I have an old laptop that has Windows XP and I would like to move it to Linux. What is the best version? Ubuntu? Which Portable Apps will work with Linux? Any help will be appreciated. Thank you.
You are here
Please Help Support Us
Please help support us by making a donation so we can keep bringing you awesome free software. We accept credit card, wire transfer, PayPal, cryptocurrency, and more.
If you recently donated, thank you!
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on BlueSky
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on Twitter
Most portable apps will not work with Linux, and those that will, the portable exe will not work, but the base app may, depending on the individual app.
However some will work with WINE. There is no list of such apps compatibility though.
Most apps will work with Wine (platform, updater, backup, Firefox, Thunderbird, etc). Compatibility is often listed in the Download Details section of each app.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Any thoughts on the version or type of Linux to use? Which one is the easiest? Ubuntu?
Personally, I use Ubuntu and it's really the only one I recommend to non-Linux geeks
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Thanks for the info. I will try Ubuntu.
http://ubuntu.com/project/derivatives these also apply? U kno, as far as non-Linux geeks? (Cuz I'm thinking of becoming one of them!)
Unless you have old/slower hardware, or special requirements such as "foreign" languages, there's really no reason not to use regular Ubuntu. It's well maintained, regularly developed and is comparable to Windows in terms of professionalism and functionality. When you start moving to some of those other "flavors" of Ubuntu, they are often not as professionally presented and refined.
If you do have older/slower hardware then I'd recommend Lubuntu, although with a cautionary note that it's still being heavily developed and so there are some quirks, but it runs a whole lot faster and smoother than Ubuntu on lower-specification machines. Xubuntu claims to be a Ubuntu distribution for lower-spec machines but in my experience I don't find that to be true. Xubuntu seems to offer little advantage over Ubuntu, the only difference is the desktop environment (which might be slightly faster but is mostly a personal preference).
I've been dual-booting Ubuntu-Netbook with WinXP on my netbook for the past few months (http://www.ubuntu.com/netbook). It slows down the process of returning from hibernation or booting, but it gives you a chance to 'try before you buy'.
I had no problem installing it, first on a thumb-drive and then as dual-boot on my netbook. The printed instructions are pretty clear, especially for someone who has never done it before.
Quite frankly, it's the portable apps that keep me on XP. The differences between XP and Ubuntu are minor enough that I could ditch Windows at any time now.
--d
Depends on how you dual boot. If you boot from USB, and partition the hard drive, then the two Operating Systems should play nicely. However, a WUBI install might be what's causing hibernation to slow down.
Nah.
The slow-down is because I have to read the dual-boot screen and decide where I want to go. The actual time-to-desktop appears to be faster in Ubuntu than in WinXP (that's after I press the [Enter] key).
I used the Ubuntu dual-boot instructions and partitioning worked without problems. Since I can still access data on the WinXP 'drive' in Ubuntu, I'm happy.
Currently using Mozilla Firefox for Ubuntu Canonical - 1.0 version 16.0.2 and would like to download a version which can handle TLS 1.1 encryption.
Any information would be appreciated. Thank you.
We do portable software for Windows. You must upgrade Ubuntu and Firefox. Your current setup is incredibly insecure.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
This is my next step to try out portable apps under wine.
As for Linux distro for newbies and oldies
I Highly recommend Linux Mint or Pinguy OS the main reason being is that most codecs and nice apps are installed configured and working. With normal ubuntu you have to install and configure codecs and drivers.
Mint (as all linux distros) have all flavours of distros based on Ubuntu debian with different OS interfaces like gnome, kde , xfce etc..
Most distros can boot into vitual memory for you to try out without installing, and PC or laptop that can run xp can run any of these distros I would say. Also there are 64 bit distros for those with 64bit proccessors.
good luck
c0rd0bes
There is no "best Linux". If there was, we wouldn't have hundreds of different distros competing for attention. One good thing, now, is that most distros install from a Live-CD that lets you try it first before installing.
For beginners, I'd recommend Linux Mint. It's based on Ubuntu, but without some of the annoyances.
