Dell Inspiron 1520 Owner's Thread

[Sandy Bridge]

One of the most popular Dell laptops of 2007, along with the likes of the XPS M1530 and XPS M1330, the 1520 is sibling to the Inspiron 1420 and 1720, and cousin to the Vostro 1400, 1500, and 1700, as well as the AMD-equipped Inspiron 1421, 1521, and 1721.

Does anyone else still run one of these?  Back when they were new we'd have threads for each of them, but considering it's almost 15 years later, I'd welcome any of them into the stable.

I recently swapped the display on mine, and still use it semi-frequently.  I love the design.  Rounded edges that don't annoy the wrists.  Full-size arrow keys, as well as a num pad and page up/page down/home/end.  Front media keys that don't work quite as well as they did new, but have great features such as previous track/next track.  Why don't new laptops have those dedicated media keys?  Not even many dedicated keyboards have them, but they're great.

My goal for this thread is camaraderie, knowledge sharing, and probably transforming the second post into a knowledge warehouse.  I can never hope to get as technical on the hardware level as some of the true experts in that realm, but I have replaced pretty much every part on this laptop over the years.  I like to joke that the modem is the only original part, but that might actually be true.

Former owners of the model also welcome, especially if they somewhat reminisce about its weighty, yet sturdy and well-thought-out design.

[Sandy Bridge]

Upgrade Options

This post will be edited to link out to more resources about upgrade options over time.  Initially, I'm writing this largely from memory, but I hope to be able to add more formal sources as times goes on.

Much of this information was initially compiled by Mihael Keel in the thread Dell Inspiron 1520- Viable After Market Upgrades.

Memory

The 1520 only officially supports 4 GB of memory, but unofficially work with up to 6 GB (4 + 2).  The 1720 also supports up to 6 GB.  I do not recall whether the 1420/1400 work with more than 4 GB, and have not seen as conclusive of evidence regarding the 1700/1500; please let us know if they do!

The Intel Santa Rosa platform that the 1520 and its siblings use is limited to 667 MHz DDR2; you will find pin-compatible 800 MHz DIMMs, but they will not run at that speed on a Santa Rosa laptop, so there is no point in spending extra for 800 MHz.  I am not sure whether the 1521 (AMD variant) will take full advantage of the 800 MHz DIMMs.

If you are running 32-bit Windows XP (and likely Vista/7/etc.), the maximum memory the 1520 can use is 3.5 GB, as tested with the nVIDIA GPU.  This is actually quite good; many systems are limited to a smaller amount with 32-bit Windows.  The maximum amount may be somewhat different with the integrated Intel GPU.

Additional Sources: "Inspiron 1720 with 6GB RAM Tested", by SomeFormOfHuman, Oct 1, 2008 (link to be added when available).

Graphics

The 1520 came with two motherboard variants, one for integrated graphics and one for dedicated graphics.  You cannot upgrade to dedicated graphics if you have the integrated graphics mobo without swapping motherboards; similarly if you have the dGPU mobo and your graphics card dies, you must either procure a replacement graphics card or swap to an integrated graphics motherboard.

The dedicated graphics motherboard supports two GPUs - an 8400M GS with 128 MB DDR2, and an 8600M GT with 256 MB DDR32.  Sadly, the 1520 did not ship with the faster GDDR3 version of the 8600M GT as some competing laptops did - the difference being 700 MHz memory clocks for GDDR3 versus 400 MHz for DDR2; both shared the same 475 MHz core clocks at stock.  I have not read of anyone successfully swapping in a different GPU; if you know of someone doing that and documenting it, please let us know.

At the time of release, the 8600M GT DDR2 was bested in the mobile space only by the 7950 GTX, 7900 GS, 8700M GT, and 8600M GT GDDR3; the 8800M did not debut until nearly six months later.  Thus, the 1520 is blessed with the possibility for powerful graphics for its time.

However, both of the nVIDIA GPUs the Inspiron 1520 supports suffer from the bumpgate problem, which in short means that they will die an early death.  Given that this laptop is now nearly 15 years old, I'm not sure how many are left.  But due both to Bumpgate and the fact that a dedicated card from 2007 does not feel very fast anymore, I recommend anyone looking to pick up a 1520 to go with the integrated graphics option today.

Still, all is not as bad as it could be; the 1520 has fairly robust cooling, and perhaps due to using DDR2 instead of GDDR3, the temperatures reached are typically fairly modest, somewhat mitigating the effects of Bumpgate compared to more powerful, hotter-running laptops.  The key contribution to failure is cycling between cool and hot temperatures, so if your laptop never gets that hot - and stays cool when not actively using the GPU - that is better than one that warms up even at idle, or that heats up significantly even with a moderate workload.

