a laptop alongside it and it worked fine.

Cheers guys.

Freddy Smelly

rubadub wrote: »

I think it can take more ram, I did put new ram in it a few years back and didn't notice too much difference. I also did upgrade another guys to 2GB on XP and again did not notice great difference.

I put lubuntu on it but cannot get the wireless to connect, will start a new thread in the unix forum. I like the look of lubuntu, I also ran it off the disc on a laptop alongside it and it worked fine.

Cheers guys.

xp will run fine on 2gb... just dont install the bloatware... disable services you don't need, set the virtual memory to 2048mb min & 3072 max and it should run fine. is the gcard using some of that ram or does it have it's own ram?

it will run slower when the gpu is built on to the motherboard... but if u stick in a cheap gcard with it's own ram then u can disable the shared memory and the full 2gb will go to the os + apps.

also make sure you install anti malware software to rid yourself of spyware.

malwarebytes is free and is good

rubadub

2GB is the max the 2400 can take, and it is shared with the graphics card.

I might try and get a loan of another 1GB stick to try in it, I know he will not want to pump more money into it unless we are certain it will improve significantly.

I am still wondering if Lubuntu without new RAM would outperform the XP even with new RAM.

Khannie

Lubuntu + 1.25G should be fine for most things. Give it a lash and see how it works out. You can always upgrade later.

50 tabs open like most punters do though and it's going to struggle. I only have 2G in my home machine (normal ubuntu) and only this week did it approach using all the RAM and that was when the youngfella had about 20 youtube tabs open in Chrome.

Access

Freddy Smelly wrote: »

it will run slower when the gpu is built on to the motherboard... but if u stick in a cheap gcard with it's own ram then u can disable the shared memory and the full 2gb will go to the os + apps.

Just a quick question... where would you go in xp to disable shared memory if you have a 1GB graphics card installed already? Thanks.

GreenWolfe

Access wrote: »

Just a quick question... where would you go in xp to disable shared memory if you have a 1GB graphics card installed already? Thanks.

That setting is usually in the BIOS.

riclad

Mint version ten linux, fits on 1 cdr 690meg,comes with firefox, mediaplayer ,runs very fast ,much faster than xp, needs no antivirus.
download chrome browser and vlc player from software centre.
and ITS MUCH more secure than windows xp.

http://www.linuxmint.com/edition.php?id=67
its easy to use ,has a similar gui to windows.
it runs fast even on a 1gig pc, i think chrome is just easier to use than opera.
i dont like the new opera interface.
i have win7 basic ,can open bout 20 tabs in chrome ,with 1gig ram.
Get the 32bit version.
winxp, not very secure, it needs gigabytes of updates.
unless you are a gamer ,no reason to install it.
windows 32bit can only acess 3.5gig ram.

GreenWolfe

riclad wrote: »

Mint version ten linux, fits on 1 cdr 690meg,comes with firefox, mediaplayer ,runs very fast ,much faster than xp, needs no antivirus.
download chrome browser and vlc player from software centre.
and ITS MUCH more secure than windows xp.

http://www.linuxmint.com/edition.php?id=67
its easy to use ,has a similar gui to windows.
it runs fast even on a 1gig pc, i think chrome is just easier to use than opera.
i dont like the new opera interface.
i have win7 basic ,can open bout 20 tabs in chrome ,with 1gig ram.
Get the 32bit version.
winxp, not very secure, it needs gigabytes of updates.
unless you are a gamer ,no reason to install it.
windows 32bit can only acess 3.5gig ram.

Mint 10 hasn't been supported since April 2012.

TerrorFirmer

1.25GB of Ram is still fine, though 2gb wouldn't hurt - Celeron CPU's from that era are absolute garbage though, you'd get a s478 P4 2.4-2.8ghz for about a tenner second hand that'd really improve the speed of the machine.

rubadub

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

you'd get a s478 P4 2.4-2.8ghz for about a tenner second hand

Cheers, upgrading the processor never even crossed my mind! I did one years ago and it costed a fair bit at the time. I see P4s going for next to nothing on ebay. Will have to see the max it could take.

