So it's 2016 and this is still the best OS that has ever been invented or ever will be invented

How do you customize distros?

First, you need "How to Learn Machine Code in More Than 1,000 Chapters" then you need a miracle.

Why would i want 7 or 8 or 10 when xp runs on as little as 512mb of ram?

Do you not have a newer computer, or do you just enjoy dicking around with older hardware?

I'm running it in a VM on ubuntu. Why would i want a bloated OS to run in a VM?

There's nothing special about it, take off your nostalgia glasses.

>extolls the virtues of XP only needing 512MB of RAM
>says that it's bloated
Contradiction detected.

We had this thread yesterday and before.

It's still usable in 2016 with the opera browser and if you have POSready mod you can still get updates.

...

check it out it's 2003 all over again.

That may be the best Windows version but it's far from the best OS.

>You have no excuse for still using windows XP
Running Windows software.

>Chropera
>not Opera 12.18
user pls

Daily reminder that Windows XP support ended in 2014 and that you are 5 versions behind

>b-but my POS 2009
Please kys

ISHYGDDT

>having updates for another three years is invalid
kys

>5 versions behind
Windows 7 was the last true version of Windows.

But why though?

Why kill yourself? Because you're denying perfectly valid reasons to still be using an OS.

>b-but you're 5 versions behind
who gives a shit when the only useful feature introduced in those 5 versions is competent start menu searching

kys

are you unable to read or something

What he means is that windows 7, 8, and 10 are bloated. I think 10 and 7 aren't that bad bloat wise, but how the fuck did you completely miss his point?

>take any GNU/Linux distro
>put literally the worst part of XP into it
>can't run windows software
>b-but at least I can mindlessly download sketchy garbage from the internet!

I misunderstood his post. But I do agree that 7 isn't bloated on modern hardware. For P4 and older, or systems with less than 2GB of RAM, XP reigns supreme. Anything newer can and should run 7. 8 and 10 are garbage, fite me.

8 is stupid but 10 is great if you want 'just werks'

It has been 15 years since Windows XP came out, and Linux has yet to catch up with it in terms of features and third-party software support. Linux is a disgraceful excuse for a desktop OS. It's starting to look like the developers don't even want the mainstream desktop audience, and they will forever be content with the 0.8% they currently have (and even that number is inflated). Linux is in no way a replacement for Windows, and will never be if the devs don't straighten themselves out.

...

>what is wine
>what is a virtual machine
Try again pajeet, maybe you'll shill better next time.

Except it wasn't in 2001

Oh man, I loved those fish.

You mistyped Windows XP.

xp had some nice wallpapers. too bad they weren't in high res.

It was Windows NT 5.0, actually

If your computer can't run Lubuntu then it probably can't run Windows XP either.

You do realize Windows xp can run on as little as 126mb of ram right?

Pretty sure XP can handle 64MiB RAM

>using a shoddy compatibility layer for no reason
>installing and ricing an OS just to install the OS you actually want to run in a virtual machine

>going through this much convoluted trouble because you're too dumb or lazy to configure a firewall, tell official websites from fakes and use common sense when opening mail attachments

is this what Cred Forums has become

minimum requirements != usable requirements

try installing XP on a system with only 64 or 128 MB of RAM some time, it's literally unusable especially on older systems with slower disks since you're thrashing swap for even the simplest of tasks

You said XP can run, not XP can run well.

not even him famalam, just someone who's actually done it

> Lubuntu
> 128 MB RAM
Not possible.

>windows
>good
>any year

baka Cred Forums

I used to use xp on a computer with 128mb of ram from 2001-2004. I know what suffering is. If you use hardware that weak and dated you really hate yourself. The power consumption wouldn't make it worth not eating the price of upgrading to a netbook or nuc type device.

>Linux requires programming knowledge
>Linux has terrible UI
You're retarded if you think that's true. Linux has a shit ton of UIs and if you don't know how to use any of them you probably have an IQ of a potato, especially because some are literally made to copy windows UI.
>older computer that isn't fast enough for Linux
There are some distributions literally made for old hardware. Puppy Linux, for example. Although it loads the entire OS into RAM. There's also BasicLinux and Damn Small Linux which can run on less than 16MB RAM.

It was quite good on 128MB. It's soft which takes gigabytes of RAM. 96 MB + 32MB for VRAM was enough for XP and Max Payne. GTAIII was laggy, GTA VC - even more, almost unplayable. XP by itself was good.

true, on 192MB it still works like shit. Not even mentioning trying to run a web browser.

I wish eXPerience would releaseTiny10 or something similar.
Those days back in XP days ... using MicroXP v0.87 or Rev12,
MicroXP installation was like under 100mb size. And used under 30MB RAM on my machine when idling. Made any old PC a beast.