For an older computer, Puppy Linux is an excellent distro. It runs better on older systems that the *buntu variants, but still supports newer hardware. It can also be run directly from a flash drive with persistance, so you may never need to install it. It's also an easy distro to learn, with a large community for support.
I've never run Linux full-time. I've played around with a dozen different distros, but always go back to Windows. I keep Puppy around on flash drives and Live-CDs, mostly to use as a rescue disk when I work on a crashed computer.
Considering Linux Mint has 5 completely different versions all right on the homepage (Mint Debian, Mint 10, Mint 9 Fluxbox, Mint 9 Xfce and Mint 9 KDE) with no explanation at all of the differences, I definitely wouldn't recommend it for beginners.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I haven't actually tried any of the Mint variants. In fact, the last Mint I used was version 9. I liked it better than any of other *buntus that I had tried, but not enough to keep using it. I recommended it mostly because it's compatible with Ubuntu programs and therefore has a huge repository.
I stick with Puppy myself. It's fairly easy to learn, but has a few quirks that keep me from recommending it to beginners. For example, there's almost no software in the repository. There's tons available, but you need to go search through the Puppy forums to find it.
Can't the latest Puppy now use Ubuntu packages? I still wouldn't recommend Puppy to beginners just because it's largely an unfamiliar experience for ex/current Windows users. Just simple things like only needing a single click to execute desktop shortcuts will throw off novice users.
Yes, the 5.x versions of Puppy, called Lucid Puppy, are built using Ubuntu binaries and are somewhat compatible with Ubuntu. I don't use that version myself, so I don't know how many programs it works with. I tried out 5.0 and 5.1, but they seem to be focused on a full install rather than running from disk. I use Puppy primarily as a rescue disk, so I'm sticking with 4.32 for the time being.
There are a few versions of Puppy that change the desktop to a more Windows-like experience. I'd strongly recommend Fluppy, which is based on the Puppeee netbook version, but has more drivers for other computers. It changes the desktop to a double-click and I prefer its choice of programs over standard Puppy.
Puppeee itself is outstanding on a compatible netbook, but doesn't support much hardware other than the EeePc. It does work with my Acer, and unlike Ubuntu netbook, it works on the idea than a netbook is a small computer rather than an oversized smartphone. It's also the only distro I've used that gets the same battery life as WinXP. Most Linux distros don't take advantage of the Atom's power saving capabilities.
I was actually disappointed to see that Puppy turned to Ubuntu. I don't know what happened to that project, it looks like Barry kinda handed over the reigns to the community (which isn't a bad thing) but now Puppy doesn't know what it's supposed to be anymore. Like you, I usually stick with 4.x and it's typically when I'm screwing around with old machines trying to get them to work.
I recently installed Slitaz on an old computer belonging to the in-laws. It was working wonderfully until I switched to a widescreen monitor then it just put up a message saying that a compatible resolution couldn't be found. Puppy on the other hand, just worked and always has. I'm not a big fan of SeaMonkey though, definitely a -1 for Puppy IMHO, although I understand the multi-role app choice.
Puppy is a little fragmented right now. Barry created the Woof build system to allow Puplets to be built using other distros binaries, so that they would be compatable. The trouble is, it takes a lot of work to get software made for a full distro to work on a 100-150MB Puplet. Most of the other devs decided to focus on Ubuntu first. There is some work going on on the Debian Puplet and at least one attempt at a Slackware Puplet, but the Ubuntu version is the only one to reach full release so far.
Barry himself was not really interested in all of these, so he's moved on to Wary Puppy and his Quirky test line. They are more based on the Puppy 4.x series. A lot of other people have their own projects based on Lucid, 4.x, or even the old 2.x series.
I would guess that there are at least ten distros being put together now under the name "Puppy", not counting the ones that are just a regular Puppy with different default software or a different desktop manager.
It's a shame because I think it hurts the project. All those little "sub-projects" just add confusion for new users. I personally think it would be better for the community to focus on one or two key projects, and have them be great, rather than have half a dozen projects that are average. Oh well, such is life.
