>>54666394
Windows xp.

It runs great on my old inspiron 3700.

420mhz celeron, 60GB HDD, 256MB ram, ATI Rage mobility.

>>54666410
>Windows xp
>using a no longer supported Operating system.

>>54666423
http://www.zdnet.com/article/registry-hack-enables-continued-updates-for-windows-xp/

Fucking moron.

>>54666423
Supported by who and why?
Doesn't it work perfectly once installed?

>>54666410
>windows xp

Good luck with your computer becoming a part of an actual botnet.

WinXP is so full of holes that when I had a botnet it was made up almost entirely of XP machines, and some unpatched old linuxes running in research labs.

>>54666410
Do you use antivirus on it?
I feel if I put avast or something on that old ntoebook it will slow it down
while linux cut on that

Probably try lubuntu

>>54666394
Dell:i3 gt820m 4GB of ram=280$
Lenovo:pentium quad 4GB ram=230$
How broke are you?

>>54666607
its not for me and its not mine
and I am from the part of the world where if shit works you keep using it, or make it usable for someone else in the family

>>54666394
it will work ok but try to get more ram, the apparent performance jumps you get by doubling those 512 even once are amazing.

it will run run but 4chin/casual browsing will bring it to it's knees. them browsers need moar ram.

you can also give zram a try. some 2 years ago main pc broke and I used xfce on a single core celeron @~2ghz and 1gb ram and while it was working, it was painful.

>>54666633
the thing is... person who use it would tell me that all these years it was OK to use... with XP

>>54666617
Dude just get the shit I posted second hand at half price, I get the keep using crap but I have a 4 year old laptop with dualcore and 4GB of ram that I still use and are desperate to dump but that laptop you posted is utter crap!

>>54666667
>reading is hard

>>54666674
IT'S PUTRID HORSE CRAP!
MY PHONE IS 2 TIMES FASTER!

>>54666394
> 512 MB RAM
Useless. Even my netbook with 1Gb RAM can't run modern Firefox or Chrome well anymore.

>>54666472
>not reading your own articles
http://www.zdnet.com/article/hacked-windows-xp-still-updates-still-a-bad-idea/

>>54666579
Nope. I use it for typing up documents and playing pinball. I have a much faster netbook and desktop for online activities.

>>54666790
Windows xp will still run better than any Linux distro. I know, i was in the same predicament as op with my dell.

>>54666803
What about something like puppy linux? Or anything with LXQT?

>>54666651
define OK.

technically speaking xp will run with 64 megs of ram but outside of opening explorer to navigate the filesystem it will feel like shit.

a modern browser with no extensions will eat 100+ mb ram just to show you a blank page and will easily get to 300-400 just to show you 5 tabs. that leaves no space for file caches and system processes.

strictly browsing:
it will be painful, hdd will trash 90% all the time, task switching will take 10+ seconds. bump the ram to 1gb and things will improve to such an extreme that hdd trashing will happen only during heavy usage. bump to 2gb and trashing will happen only on load and cache write; the biggest bottleneck will move from the ram to the cpu/hdd.

it will be ok to play "office" games and browse random simple static websites. but open a chan thread that is close to bump limit or autoloading sites like facebook and you will wish death to everything that breathes.

>>54666394
>I would like to go with xubuntu on it
Too heavy
Xubuntu is light, but still eats up like 250 MB of RAM right after booting up

Lubuntu is light, eats aprox 140 MB of RAM after booting

Debian is absolutely dank and eats around 80 MB right after booting up

If i were you, i'd go with Debian, its the lightest, most popular distro

>>54666732
both run normal on a 1gb 1.6ghz 13yo laptop i have
can watcn youtube 480p html5 /havent tried flash
720p with mpv

op it would work but another 512mb would help