Even with 512MiB it's not too fun, but it is usable. CPU being worse than an Atom N270 doesn't help much not to mention the HDD is ass. I'm looking forward to getting an SSD in this thing

look up sasneteu windows 10

>the power consumption meme
can we stop with this shit? if you're in such a dire financial state that a lightbulb's worth of electricity at like 7 cents per kWh is a wallet breaker than you should probably be concentrating on getting a GED instead of worrying about micromanaging the power consumption of a single appliance while shitposting on Cred Forums

even though you're still mostly right, there's no reason for your sole DD to be skirting minimum requirements like that in an age where you can have a flagship P4 or even core2 system for $5-$20

XP by itself isn't very useful though unless you just want to look at it

Is it clean too? I mean no crap added? The best thing with eXPerience stuff was it did not have any crap unlike other clusterfuck community editions.

haha owned my friend :^) well said. check out this rare artificial intellgience pepe

>because you have more money you should strive to spend as much of it as possible

Lightbulbs only consume 8 watts now. Why would I use obsolete bulbs that consume 60 watts? That hardware was fucking horrible in it's time. I know, I lived through it. My shit posting career started on that old Dell box. I'm competent enough to make XP run on something like that. I helped my ex girlfriend's church in the Philippines fix theirs after some dumbass downloaded shitware on it. I don't live in poverty though. When a used netbook you can get for under $100 smokes your box you know you're living in the past.

I know you're not serious by the way. It's just fun to make you keep reaching to pull this stuff out of your ass.

>XP
>current year
>better support than anything

been using it so far pretty stable edge and cortina don't work obviously, and it is clean but i still will never like windows 10

Yeah, XP without ANY service pack or updates and only with software from that time, runs acceptable with 128MB RAM.

I literally had to deal with Semprons with 512MB RAM only used with modern web browsers, unusable.

Even the shittiest browser with the bloated pages from today consumes outrageous amounts of memory, right now I have SeaMonkey with just this page open consuming 170MB.

I had a Pentium III with 128MB, I know it was usable back then, but is not today, not for everyday use, maybe as an offline machine to run old applications.

I dont give a crap about cortana or any other removed stock crap anyway. Gonna try this out tomorrow. Thanks!

Try eXPerience releases. I have gotten bunch of old PC's into new use with those releases. Rev12 or TinyXP.

Please tell me that you can enable the regular icons instead of those shitty 16 colour ones on tinyxp?

XP is a shittier version of Windows 2000, you pleb.

Dunno why those are enabled in this picture. But default they are same as in XP.
The install disk has different options in it. For Semprons with 512MB RAM I would use TinyXP Rev12 For anything lower MicroXP

Windows 2000 had shitty app support though. Not to mention having to wait through three different startup screens before getting to the login/desktop. And of course it didn't have the beautiful XP themes or the "modern" feel.

thepiratebay.org/torrent/6799139/Windows_XP_2003_eXPerience_Edition_October_2011
- That same iso I used back then. It's worth a ton. Had automatic driver installations and everything in it.

Windows 2000 can be modded for XP compatibility.

Thank you, user.
How so?

There's a mod called KernelEx or something like that

sort of a wildcard: but is there a way to remove the whole _NSAKEY thing from windows?

>not dual-booting Linux and Windows

Understandable if you don't have enough hard drive space to spare, but most computer configurations should.

I dual-boot XP and Slackware on my 40 GB laptop.

The best os ever made is GNU+Linux faggot

*Linux

>xp compatibility
is there something like for windows 98 se?

98's DOS based and XP is NT based, I doubt it. They're entirely different operating systems

No. Under the hood 98 and XP are completely different operating systems.

kernelex.sourceforge.net/

duh, forgot about dos/nt, whole fat, fat32 vs. ntfs fuck i am an idiot

Shit actually I guess KernelEx is exactly what that is. The Windows 2000 XP mod must be called something else
sourceforge.net/projects/kernelex/
>KernelEx is an Open Source compatibility layer with an aim to allow running Windows 2000/XP-only applications on Microsoft Windows 98 and Microsoft Windows Millennium operating systems.

since you guys are talking about pre-nt windows please answer this:

Probably no way to do it without breaking install.

Download the necessary programs from your software repository. You should never need to download from outside that until you understand the security risks and complications that may arise.

>XP
>best at anything except being pwned on first boot up
Please kill yourself. Immediately.

ebin

Not the OP, but what would be a decent OS for an old laptop? (11yo, Pentium M)

Tried Debian minimal and Arch, but neither supports non-pae CPUs.

XP, of course. What speed Pentium M? If it's not the max (IIRC, 1.8GHz) I'd consider upgrading for shits and giggles.

1.6GHz, and last time i tried XP it didn't have support for half the programs i liked (MPV, aria2, etc)

Well then you'll need some flavour of Linux, I imagine. Something light, maybe like Puppy? (I'm windowsfag so I know nothing about Linux; take my advice with a grain of salt.)

>too

Salix will boot on non-pae machines, but I think you have to toggle a flag at the loader.

It's the best Windows XP Wallpaper but on Xubuntu :P

That's not Bliss

>using a background
Join the solid colour master race.

Disgusting

Installing updates shouldn't worry you about adding bloat, as long as you stay away from anything optional (most notibly any dot net frameworks, they turn XP into a fucking wreck).

I wish I wish I had a higher resolution wallpaper of those fish.

newfag gunna run through this tripcode real quick

>uptodate halfassed drivers for non-modern hardware
>botnet
kid detected

?

user that's a weird looking Windows 2000.

Mah nigga. 2000 a best. If it ran modern software I'd still be using it.

>Lightbulbs only consume 8 watts now.
good attempt at deflection but no thanks

>>because you have more money you should strive to spend as much of it as possible
you're right, spending $5 extra on something is just plain irresponsible, it all adds up right??

>I lived through it.
yeah because your fuzzy memories from a decade ago absolutely trump objective facts that even running at maximum load 24/7 with no power management whatsoever these systems will maybe run you $15 extra a month, big fucking whoop