Thinkpads Forum

Hi

Anybody has tried Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs or windows CE or windows embedded on Thinkpad 600 to speed its performance


Thank You

I haven't tried either, but I suspect that at that point you might be much better off using Linux.

Windows CE isn't the same as desktop Windows. You can't run normal Windows software -- and the selection of Windows CE software isn't really designed for a laptop as much as it is a mobile/PDA. If you can't run Windows software, then there's really not much point in using Windows -- software compatibility is about all it has going for it these days.

There are a number of lightweight Linux distributions that will run just great on your machine. Debian w/ a lightweight window manager (XFCE or LXDE, perhaps), Puppy Linux, or Crunchbang should all work fine. (There are others too, but those are the three that immediately sprung to mind.

Considering performance and available software, I'd recommend Windows 98SE or 2000 Pro. MS no longer updates them, but I've never had any problem or needed MS support. Don't go to *those* web sites and you shouldn't have any security problems.

Linux is freeware. You get what you pay for. All things considered, I'd say Linux is a pretty good deal for the price, but it's critical that you know what you're doing. Linux is not Windows, doesn't look or act like Windows, so if you're only used to Windows, even CE might be better. (I have some experience with stuff I didn't know what I was doing with.)

I've heard CE and maybe Mobile are available for x86, but I don't know about Embedded. Can any of these be installed on a disk-based computer? Where can I get a CD? It sounds like it might be fun to play with, (on a spare ThinkPad!) even if it's not practical.

Linux is freeware. You get what you pay for.

I think this is a wildly misleading statement. Not only is Linux not freeware (it's open source -- something that "freeware" does not imply), but it is used by hundreds of thousands of businesses on millions upon millions of machine across the world. It powers the majority of websites, not to mention millions of desktop machines.

It's "freeware" in the sense that it is free, but to claim that you "get what you pay for" is a tremendous understatement. A Linux desktop can be every bit as functional (if not moreso) than a Windows one, particularly when you're talking about using it on limited hardware or comparing it to Windows CE.

All things considered, I'd say Linux is a pretty good deal for the price, but it's critical that you know what you're doing. Linux is not Windows, doesn't look or act like Windows, so if you're only used to Windows, even CE might be better.

If you're used to Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP/Vista/7, then Windows CE will be every bit as foreign (if not moreso) than a modern Linux distro. Yes, it is technically "Windows", but CE is a completely different operating system. None of the software is the same as on the desktop version of Windows, and a number of aspects of the OS itself are wildly different, both in appearance and functionality.

You really don't need to be a computer whiz to use Linux on the desktop anymore. Folks who say that you do typically have had their experience shaped by older distributions. Yes, back about five years ago Linux on the desktop was a bit tricky (not hard, but definitely not ready for the average user) -- but things have changed. Distributions like Ubuntu provide a simple, easy, desktop environment. I've personally given an Ubuntu-based laptop to my mother (whose previous computing experience was limited to surfing the internet using IE), and she seems to handle it just fine.

If you're willing to learn, and not immediately reject something because it looks slightly different from what you've seen before, Linux can be every bit as user-friendly as Windows.

For the machine in question, you could try something like Xubuntu (a more lightweight version of Ubuntu). Depending on the machine's installed RAM, however, you might need to drop back to an even more minimal distribution.

Speaking of which: what are the specs of the machine? I'm hesitant to make a recommendation without a ballpark estimate of what hardware the OS will have to contend with. If you can post specs, I'd be happy to help you take a look at the various OSs that would be suitable for you.

> Speaking of which: what are the specs of the machine?

233-300Mhz PII or 233Mhz P MMX, and it starts with 32 or 64 MB RAM, or about what you would need an older version of Linux to be happy with. You might have saved yourself some embarrassment if you had asked or looked it up first.

> If you're willing to learn, and not immediately reject something because it looks slightly
> different from what you've seen before, Linux can be every bit as user-friendly as
> Windows.

Yes, it's user friendly, but it's *not* Windows. Worse yet, KDE *does* look like Windows, adding to the new user's potential confusion. Like I said, *You* have to know what you're doing. There is little or no commercial support for Linux. Not everyone is a nerd like us. A casual but experienced Windows user needs to be aware of the these differences.

>Not only is Linux not freeware (it's open source -- something that "freeware" does not
> imply)

What difference does this make to the average user?

> but to claim that you "get what you pay for" is a tremendous understatement.

