This tutorial-style article outlines a strategy to avoid costly upgrades from Windows 98 to Windows XP — in terms of both hardware and software — by upgrading to Linux, instead. The author reviews the typical requirements of computers used for relatively generic purposes, and shows how to give a new lease on life to aging laptops and PCs by replacing obsolete OSes such as Windows 98 with a combination of Linux, free open source applications, and inexpensive commercial software.
Upgrading to Linux from Windows 98
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
That is fairly well balanced and nicely aimed towards getting into Linux without the hardware upgrades needed by the likes of KDE and GNOME. Not all businesses/people can afford that cost – but want something better than Win98.
This article is one to give the fence-sitters to show them it can be done – and they can drop all the Windows problems when they do it!
KDE or Gnome will not run on 128 Meg of ram – unless you’re a masochist. KDE, Gnome, and XP both have about the same requirements.
It would also be painful to run XFCE-4 in 64 meg of ram. 128 meg would probably make a mediocre XFCE-4 system.
This guy underestimates the requirements of various desktops.
Better stick with Fluxbox.
And then you bring the browser into the mix and it’s all over with anything less than 256 meg.
Better stick with dillo.
what is this guy thinking ?
if someone moving from windows 98 to linux because they are not going to upgrade the machines to run XP should not be given simplymepis as a starting point in linux.
dont get me wrong, simplymepis is a wonderful distro, but not for a machine that is too underpowered for XP.
I have worked in a place that included 2000 ibm m300 machines with 32mb of ram and windows nt4…..
XP would never work on these machines, neither would kde or gnome. well thats a lie, they would all work, but too slow to actually do anything.
no for a decent system on these machines, xfce was needed, we could have used fluxbox and set up the themes so the users still think they was on a “faster” nt, but we chose xfce and it was excellent job
my point ? tailor you recommendations for a distro that will do the best job on the hardware you will be using
Actually, if for some odd reason these users he’s imagining are stuck with 64 meg it would probably be better to stick with 98. Because they’re not going to be run Gnome, KDE, or even XFCE-4, and fluxbox and dillo is going to be an underwhelming experience to say the least.
These people with “upgrade” advice always underestimate.
Why don’t people consider WindowMaker more often, it’s awesome.
XP is pretty stable and responsive here at 256MB 633 MHz. It even hosts my website. I have run XP in a VM with 128MB and it runs pretty well too.
I have another machine, 733 MHz with 192 MB RAM and Redhat 9 Linux. Believe me KDE and GNOME are far less responsive than XP.
An underpower machine can never make the case for Linux if you wish to use a nice desktop environment like XP. XP is much better (unless if licensing costs matters a lot).
Windows 98 with all the updates, a good free firewall like Kerio, a nice free antivirus like Avast or AntiVir Personal, Ad-Aware and Firefox should easily extend win98’s life cycle!
Does anyone else agree on this one with me?
Why does the author mention the word upgrade? You can’t upgrade from 98 to Linux, that’s called downgrading…
The thing about 98 is that it didn’t turn on a bunch of services out of the box. If you knew what you were doing you could even avoid most BSODs…at least I did. And you could run it somewhat adequately on 64 meg of ram and still have a decent desktop – something that is close to impossible on Linux. You can do it – you just have to do a lot of hand-crafting…maybe even installing Gnome 1.x or something.
Going to fluxbox and dillo is going to be a downgrade though.
Nice article. I won’t comment on the technical details, but I think this article does describe a good situation. Normally you have those ‘Linux on new hardware’ vs. ‘WinXP’ or ‘MacOSX’ on new hardware ….
It appears (can find the link … aw, sorry!) some 10% of all Windows Users are still on Win98, so there certainly is a market here. Besides, if you move from Win98 + Office 97 to some Linux distro with OpenOffice 1.x (stable) it is a reasonable easy migration (depending on other applications of course) in a comparable visual environment.
Must say that those OOo (beta) screenshots also look good, which makes it easiers to upgrade later versions of ms office users as well.
A tip from who makes many win9x to linux migrations: if you are using very old hardware (like Pentium I, II or k6) and you cannot spend money to upgrade hardware, the better strategy is to use LTSP or Thinstation to transform these computers into X terminals.