The situation probably isn't as bad as it sounds. There's a large group working on Lucid; most of the other projects are made by a single individual. Puppy started as one man's solo project. Besides, most of the projects are using the same base, so they can include other's improvements. Also, Puppy is meant to be a small distro that can run from memory. Including everybody's wishes would make it too big to run. There have always been a few puplets around for those who didn't like the choices that Barry made.
Besides, I haven't really liked any of the Puppy community distros like Lucid or the old 4.2 version. Most of the community devs seem to be focused on permanent installs rather than the Live-CD. Since I use it primarily for testing and repair, Lucid isn't very good for me. Right now I'm using 4.3, I'm testing Barry's new Wary, and using Puppeee on my netbook.
these are different desktop enviroments, fluxbox and xfce are lightweight desktop enviroments minimalistic and low cpu usage. KDE and gnome are the bells and whistles. Personaly I prefer the Gnome is a tad cleaner and easier than KDE
I never did like the KDE interface. I always just felt so clumsy/ugly to me. While I'm not a mac fan, it just seems like a poor imitation of a mac.
Release Team Member
I'm under the impression that the newest version of KDE is actually very good. My complaint of prior versions was that I found it needlessly flashy, and consequently very slow. I prefer Gnome, but then other people argue that Gnome is ugly and not as "modern".
These days whenever I use Linux I'm typically using slower computers so I don't necessarily want all of the fancy, "modern" flashy effects. Simple is better in my case, so I usually go for LXDE with OpenBox.
Maybe I'll check out that lastest KDE offering one day.
I actually really like the gnome interface. If they added a windoes like key support that had a search function like Windows I'd be sold...
Release Team Member
Hmmmm why don't you make it easier? Try windows, I think is the best solution, but still everyone is free to use the one of your choice ...
Jack O
Unfortunately the hardware on most XP based machines might struggle to cope with an updated Windows - and the user's pocket might struggle to cope with the cost! The big advantage with Linux is that it is essentially free - but not only in cost but in development, and that's also its biggest disadvantage. This freedom means that anyone is free to modify, add to, or subtract from the basic code. This has led to the plethora of versions of Linux (and other UNIX-like OS's like BSD) and somewhere along the line you have to make a stand and say "THIS is the one I'm going to use!" or you'll spend all your time experimenting and never actually achieving anything. It's also Windows' biggest advantage; you can sit down at any Windows machine and basically work with it. Linux has so many variations that you might spend an hour understanding the GUI before getting anything done.
I've played with some LiveCD variations of Linux, and found that Ubuntu with Gnome was the nearest in innate 'feel' to Windows, and therefore the easiest to convert to. KDE I struggled with, and gave up in the end - I just could not understand it; my boss had Xubuntu and couldn't even figure out how to shut it down! I now have three desktops and a laptop dual-booting to Ubuntu or either XP (I keep XP for a specific game that runs best under it) or Vista, and prefer to use Ubuntu myself on those, but it means that visitors and friends can use Windows if they want.
On the other hand I tend to spend most of my time on my new laptop running W7... go figure!
BarryH - thenudehamster
Nothing to do with pet rodents - it's where I used to live.
Any opinion expressed above is herein warranted only to be worth exactly what you paid for it.
If we are going to talk about LiveCDs, I would have to say SLAX is, if not the best, at least one of the best, it's easy to get the hang of, it runs well on older machines, it can easily be run entirely from the RAM (if you have at least 320MB) which runs notably faster, Modules are easy to install/uninstall (and make), and can easily be installed to a Flash Drive (must run
/boot/bootinst.sh[or.batif using windows]), or burned to a disc.Also it is easy for "First-Timers" to download an
.isocustomized with the software they want (remember to check for & include dependencies before you download [Scroll down on /build.php to "In order to function properly, you will need to add manually few more modules:"])Note: It can be installed, but it's really not meant to be.
~3D1T0R
I'm using Xubuntu 10.10, PortableApps works well on this platform, I can guess you got 256mb of ram on your computer, seeing Xubuntu uses XFCE, your PortableApps should work ok on this OS.