Maybe, but how much home/personal or specialty (business specific, etc.) software is available for Linux, compared to Windows? I'm guessing CE actually has more, based on what I've seen for download. I've also heard many "office" type programs for Linux are not as powerful as their Windows equivalents. Has Open caught up with MS Office or Lotus Smartsuite? I've also heard that many Linux programs are distributed as source code the user needs to compile. That's great if you want to customize it for your own use, or install it on a non-intel machine. But the average home user will take one look at it and run.

> If you're used to Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP/Vista/7, then Windows CE will be
> every bit as foreign (if not moreso) than a modern Linux distro.

Have you ever used CE? I have 2.11 (HPC Pro 3.0) with Pocket Office 3.0 and it resembles a stripped down version of Windows 95 and Office. It doesn't look that different, there are less options on the menu but those that are there are the same as there 9x/NT equivalents (except that a few sub-options are also missing.)

Windows CE was never intended for a disk based notebook. It's stripped down so it will fit in ROM in computers too small and light to hold a hard drive. A version that can be installed on a ThinkPad Might be easier to get used to than Linux. There is no question that Linux is more powerful, but it's weird.

My point is that CE, being Windows, might be easier for a casual (non-nerd) Windows user to get used to that something weird.

Finally, I'm not against Linux just because it's weird. You should see my Tandy Color Computer 3. OS-9 is Unix, but neither a Linux or Windows user could just jump in and start using it.

Bookworm wrote: 233-300Mhz PII or 233Mhz P MMX, and it starts with 32 or 64 MB RAM, or about what you would need an older version of Linux to be happy with. You might have saved yourself some embarrassment if you had asked or looked it up first.

I'm not embarassed. There are definitely distributions that will run in that. You won't be able to render the next Toy Story on it, but there are defintiely distros that can make use of it.

Yes, it's user friendly, but it's *not* Windows.

I'm sorry, but I don't really see the problem. Windows CE is not Windows either. It looks like Windows (thereby adding to the new user's potential confusion), but it's not Windows.

There is little or no commercial support for Linux.

AFAIK Micrsoft offers no support to non-corporate customers.

There are indeed commercially-supported Linux offerings. RedHat Enterprise Linux and Ubuntu are two examples.

Maybe, but how much home/personal or specialty (business specific, etc.) software is available for Linux, compared to Windows? I'm guessing CE actually has more, based on what I've seen for download.

Comared to Windows 2K/XP/Vista/7? Less business-specific. There's a large amount of personal use software out there, but there is indeed a lot of specialty business software out there. I guess I assumed that since the OP was asking about CE he didn't have that sort of software requirement.

As for software choice: right now, with the distribution that I'm typing this on, I can install any one of 26,041 software packages with a single click.

I've also heard many "office" type programs for Linux are not as powerful as their Windows equivalents. Has Open caught up with MS Office or Lotus Smartsuite?

OpenOffice has the vast, vast majority of features that MS Office does. I've never, *ever* seen a home user need to do something that it didn't support. Heck, I've never seen a business user do something that it didn't support. It's not a pixel-perfect replica, true, but I think for almost every user it's a suitable replacement.

Of course if you don't like OpenOffice, just run Office. Wine supports it just fine.

I've also heard that many Linux programs are distributed as source code the user needs to compile. That's great if you want to customize it for your own use, or install it on a non-intel machine. But the average home user will take one look at it and run.

That's definitely not true. Yes, the authors may make the source code available, but using a modern desktop distribution, the user won't need to do much more than point and click. The software is already compiled, packaged, and pre-configured by the distribution. In that sense it's a lot easier than Windows; there are no DLLs to find, no incompatible versions of the same DLL installed by something else, and no need to worry about malware.

Oh, and that applies to all machines, not just x86 ones.

Have you ever used CE? I have 2.11 (HPC Pro 3.0) with Pocket Office 3.0 and it resembles a stripped down version of Windows 95 and Office. It doesn't look that different, there are less options on the menu but those that are there are the same as there 9x/NT equivalents (except that a few sub-options are also missing.)

Yes, I have. I've used it on palmtops and PDAs, right about up until it morphed into Windows Mobile.

Yes, it looks similar, but it's substantially different under the hood. Now there's nothing wrong with that, but given that your earlier argument against KDE was that it "*does* look like Windows, adding to the new user's potential confusion", this looks like kind of a double standard.

Windows CE was never intended for a disk based notebook. It's stripped down so it will fit in ROM in computers too small and light to hold a hard drive. A version that can be installed on a ThinkPad Might be easier to get used to than Linux. There is no question that Linux is more powerful, but it's weird.

