https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Taq3KIco8mk
this should settle it once and for all
who cares?
didn't know xp had a service pack 4
>>51808837
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/171171-introducing-unofficial-windows-xp-sp4/
Lubuntu literally fails in every way compared to XP on that old machine.
That's is beyond embarrassing.
Its over, GNU+Linux is finished
on the other hand, try them both after a month of usage by average user.
Audio ripping is the worst part.
It's not his rare/obscure CD, 90% of my disks don't get tag info picked up on Linux either.
MusicBrainz just fucked my shit up and I probably have spent over 200 hours in EasyTAG (even batching as much as possible).
I put some of them in my brothers Win8 machine a while back and it just worked for him I was internally pissed.
>>51808776
>current OS runs slower than outdated IS on old hardware
Wow. What a shocker.
>>51808947
>software made for 2015 slower than software made for 2001 on the same toaster
No shit.
>>51808776
>Caching cookies
Triggered
>>51809219
Most of the software he used on XP was a lot newer than that.
This video confirms what I already knew about the "breathe new life into your old hardware" myth.
>>51808794
This.
>>51808776
Settles what? Who cared in the first place?
>>51808776
why use lubuntu instead of mint?
Anyone with half a brain already knew to avoid Linux on these 10 year old machines and just go with XP, embedded edition since they ended normal support.
>>51810888
He probably tried, but the results probably was not interesting
>>51808776
>Comparing old software to new software on a old PC.
Kek
The reason people use Linux on old PCs is because of new software support.
A fair comparison would be runing a newer windows(which wouldn't fucking work).
Did I just fall for bait?
>>51810822
Boot up and other related to kernel and init system. Firefox 42 is still years newer than IE 8.
> "breathe new life into your old hardware" myth.
There is no myth. That system wouldn't be able handle Windows 7. If you want the fastest you breath old life to the old system like >>51810890 or use an old supported lts distribution with Linux kernel 2.6 like CentOS 5
>>51811283
Firefox is also massively more efficient than IE8, and it was still slower.
>>51811997
>more efficient
At web browsing and memory management, what does that have to do with disk footprint? Firefox size grew six times since 2009, of course it would load slower than IE. If he had tested the same version FX on both systems it would be some sort of comparison.
>>51808776
Honestly I'm not surprised by these results.
I've recently installed lubuntu (latest LTS release) on my mother's laptop replacing windows 7 since she always experienced problems and slowdowns with it.
I was absolutely amazed how terribly sluggish it is. Boot alone took well over a minute and a half.
I also tested it later a fresh installation of xubuntu on my laptop was significantly slower than debian stable + xfce on the same configuration.
I have no fucking idea what canonical puts in their spinoffs but god almighty they're almost microsoft tier at making them unusable.
As for the video, for a fair comparison I would like to see him repeating the test after a year of use on both machines, with installing software and doing normal stuff.
I'm afraid our friend might be just dumb
>>51812696
>his handle is vwestlife
>thinks he's entitled to opinion
>>51812696
That unofficial SP4 set windows update to use POSReady 2009 updates.
>>51808776
>pentium 4
you fucked up
try using a newer machine with more memory, and a x64 version of linux...
sage goes in all fields
seems about right with my experience dual booting linux
>>51808776
There is not much difference between Lubuntu and regular ubuntu. Since ubuntu is slow as shit there is no reason really that anyone should be surprised by this outcome. Fedora is a lot better in most departments, though support is hard to come by.
>>51813793
>mandatory Fedora shill appears
