Here is my advice to you: get easypeasy1.0, It's an OS specifically tailored to netbooks. You can install it to a usb drive using unetbootin. Then boot from the usb disk using the bios, and use the ubiquity installer to wipe the old linux distro and start using easy peasy. Best of all, easy peasy is based off of Ubuntu, so it has all of ubuntu's awesome features!

1)  If he has an XP copy he's not using there's nothing illegal about it.  Not everyone pirates all their software.  Some of us actually buy it.

2)  Have you ever tried running a linux GUI on a low-spec machine?  It's quite painful.  Low-spec machines = commandline terminals as far as I'm concerned.  Windows also usually has a speed advantage in applications (especially launching) due to OS tricks like prefetch which linux doesn't do.

3)  It's a matter of preference.  If I have a screw with a Phillips head on it, I don't pull out the common screwdriver and go at it, I get out a Phillips screwdriver because I know it will do the job.  An OS is a tool to me.  If I'm using Windows/OSX/linux, it's because it does the job I want it to do.  I don't have a pet OS (like you do with Ubuntu), I have whatever solves the problems I need solved at the time.

4) Fair enough.

1) I know. I just think it's unlikely he has one, as any copies bought would be installed to a machine already, and, unless he bought the retail version (which almost no one does), he can't transfer it from the machine it's installed to.

2) I've already admitted they're about equal for general use. For specific, dedicated uses, you can use the command line without a GUI (which XP can't).

3) OK. Linux can be more suitable than XP though, even for a beginner. Just the default Ubuntu install should have all hardware drivers, Firefox and an office suite right after installing it. Windows requires you to install a lot of stuff before it's usable. So, purely as a tool, Linux could be a better choice. It's up to the user, of course.

The computer I use everyday (and that I'm using to post this) has a 1.7ghz Sempron and 512MB of RAM and I run Linux with a GUI just fine.

It is fast and there is no pain at all.

Last time I checked that isn't a low spec machine... try looking at sub 800mhz and 128 megs of ram or less.  Just because a machine looks like trash next to the higher middle end doesn't make it low spec.  Of course they have distro for 386s.

btw, Xubuntu >>> Ubuntu - it runs faster and looks prettier (the first being a scientifically verified truth, the 2nd being my opinion of course)

I don't think it is that low spec. But it is similar to what a lot of netbooks are shipping with. Although I don't know how the Atom compares to the Sempron.

 Semperons were the desktop made laptop cpus right?  It's hard to keep track of all that crap... remember the failure that was the thunderbird?

Cueil is closer in terms of what I consider a low-spec machine.  An "average" machine to me is a mid-priced machine from 3-4 years ago because on average that is what you will find in a school or business that doesn't refresh its hardware too frequently and that's being fairly generous.  A low spec machine is even further off in terms of manufacturing date or price.

Also keep in mind that gamers use a different scale than... well... everyone else.  An "average" machine to a gamer is probably godly compared to your aunt Judy's home PC or the ones the local bar uses to run their spreadsheets and quickbooks.