Edit 2: to everyone suggesting an SDD: i know. Look, if this guy had enough $$$ for an SSD, he could buy a used lappy less than half the age of this one that has an ssd and 2-3x the memory.
Currently, my buddy has a budget of $0, and, if he ever has money to spend, it will be on a newer computer, not upgrading this one. Thx!
My buddy’s old laptop was useless running Windows 7. I wiped it, put on Linux Mint (MATE), and it’s humming along just fine.
Edit: I really love helping people out like this. This guy is in his late 60s and has no other computer. He told me he hasn’t been able to use it in years (I believe it!), so I told him I could wipe it and make it usable again. He was thrilled!
After trying LM Cinnamon, I found it was a bit too much for this machine (Core 2 Duo “Penryn” @ 2.3GHz, 2.77GB Memory, Intel Series 4 Integrated Graphics). I reinstalled with LM MATE, and found it more responsive. I did the standard secondary installation of all the goodies like multimedia codecs, TTF support, battery tweaks, etc. I set up snapshots and the firewall, and installed UBlock Origin in Firefox. I updated everything. Shockingly, the battery still gets about 90-120 minutes, which blows my mind. The damn thing is 18 years old!
So, it’s still slow to launch stuff, as it’s running off of a slow HDD, but it manages to run most things just fine. It’s certainly far more responsive than Win7, and it enables my buddy to enjoy safe, secure, and modern web browsing (which is pretty much all he uses it for).
You'd have a bigger impact by putting a modern SSD in there, even if SATA.
AkTuALly:
In this particular instance, due to the microscopic amount of memory in the machine (even for the day, when 4GB was considered “minimum”, this lappy has… 2.77GB?), more memory would probably impact performance just as much as an SSD.
But, yeah, and SSD would increase app launch performance and other HDD-centric tasks a great deal. But more memory would allow more apps to cache in active memory and quick-launch after first-launch. This might be a better and more cost-effective “first upgrade” before going SSD.
Also, this dude is in no position to spend money on this machine, so I’m doing what I can to make the most of what he has.
I’m guessing it has 3GB of ram and 256MB is being eaten due to being shared video memory.
Oh! That’s it!
The reporting was just weird. Ok, thanks for that!
Fun fact: The machine might even have more RAM. I also had an laptop with a Core 2 Duo. The mainboard supported up to 4GB of RAM. However, the BIOS only supported 3GB (for whatever reason). Around 200MB are used for the iGPU. That left me with 2.8GB of RAM out of 4GB.
Just playing devils advocate but a faster drive would allow better page caching even with the low ram which is probably already happening on that terribly slow HDD.
Sufficient memory = very little/no paging
And it would be cheaper (for this vintage of ram)
You’re not wrong, but it’s a matter of priorities: the memory is the biggest problem with this machine and it can’t be made up for with any other resource, except, sometimes, swap/paging. But more memory is the answer to that issue, not an SSD, and more memory would solve a lot of other performance issues that only more memory can solve.
But, of course, an SSD would bring many of its own benefits (including, yes, faster paging/swap). These, however, are far less likely to benefit this particular user, especially considering that they’re more expensive.