It works very well and it is not difficult. Administration will be also much easier than windows.
This is a big linux advantage.
you hit the nail on the head….
no sme with a bit of sense is going to pay to upgrade the memory on 1000+ pcs if they also have to pay license fees to upgrade the software on them too.
this is the place where linux should be making a killing, but I honestly think this will be were Sun shines with its java desktop.
I have tried it on well underpowered machines and it is sweet.
How are these people supposed to run OO with 128 meg of ram or even worse 64 meg? It’s not happening.
OO in 64mb and a VERY lightwieght window manager is ok. not the fastest, but fine enough for someone who is used to 98 and ms office on the same machine.
Why don’t people consider WindowMaker more often, it’s awesome.
My thoughts exactly. There are dozens of live-CD’s but only few that default to a Window Maker desktop. I guess people find Window Maker strange and unfamiliar because it doesn’t come with a panel that people are used to. But it’s easy to add a panel to Window Maker (I use it with perlpanel), much easier than adding desktop icons to Fluxbox (I also run Fluxbox with idesk).
Window Maker’s “appicons” function pretty much like desktop icons and Window Maker comes with a GUI configuration program. And it’s easier on resources than XFCE. I’d really like to see a Debian-based live-CD with an easy hd-installer that comes with a ready-configured Window Maker + perlpanel. I think that many people would like this combination.
thats what i did when i built this computer back in 2001, Win98 would not run very good on it because the hardware is too new for win98, i seen WinXP on my brother’s computer and was not impressed so i never bought a copy of XP, i just kept the dualboot as i left it when i first built this box, but the next time i had the time and inclination to reinstall i just simply wiped Win98 off and used cfdisk to build 4 disk partitions /boot /swap / /usr and only have one Linux distro installed (Slackware) (no more dualboot) using Linux exclusivly & i been without Windoze since 2002…
KDE or Gnome will not run on 128 Meg of ram – unless you’re a masochist. KDE, Gnome, and XP both have about the same requirements.
The author clearly said 128mb *or more*.Memory is not so expensive isn’t it?You don’t have to pay license fees for those pieces of silicon either :-).Besides whit KDE you can disable all eye-candy which is useless for a corporate desktop anyway.
No one ever mentions iceWM. For users moving from ~98 to linux it would be great. even has an XP skin. and I know it runs fine in 64mb of ram because thats what ive used it on.. along with firefox. FIrefox takes a couple of seconds to load but it loads an runs ok. so did openoffice
So if you have windows 98 it’s called upgrade, and if you have XP it’s called switch?
So if you have windows 98 it’s called upgrade, and if you have XP it’s called switch?
Makes sense if you call moving from 98 to XP an upgrade, which I guess you do, no?
I’ve been resurrecting some old hardware for my sister, ending up with a p166 mmx with 48MBs of RAM. Using a tweaked Debian Sarge with IceWM and Rox-Filer combined with lightweight applications like Abiword, gave a reasonably satisfying result. Things got bad when trying to find a usable web browser though. Both Opera and Firefox seemed to consume about 50% of all RAM according to top, and Dillo or links2 weren’t really usable alternatives for my sister.
KDE and Gnome will run fine on 128MB of RAM. Gnome takes under 90MB of RAM with nothing loaded, and KDE takes barely over 100MB. This means with a few apps like firefox and gaim open you will do a very acceptible amount of swapping..
Stop being so damn picky. We are afterall talking about people whove lived with almost no RAM their whole lives; they won’t care about a little hard disk thrashing.
The author mentioned it in the article actually. He even put in a screenshot of the XP skin.
oops
I guess I should have read through the whole thing before commenting 
I run Slackware 10.1 using KDE with 128mb on a 600mhz machine and it runs decent, not great, not horrible just okay. I also have Open Office installed, and Realplayer and the machine does what I want it to do. Its not painfully slow like some said or blazingly quick either.
and I know it runs fine in 64mb of ram because thats what ive used it on.. along with firefox. FIrefox takes a couple of seconds to load but it loads an runs ok. so did openoffice
I’ve used OpenOffice with 128 MB on Linux and Windows.
Nothing is slower and more painful to use.
On the other hand, the fastest Office suite I’ve ever used was/is MS Office XP. Loads in a second, works like a charm. Some MS products may be bloatware, but Office XP is definitely not!