It's really not any more. It seems like you've got this image of Linux being some arcane, complex system that's difficult to use and poorly supported. That may have been more accurate 7-10 years ago, but it's definitely not true now.

Linux isn't intended for *any* specific piece of hardware. It's designed to be flexibile. It runs on everything from tiny mobile devices to massive IBM servers. There are distributions suited towards all sorts of different purposes, designed to run on all sorts of hardware combinations, by all sorts of users.

Is Linux right for the OP? I can't say -- that's something that only he/she can establish. But it's free, available legally, and available in hundreds of different varieties (each suited to a specific need or set of needs), so it makes sense to me to try it.

Ok, it sounds like Linux has grown up a lot since I looked into it last. What distribution do you recommend for a 300-366Mhz PII?

What about my 166 Mhz MMX?

I still think CE is closer to "Real" Windows than you're implying. The difference is that I'm looking at it as a user. You say they are different "under the hood". So are 9x and NT. How many drivers are mechanics? How many users are nerds? If you only "drive" it, Pocket Office looks like Office for '95 with a lot of features removed. Under the hood they're as different as Fords and Volkswagons (I've had experience with both ) but behind the wheel, CE just has a smaller wheel.

If you use any cygwin (linux) apps in Windows Fundamentals, it won't work because the "NUL or NULL" device does not exist.

I'll just say Windows CE, as stated above, is quite different from any Windows NT or 9x OS, the kernel is written especially for optimal performance on very economical or compact hardware. Plus, CE can run on far more architectures, than NT can.

I would not recommend running CE on a laptop though. CE may appear the same as Windows but is entirely different. Because of this: linking your laptop to the internet, other PCs, or even any external devices of any sort can become a hassle.

What I would recommend is Windows 98, for 98 has the Plug-n-play support, and even though is no longer in support, with all updates, can run a wide variety of even modern Windows software,(Opera still supports running their browser on Win98 as of today) and can run fine on as far back as the first Pentiums. 98 can also recognize most networking adapters and with the right drivers and updates can properly utilize Wi-Fi and LAN setups, and have fair USB support.

A 300-366Mhz PII will run Win 2000 just fine, and Win 2000 is much better for it can recognize many USB devices such as Flash Drives, and because it's NT based and still in extended support, many modern software companies still support it with their software.

Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs can only be acquired through Microsoft Software Assurance, made primarily for Enterprises and Schools with large amounts of Win 9x or NT4 PCs without the budget to buy a new lot of PCs. I doubt you can legally get a hold of a copy to use on your computer, but to explain WinFLPC is basically XP stripped to the bare-bones(even Paint and Wordpad is removed) to optimize use on as far back as Pentium PCs.

As for these sorts of machines and Linux, there are older versions of Linux flavors you can find as well as Live CD versions that allow you to temporarily set up internet and networking in one boot so you can use your computer as you would if it had Windows. BI'm not an expert on Linux but i'm certain there's flavors of Linux out there that can run fine on these systems. But in my opinion, running Linux would be quite a deal as well, because like CE, software options would be seriously limited, especially if you are going to use an older machine. Plus there will probably not be that much support, if there is at all, and if you end up having a problem then it can take a bit of effort to fix compared to a Windows issue.

Based on my experience I agree completely. I am typing this on a 366Mhz PII with windows 2000, and while I want a faster CPU, this works perfectly most of the time. With '98, it would be very much faster, and there is a lot of good software for it.

If you don't want to deal with the Plug-n-play wizard and do it yourself hardware installations and setting up, or if you aren't thaty much technologically savvy, I'd only run with 98 if you're running on a Pentium I that doesn't quite make it past 233 MHz. Windows 2000 runs fine as long as you're taking the computer's power into consideration, and provides nearly as good services and ease of use XP has.

CE and Fundamentals for Legacy PCs are not options in my opinion, because CE isn't built for laptops and lacks the proper services and software, and Fundamentals for Legacy PCs is primarily only for enterprises and schools that can't upgrade their hardware, the public can't really get access to a copy through retail and OEMs. In fact, you could try getting a hold of XP Embedded and using that. XP Embedded is stripped of a few things to run nicely on low-power hardware.

If you can somehow get a hold of FLPC, then I'd definitely try it.

Bookworm wrote: Finally, I'm not against Linux just because it's weird. You should see my Tandy Color Computer 3. OS-9 is Unix, but neither a Linux or Windows user could just jump in and start using it.

I bolded and made red the portion that is wrong.

I'll leave the rest of it upto your brain to figure out why it's wrong.