# Browser performance - Old laptop **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 1, 2009, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/browser-performance-old-laptop/498320 "2009-06-01T04:57:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Aestivalis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Aestivalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aestivalis)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2009, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/browser-performance-old-laptop/498320/1 "2009-06-01T04:57:45Z")
I’ve got an old IBM Thinkpad T20 (700MHz, 512MB) that I’m trying to set up for my kids. At first I set it up with Ubuntu 9.04, but the Flash performance was pretty terrible on Firefox. Just for kicks, I installed Windows XP, IE8, and Firefox 3.10. IE8 Flash performance was fairly good (important for sites like [pbskids.org](http://pbskids.org)) but Firefox was terrible all around. I even tried installing the GreaseMonkey add-on and ran the low quality script for Flash, but Firefox was still a massive memory/processor hog. Now I use Firefox pretty regularly for browsing on my own laptop, but I have 3GB on this one. Is Firefox really the disastrous memory hog that it seems? Is IE8 on Windows really my best option for this old laptop, or should I give another browser (Opera?) a whirl on Ubuntu? Maybe I should also test Chrome on both platforms? ---
**Author:** ![Casserole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b77776/32.png) [@Casserole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Casserole)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2009, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/browser-performance-old-laptop/498320/2 "2009-06-01T14:24:37Z")
Great! Another Linux question 🙂 First of all - properly set up, flash on Linux machines are comparable to Windows machines. There’s just a niggling bug that stops certain graphics cards from attaining their true potential. However, I have a working theory as to why your flash may be choppy and/or slow. First up, run this command in the terminal: ```auto lshw -C video > ~/Desktop/info.txt ``` Next, run: ```auto cat /proc/mtrr >> ~/Desktop/info.txt ``` Then attach that file (info.txt, on your Desktop) to your reply 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![ZipperJJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zipperjj/32/211_2.png) [@ZipperJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZipperJJ)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2009, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/browser-performance-old-laptop/498320/3 "2009-06-01T14:52:37Z")
I have a Thinkpad T20 running XP too, and Firefox does run painfully slow. I have Chrome on there but since there’s no ad blocking, THAT runs slow too (since the ads all take so long to load). Plus I couldn’t get Flash installed properly on that. I think Opera has an ad blocker…try that. ---
**Author:** ![Casserole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b77776/32.png) [@Casserole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Casserole)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2009, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/browser-performance-old-laptop/498320/4 "2009-06-01T14:58:58Z")
I just realized that I skimmed too quickly and didn’t notice that you re-installed XP onto it… hrm. In my experience, firefox isn’t particularly a memory hog. But it used to be (back in the Firefox 2 days, I believe). However, 512 MB isn’t an ideal amount of RAM, since Ubuntu isn’t a light system. I’ve found great success with [Arch Linux](http://archlinux.org), which involves more technical knowledge to install than the average layman, and with [Xubuntu](http://www.xubuntu.org) and [Crunchbang Linux](http://crunchbanglinux.org/). All three are designed to be lightweight and speedy. Arch, in fact, doesn’t even come installed with a graphical display manager, which might be problematic for your children 🙂 Definitely consider the latter two - Xubuntu uses XFCE (which is quite a bit lighter than GNOME), and Crunchbang, which uses Openbox. ---
**Author:** ![HorseloverFat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8e8cbc/32.png) [@HorseloverFat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HorseloverFat)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2009, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/browser-performance-old-laptop/498320/5 "2009-06-01T16:07:01Z")
RAM really isnt the issue here. If there’s a bottleneck its with that 700mhz processor. Flash is a CPU hog more than anything. What you can do is install flashblock for firefox and run flash selectively. You dont need to run 5 different flash ads on the pages you visit. Just run the content. Now, if you mean flash video when you refer to flash, there’s probably nothing you can do. A 700mhz processor is just not going to cut it. Lastly, Microsoft isnt exactly fair when it comes to browsers. Their browsers run in some privileged mode and I wouldnt be surprised if plugins like flash were simply more efficient because of MS’s engineering and its knowledge of hidden APIs. IE may be your best bet here. ---
**Author:** ![Aestivalis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Aestivalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aestivalis)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2009, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/browser-performance-old-laptop/498320/6 "2009-06-01T16:51:53Z")
> [@Casserole](#): > > I just realized that I skimmed too quickly and didn’t notice that you re-installed XP onto it… hrm. > > In my experience, firefox isn’t particularly a memory hog. But it used to be (back in the Firefox 2 days, I believe). However, 512 MB isn’t an ideal amount of RAM, since Ubuntu isn’t a light system. > > I’ve found great success with [Arch Linux](http://archlinux.org), which involves more technical knowledge to install than the average layman, and with [Xubuntu](http://www.xubuntu.org) and [Crunchbang Linux](http://crunchbanglinux.org/). All three are designed to be lightweight and speedy. Arch, in fact, doesn’t even come installed with a graphical display manager, which might be problematic for your children 🙂 > > Definitely consider the latter two - Xubuntu uses XFCE (which is quite a bit lighter than GNOME), and Crunchbang, which uses Openbox. I put XP on a separate hard drive, so I can throw the Ubuntu one back in, no problem. I was half-wondering if there was any hope for Firefox on Windows, and half-wondering if something like Xubuntu would work. I’ll snag the hardware info you asked for, but I might also try Opera, then Xubuntu, or Puppy, or whatever else comes to mind. ---
**Author:** ![HorseloverFat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8e8cbc/32.png) [@HorseloverFat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HorseloverFat)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2009, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/browser-performance-old-laptop/498320/7 "2009-06-01T18:26:54Z")
Why cant you use IE? Security? If so then make your kids use a login thats a non-administrator. ---
**Author:** ![Casserole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b77776/32.png) [@Casserole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Casserole)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/browser-performance-old-laptop/498320/8 "2009-06-02T12:25:27Z")
I second HorseloverFat’s suggestion to use limited accounts on Windows. It’s fairly hard to mess up a computer even when you press “yes” to everything, and getting everything back to normal is as simple as deleting the account and re-creating it. I’ve actually installed lightweight distributions on a similar computer (600 MHz CPU, 640 MB RAM), and both Xubuntu and Crunchbang worked quite well.