And it runs on Windows 98 & ME (Office 2003 does not, requires W2K), so why upgrade the OS? Companies are more interested in getting a fully functional, up-to-date Office suite (which XP is, and way more than OOo)…
“KDE or Gnome will not run on 128 Meg of ram – unless you’re a masochist. KDE, Gnome, and XP both have about the same requirements.”
You can tweak gnome, KDE and winXP to fit into 128 Mb of RAM, like I did on many machines. It’s not that difficult, and the result is not that bad (of course, xfce with 128 Mb RAM is very very responsive and it’s preferable).
“It would also be painful to run XFCE-4 in 64 meg of ram. 128 meg would probably make a mediocre XFCE-4 system.”
If we tweak a little bit, Xfce + Rox Filer runs perfectly on 64 Mb RAM. I have an toshiba portege (p 266 MMX, 64 Mb RAM, Wifi card) and I can do work on it (writing stuff with LaTeX and using gnumeric) with has ubuntu linux (highly trimmed down and optimized) with kernel 2.6.
Main problem: Firefox is a huge browser for such a small memory setup. We need modern browsers that are less memory hungry.
That said I can even browse the web with firefox quite well (with firefox, multitasking is a bit troublesome tough
“This guy underestimates the requirements of various desktops. Better stick with Fluxbox.”
I would argue that you are overstating things a little bit…
Isn’t this the exact market for ReactOS?
A comment on Maniak comment (Stop, I get great pain between my ears).
Last week I replaced my Windows XP to Kubuntu, on my IBM Thinkpad T20, which are equipped with 128 meg of ram and a 667 Mhz processor (from specs). This old laptop came from being unbearable slow and virtually unusable with up to 5-7 minutes boot time, to be a usable computer which booted much quicker.
Note that a freshly started Kubuntu eats 116 of my actual 124 meg of ram. But I don’t experience heavy swapping spite I’m running KDevelop, Konqueror with some tabs surfing the net and a couple of konsole up and running. The computer became workable again.
I was very surprised by the experienced speed performance, my head-alarm-bells goes on and on about only having 7 meg of free Ram available at system start, my gut feeling also tells me that the system will trash the harddisk with heavy swapping, all I can say is that it doesn’t.
I just installed Linux(Fedora) on my old Dell laptop and everything run several times as fast. The installation went very smooth and I already LOVE Linux! Thanks to the author for the great suggestion.
I basically upgraded from Win9x to Debian Linux unstable on a bunch of older hardware and am very pleased with it.
Note that when utilities report memory usage in Linux, they typically report shared memory values (ie. amount of RAM shared by processes and also including cache and buffers) not the actual physical memory used by a particular app.
Using Gnome system monitor, for instance, you want to enable RSS values (edit|preferences|click in RSS memory box) which shows actual RAM used by a process.
You can also use the command line tool “free” and look at the line that shows how much memory real memory is being used (ie. the -/+ buffers/cache line)
Caching is good as it can improve performance (ie. Linux is always trying to maximize the use of your RAM regardless of how few apps you may be using) however more apps will simply reduce the amount of cache used.
I used any savings from not buying Win XP to double/quadruple my RAM.
why bother using linux that will make your machine alot slower? sure you can tweak but why bother? win98 is just fine as it is.
if you really want *nix on the old machine, try BEos or deli linux instead. my 2 cents.
who do you know that seriously uses windows 98?
the thing is that linux will report over 100mb ram in use for kde, but try opening a console window and typing “free”
this will list something like this….
total used free shared buffers cached 256372 253596 2776 0 7020 135668
-/+ buffers/cache: 110908 145464
Swap: 481940 33420 448520
as you can see, in this machine with 256mb ram, it is reporting 2.7mb free !
but you also have to consider the 145mb which is free in the buffers
Install gkrellm and it will give you a running total of free cache and buffers in an easy to read MB reading… like this one says 146MB
@speel 26% of the Windows userbase is running Windows 98
that is over 1 in 4 of windows users !
sorry, it should have looked like this….
total used free shared buffers cached
256372 253596 2776 0 7020 135668
-/+ buffers/cache: 110908 145464
Swap: 481940 33420 448520
@ vuk
BeOS is not a *nix.. has sokme POSIX compatibility and has ports of a lot of cli apps. but its not a *nix
@ jonatan
Sounds like a *very* screwed up xp install because I’ve run XP Pro on a 667mhz VIA c3 Centaur cpu with 128mb of ram and it booted in about 40 secs (off to no hdd activity) and was speedy loading most apps.