H3llR4iser

The real problem is that it's the content as well that got very heavy nowadays - even browsing most websites is quite taxing on older PCs as all the nice features and gimmicks really put a strain on the CPU (classic example, Facebook's galleries).

Most modern AVs are quite heavy, but I would try Microsoft Security Essentials (if there's still a Windows XP version); Look for a lightweight browser - this could be a starting point: http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-web-browser-lightweight.htm

Current mainstream browsers are quite resource hungry, the only might be Opera.

I would not go the Linux way if your friend is a basic user / not technically minded; He will be unhappy with it and will end up bugging you for every small thing - for example, struggling to adapt to OpenOffice as opposed to Word and Excel.

Probably the idea of putting in a P4 and make use of the full 2GB (if it has 2GB, could it have a 256 + 1024 configuration? Just wondering) might help a bit.

riclad

even for a newbie,non expert mint linux is fine,if user just browses web,plays music,videos ,uses facebook,browses web.
IT doesn,t need constant updates for the os, or an antivirus running ,therefore it runs much faster than xp.
Just install chrome browser ,vlc video player .
IT doesn,t have loads of security problems like windows
even on a pc with 500meg ram it runs fine, its designed for non expert user.vlc plays any video, file and dvd disks.
if you are a heavy user,gamer you won,t be using a
celeron pc anyway.

MOST people i know just use browser ,music ,facebook. mp3 player,and vlc ,95 per cent of the time.
once it installed it should,nt need any tech support or updates from you.
Just make sure the p4 cpu is compatible with motherboard socket
before you buy.
See http://www.videolan.org/vlc/index.html

http://www.linuxmint.com/edition.php?id=67

H3llR4iser

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Most modern AVs are quite heavy, but I would try Microsoft Security Essentials (if there's still a Windows XP version); Look for a lightweight browser - this could be a starting point: http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-web-browser-lightweight.htm

I've actually found MSE to be heavier than Avast, especially on XP.

Logical_Bear

Khannie wrote: »

and only this week did it approach using all the RAM and that was when the youngfella had about 20 youtube tabs open in Chrome.

and if was like what my young fella does its all minecraft vids or how to glitch in call of Duty:pac::pac:

riclad

the thing that annoys me bout windows is constant updates needed for every program, av updates,
on 2gig ram pc linux is like 3x times faster.
xp needs gigabytes of updates on a new install.

riclad

riclad wrote: »

the thing that annoys me bout windows is constant updates needed for every program, av updates,
on 2gig ram pc linux is like 3x times faster.
xp needs gigabytes of updates on a new install.

That's a major exaggeration. 300-400MB tops.

rubadub

H3llR4iser wrote: »

I would not go the Linux way if your friend is a basic user / not technically minded; He will be unhappy with it and will end up bugging you for every small thing - for example, struggling to adapt to OpenOffice as opposed to Word and Excel.

He wanted a new PC and would have got a new office on it, so was expecting to have to get used to new layouts etc. I was playing around with lubuntu last night and found it similar enough. It all very basic stuff they will be doing.

riclad wrote: »

Just make sure the p4 cpu is compatible with motherboard socket

I ordered one today, confirming it was correct first, loads of discussions about it. The max it could take was 3.06GHz so got that, just under €8 incl delivery. On some CPU rating site the old one's score was ~270 and the new one ~390

Freddy Smelly

Karsini wrote: »

That's a major exaggeration. 300-400MB tops.

even less if you got yourself a slipstreamed xp sp3 disc :P

to do this you need a geniune copy of xp + valid cd key and the standalone update files from microsoft

http://winsupersite.com/windows-xp/slipstreaming-windows-xp-service-pack-3-sp3

there is a guide on how to slipstream your xp disc

rubadub

Got Lubuntu running with a different wireless usb and it was quite impressive, both speed wise for the internet and the stability of it. As he is only doing very basic word, excel & outlook the alternatives looked grand too. It was a breeze compared to the usual post-install tweaks needed for XP.

No fiddling about with poxy validation codes either!

