Christofoo Review

A few weeks ago I had a coworker tell me how painfully slow Pentium 4 computers are.

I said what?

I'm typing this on my 1.5 GHz Pentium M laptop (which is a lot like a 2.2 GHz Pentium 4), running Debian Linux, and I'm here to tell you that it's super smooth.

Now, it was true for many years that hardware requirements increased with every new operating system release, and this was true for both Windows and Linux.

But back around 2002 when a lot of computers were about 2 GHz and 512 MB of RAM, I thought to myself that desktop system requirements might plateau, because this seemed to be a "sweet spot" for seamless office-type use. In the Linux world, this actually came to pass. Here are Debian's minimum hardware recommendations today in 2009: Debian Linux Requirements

This isn't even the lightest you can run with a modern Linux system. Note the emphasis on modern; yes you can run Windows 95 on just about anything (if you can find an installer), but Win 95 will be functionally crippled in many ways, compared to a modern system.

1. Debian can run XFCE instead of Gnome, fairly comfortably, on an 800MHz Pentium 3 (Celeron) with 256 MB RAM, although video streams (youtube.com) are no good on this processor.
2. Puppy linux and it's derivatives can run on Pentium II generation computers with 64MB or 128MB of RAM, and do a reasonable job of it, although some applications such as OpenOffice are not very happy on less than 256MB. (In principle Debian can probably do anything that Puppy can, but...)
3. D*mn Small Linux can run on a 486 with 16 MB of RAM and do some amazing things on that hardware (like Wifi and USB), however the applications that you can run in 16 MB or RAM can be disappointing, (and a system like that would be especially frustrating for novice users), however with 64MB Ram on a Pentium I, D*mn Small Linux can also run more advanced applications. Note that this isn't the same thing as comparing to Windows 95, which is obsolete and gets no development. D*mn Small Linux is being actively developed right now, and has up-to-date support for things like Wifi, USB, and multi-user security.

Windows held on to a Pentium 4 generation spec for a long time with Windows XP, although Windows XP actually slowed down as it aged for many users, causing them to feel a need to upgrade anyways (see below). Furthermore, I think the future of Windows is clearly leading towards Windows 7, Windows XP users will upgrade sooner or later, so here are system requirements for Windows 7 (which by the way look about the same as for Windows Vista): Windows 7 Requirements Unlike Linux, Windows really needs this level of hardware. If you don't have 1GB (preferably 2GB or more) of RAM you will be unhappy.

So here is my point: History has shown that Windows users need to upgrade their entire machine once every 3 to 7 years (depending on the user) just to keep up with the obsolescence cycle of programs and systems. On the other hand Linux users like me can buy cheap used computers from people who are dumping their "old and slow" models and still feel "like new", moreover Linux users can upgrade with new releases (for free) without feeling pinched in their existing hardware.

Case in point: my laptop - a Thinkpad T41 - was a $999 in 2003 when it was new, I bought it used in 2007 for $350 (it's now ~$200 on ebay), and it runs awesome in 2009. Parts are also relatively cheap for laptops of this age (which is good because I had to replace the motherboard for ~$80 this year). I can even get replacement batteries for under $50 (which is good because they do wear out over time).

A lot of people would even be happy with Debian Linux on Pentium 3 laptops, which range from $50 to $100 on ebay - more especially if they can get 512MB RAM. For a "netbook" or "nettop" application, that's all you need. (Although I personally think my Pentium M is worth the extra, certainly if you want to use youtube.)

But do you really need Linux in order to get good use out of old hardware? Windows XP runs plenty fast on Pentium 4s, and Windows 2000 runs plenty fast on Pentium 3s, right?

First there is the issue of obsolescence as I mentioned, and the threat of your favorite application ending support for Windows XP or 2000 (probably 2000 is already out of support). Whereas I'm comparing these to the latest and greatest Linux OS.

Furthermore, there are two or three hurdles that you as a user must deal with in order to keep Windows on aging hardware.

1. Antivirus: can you live without it in Windows? Antivirus is a huge drain on hardware. On Linux it is not required for technical reasons. (Linux defaults to low privilege users, and distribution security updates encompass applications such as email clients, drastically minimizing exposure, also there just aren't as many viri for Linux.)
2. Keeping it clean or reinstalling: Somehow you have to know not to install things like HP utilities and other background drains. Uninstalling often won't fix problems because of registry bloat, so if you mess up you have to either use Windows restore points or reinstall your system. In the Linux world the GNU applications are really just a lot more rational about resource use, and there is no such thing as registry bloat.
3. Keeping it clean if you have kids: Somehow you have to prevent kids from messing things up. In the Linux world by default you use a low privilege user and all administration tasks (like software installation) require a password. In Windows XP and 2000 you can do the same type of thing but it really doesn't work properly, and it isn't the default.

My bottom line: there are Windows options for cheap older hardware, but Linux users have a real upper hand. This may not seem like a lot of money, but when you factor in the number of breakages and obsolescence upgrades, the costs add up over the years.