I guess it all comes down to how well you tweak and keep up with your system.
I recently sold my old PC (PIII 750/512) to a friend whose 10 year old computer had just about died.
They needed to surf the web, play a few older video games, and type papers. My friends husband is practically computer illterate and a real technophobe.
I thought about putting Ubuntu on it, but in the end I decided on W98se for several reasons:
1) I would not have to hand hold them through the command line.
2) The old video games would work fine.
3) No driver problems.
4) She knows how Windows works and can handhold him through it.
Now, I locked the computer down as much as I could, found a free firewall and AVsoftware and warned them about the horrors of IE and Outlook.
Is Linux better? Not always. If you’ve got older hardware and aren’t afraid of being adventure, I’d say try Linux, but in some cases, it’s easier and better to get W98 patched up and firewalled.
Linux provides an upgrade path from W98 now? Amazing harhar. ;-P
One could still run Damn Small Linux on a former 98 machine with not that much ram.
RAM maybe cheap but some systems can’t handle large amounts or the type of RAM needed is scarce. I was able to score some cheap EDO RAM and top out a PPro system I had to 192MB. Win 98/NT4 run great on that system, I doubt KDE/Gnome desktops would.
Win 98 is not obsolete yet. At least not second edition, MS is still releasing updates.
My general philosophy is if your machine is old, use an older OS. If the machine is newer use a newer OS and it’s been working out well for me so far.
With hundreds of Linux distributions out there, you’d think there would be one custom tailored for Windows users with older hardware who aren’t tech-savvy enough to do all the tweaks needed to get a modern Linux distribution running well on their machines. It certainly seems like it’s doable and it would be tremendous PR for Linux.
My children use Ubuntu, and
1) They have never used the command line.
2) Most of their old video games work fine.
3) NEVER had any driver problems, when they had Win98 AND XP they did though.
4) My daughters don’t care how Ubuntu works, and my son has shown 100% more computer interest since upgrading them to Ubuntu.
Where’s your argument, I just can’t see it.
let me also say that DansGuardian, Firefox, OpenOffice, GIMP, Cedega, SSH, tar, and apt-get upgrade make the case for every parent to use Linux on their children’s computers.
It’s unbreakable, unless *I* break it.
Windows XP Home $210.22 Prices: CDW
Photoshop $649.00
Corel Draw $73.47
Office 2003 $367.01
WinDVD $0.00
Itunes $0.00
Nero $24.04
AIM $0.00
Total Cost: $1323.74 Software Installation,
Installation Time: 6 Patching, Driver installation
Time per hour: $20 Patches, Windows update
Maintenance Time: 1.5 does not include 3rd party
TCO 1 Year: $1803.74 applications!
Ubuntu $0.00
GIMP $0.00
Sodipodi $0.00
OpenOffice / Evo $0.00
Totem / Xine $0.00
Rhythmbox $0.00
Gnomecoaster $0.00
GAIM $0.00
Total Cost: $0.00
Installation Time: 1.5 Driver config, and patches
Time per hour: $20 cron: apt-get update && apt-get -y upgrade
Maintenance Time: 0
TCO 1 Year: $30.00
I can live “without” a few features for a TCO savings of $1774 per computer.
The best part is that if you are a Windows die hard (which is OK) you can do the same on Windows for about $700 a year in maintenance costs unless your time is free. 😉
I used to run XP on my 400MHz box. It had 64Mb of ram and a 6.4Gb HDD. It loaded in less than 30 seconds and all the apps(Autocad 2000, Office 2000) were quite fast. Games sucked, though.
Now I’m running Ubuntu. It is actually faster than XP on this machine.
1) They have never used the command line.
So they cant install or configure anything serious.
2) Most of their old video games work fine.
You can pop in a CD with, say, Command&Conquer 2 and it installs and works? No?