Freddy Smelly

Freddy Smelly wrote: »

even less if you got yourself a slipstreamed xp sp3 disc :P

to do this you need a geniune copy of xp + valid cd key and the standalone update files from microsoft

http://winsupersite.com/windows-xp/slipstreaming-windows-xp-service-pack-3-sp3

there is a guide on how to slipstream your xp disc

I was thinking that myself when I posted it, if I was exaggerating it? I think I know how to slipstream though, been at this for 10 years. :pac:

Anyway, an unpatched Server 2003 SP2 install currently offers 129 updates at 134.1MB.

riclad

if i got paid for all the time i spent fixing xp, getting rid of virus,es on various, windows xp pcs ,i,d be very well ,off.There,s loads of programs for linux,eg libreoffice free,
and you don,t need to worry bout malware, spyware on a linux pc .

rubadub

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

1.25GB of Ram is still fine, though 2gb wouldn't hurt - Celeron CPU's from that era are absolute garbage though, you'd get a s478 P4 2.4-2.8ghz for about a tenner second hand that'd really improve the speed of the machine.

So I got the 3.06GHz P4 for €8, I have only used XP on it. My very basic benchmark was testing how quick I could get a google page up from booting, it was 2min, vs 2min55s before the chip change. It does seem faster & smoother when browsing and starting up programs too.

This P4 3.06 has hyper-threading (anything lower didn't), I was able to enable this in the bios. Not sure if I should enable this for Lubuntu though?, I will be getting rid of XP off it altogether.

I know more ram will not be bad, but is there a way to see if I really need it? I see a 1GB stick for €11 on ebay which would bring me to 2GB. If I run Lubuntu could I monitor the usage to let me see if I would benefit a lot, if at all?

For windows I have seen guys saying to monitor the memory usage in task manager and if its above X% you could do with more.

Also the current ram is mismatched. There is 1GB PC3200 DDR 400 and I think 256MB PC2700 DDR 333

I used that CPU-Z software and it showed 1GB PC3200 (200MHz) and the other 256MB PC2700 (166MHz).

The dell spec shows PC2100 (266-MHz) or PC2700 (333-MHz) DDR SDRAM (non-ECC)
I knew when I got the 1GB it was overspec'd but should run fine. But I did expect CPU-Z to show similar speeds for them, as the original ram stick seemed to be the highest spec from dell. Or perhaps CPU-Z was reading the what the ram is not what it is running at.

When I changed the processor and went to the bios I noticed the RAM speed was listed as higher too. Not sure what, maybe 266 became 333.

I did hear the mismatched ram will run at the lower speed of the 2 sticks, so wanted to test & compare performance with the 2 sticks vs just the 1GB.

Torqay

rubadub wrote: »

This P4 3.06 has hyper-threading (anything lower didn't)

The 3.06 GHz Northie was the first Pentium 4 HT but by no means the "lowest", later versions clocked from 2.4 up to 3.8GHz.

rubadub

Torqay wrote: »

The 3.06 GHz Northie was the first Pentium 4 HT but by no means the "lowest", later versions clocked from 2.4 up to 3.8GHz.

Right, I suppose I should have said its the only HT capable processor that could go into the 2400. On another site I saw one guy saying this was a big plus, and that the processor was rare enough (I found it easy) and that he had put them in a few 2400's and saw dramatic improvement.

Also I have the choice of 2 hard drives, a 200GB 7200rpm and a 80GB 5400rpm, is there any way to test which is faster, I read of some 5400 ones possibly being faster. The size is not really a problem. I would not mind installing linux on both, the 200GB is quite noisy with XP on it anyway, doesn't sound on the way out or anything.

EDIT: I can get a loan of a 1GB stick of ram so if there is any sort of benchmark test out there I could use it before seeing if its worth it.

Torqay

rubadub wrote: »

put them in a few 2400's and saw dramatic improvement.

I would say so, certainly a lot faster than the original 2.66 GHz celery. I had a 3.4 GHz HT for a while, it benchmarked better than an entry level Pentium D with 2 physical cores.

rubadub wrote: »

Also I have the choice of 2 hard drives, a 200GB 7200rpm and a 80GB 5400rpm, is there any way to test which is faster, I read of some 5400 ones possibly being faster.

Sure, just run ATTO on each drive. Or look up the drive model here. But my money is on the 200 MB drive, probably has a larger cache too.