DOS Games? You _still_ claim it works? With sound and video? I’d be interested in your DOSemu config, cause thats quite impossible…
3) NEVER had any driver problems, when they had Win98 AND XP they did though.
Good for you. Really.
No one I know has “driver problems” with Windows.
Everyone I know & Knew had driver problems with Linux (not getting some hardware to work or being unable to fully utilise it). And then it gets painful including… yeah! The command line! Compile kernels and all that stuff.
How many people do I know using windows? dozends. How many run Linux? less than ten, and *ALL* of them know how to compile kernels – because they have to, because you always run into “driver problems” with Linux.
4) My daughters don’t care how Ubuntu works, and my son has shown 100% more computer interest since upgrading them to Ubuntu.
Good for him. He’ll desperately need the command line, and he’ll figure that out in a couple of days…
Where’s your argument, I just can’t see it.
Its there. But some people will never stop spreading fud about the “oh-so-easy linux for everybody, whereas windows users have instable systems with problems that nobody can solve”. Strange that reality is somehow reverse…
> So they cant install or configure anything serious.
That was probably the point.
2) Most of their old video games work fine.
You can pop in a CD with, say, Command&Conquer 2 and it installs and works? No?
DOS Games? You _still_ claim it works? With sound and video? I’d be interested in your DOSemu config, cause thats quite impossible…
C&C2 works in Cedega, not well but it works. 80% of Dos games run in Dosbox, not even that many run in XP native which is why there is a Windows port.
3) NEVER had any driver problems, when they had Win98 AND XP they did though.
You don’t know many people, obviously.
> Good for him. He’ll desperately need the command line, and he’ll figure that out in a couple of days…
Why will he need the command line? Substantiate that, or retract the statement.
There is no argument, just FUD to throw off the fact that the anonymous poster posted facts.
xp does indeed crash more than 3.1 ever did
and btw – what makes you think I use linux ?
xp does indeed crash more than 3.1 ever did
Facts? No?
Then its maybe just for you…
For me, I havent seen the “blue screen” for years.
None of the people I know using windows (dozends) neither complain about XP being instable… slow, yes, instable: no way
Seems like it is about 100 experiences vs. one
at the poll on this site….
http://donley.tk
and see what others think about os stability.
> 1) They have never used the command line.
> So they cant install or configure anything serious.
Right, exactly. You get a Bozo button.
>2) Most of their old video games work fine.
>You can pop in a CD with, say, Command&Conquer 2 and it installs and works? No?
>DOS Games? You _still_ claim it works? With sound and video? I’d be interested in your DOSemu config, cause
>thats quite impossible…
They are not old enough for Command & Conquer, however they have Putt Putt, Jumpstart Preschool, and many other WINDOWS games working GREAT through either Cedega, or Wine. My daughter plays a *DOS* version of Barbie, and several other games in Dosbox, all of the above with a double click of the mouse.
>3) NEVER had any driver problems, when they had Win98 AND XP they did though.
>Good for you. Really.
>No one I know has “driver problems” with Windows.
>Everyone I know & Knew had driver problems with Linux (not getting some hardware to work or being unable to
>fully utilise it). And then it gets painful including… yeah! The command line! Compile kernels and all
>that stuff.
>How many people do I know using windows? dozends. How many run Linux? less than ten, and *ALL* of them know
>how to compile kernels – because they have to, because you always run into “driver problems” with Linux.
No one? I guess all those guys that call themselves PC techs should go out of business then. What’s your secret? I don’t know anyone that has had to compile their kernel in at least 3 years which is probably the last time you even saw a Linux website.
>4) My daughters don’t care how Ubuntu works, and my son has shown 100% more computer interest since
>upgrading them to Ubuntu.
>Good for him. He’ll desperately need the command line, and he’ll figure that out in a couple of days…
Why? Like that other guy said, substantiate your FUD or retract your statements.
>Where’s your argument, I just can’t see it.
>Its there. But some people will never stop spreading fud about the “oh-so-easy linux for everybody, whereas
>windows users have instable systems with problems that nobody can solve”. Strange that reality is somehow
>reverse…
What FUD? Did I say it was EASY? no, I said it was an acceptable alternative. You are the one spreading FUD, and you are the one trolling.
VectorLinux would be perfect. It’s blazing fast on old machines with less RAM.