All in all, I'm only on my second GPU, and my laptop is over 14 years old.  The first one started artifacting more and more frequently before it had to be retired; the first one occasionally causes its drivers to fail due to hardware issues, but is still largely usable.

Baking Your GPU

If your GPU does fail, you can fix it for a period of time by baking it in your oven.  That's right, just like cookies!

The theory is that by heating it to the right temperature for the right period of time, the cracked solder from Bumpgate will re-flow, re-establishing the integrity the GPU has lost over time (this is a simplification; see the Bumpgate link for more details).  If you heat the GPU at too hot of a temperature, however, you will melt additional components, so caution must be taken.

I will look up the details of this process when possible, but the gist is you remove all meltable components (cooling pads, etc.) from the GPU, place it on foil on a cookie sheet, heat the oven to a certain temperature (I want to say 275F, but don't quote me on that), and heat it for a short period of time (8 minutes?).  Then take it out, let it cool, and fire it up.  If it worked, the artifacting you were having should be gone.  If you overdid it, you may not have a working video card anymore.  If you underdid it, you can try again for a somewhat longer period of time or somewhat higher temperature.

Good ventilation is recommended, and you may wish to clean your oven before baking cookies again.  The fix is not reported to be permanent, but if it works should buy you some time on the order of months to decide what to do next.  I've read of some people who've done this process more than once on the same card, although the amount of time it buys on the second go-round is generally considerably less than the first time through the oven.

Overclocking Your GPU

Due to the GeForce 8 Series' proclivity for an early death, combined with its heightened sensitivity to thermal stress compared to other GPUs, I do not recommend overclocking your 1520's dedicated GPU.

However, if you must, you can.  I'm sure there are many applications you can use to do so, but back when I was eager enough to ignore prudence and chase higher FPS numbers, I used RivaTuner to do so; nTune was also popular back in the day.

The thread "Highest 8600m GT Overclock" covers Inspiron 1520/1720 overclocking.  650 MHz core/530 MHz RAM (versus 475/400 stock) seems to be a fairly common high overclock, although I'd recommend working your way up to those clocks; I know that on my original GPU, for example, the memory couldn't overclock nearly that high.

CPU Upgrades

The 1520's CPU, along with that of all its Intel siblings, is socketed, as all processors should be.  That means you can upgrade it!

The processors that are compatible are the Merom (65nm) and Penryn (45nm) Socket P processors running with an 800 MHz or slower front side bus.  Penryn processors will consume less power and run cooler, but all the stock processors were Merom processors.

The highest-performing stock processor at launch was the T7500; the 1720 shipped with the T7700.

-----

For Merom, the compatible 35W processors are listed below, grouped by L2 cache size and FSB.  T5000-series processors lack support for Intel Virtualization Technology (VT-x).  The processors in bold were options when ordered the 1520 new.

2 MB L2 cache, 667 MHz FSB: T5250 (1.5 GHz), T5450 (1.67 GHz), T5550 (1.83 GHz), T5750 (2 GHz), T5850 (2.17 GHz)

2 MB L2 cache, 800 MHz FSB: T5270 (1.4 GHz), T5470 (1.6 GHz), T5670 (1.8 GHz), T7100 (1.8 GHz), T5800 (2 GHz), T5870 (2 GHz), T7250 (2 GHz), T5900 (2.2 GHz)

4 MB L2 cache, 800 MHz FSB: T7300 (2 GHz), T7500 (2.2 GHz), T7700 (2.4 GHz), T7800 (2.6 GHz)

From Penryn, the compatible processors all have an 800 MHz FSB, and are:

3 MB L2 cache: T8100 (2.1 GHz), T8300 (2.4 GHz)

6 MB L2 cache: T9300 (2.5 GHz), T9500 (2.6 GHz)

There are also three Core 2 Extreme processors available.

It's worth noting that, at least in the Merom range, these cannot be undervolted as much as the non-Extreme processors; I can only set my X7900 as low as 1.1V, even at 1.2 GHz, whereas my T7500 could go as low as 0.85V.  The Extreme processors also appear to lack Super Low Frequency Mode (SLFM), which allows halving the frequency.  Between these two difference, the net effect is that idle power usage is significantly higher with the Core 2 Extreme processors, and you will not get as good of battery life as with a properly-undervolted non-Extreme processor.

Merom X7800 (2.6 GHz) and X7900 (2.8 GHz), both with 4 MB L2 cache.

Penryn X9000 (2.8 GHz) with 6 MB L2 cache.

----

So, with 24 choices, what processor should you choose?

If you have one of the slowest ones and just want a cheap upgrade, consider the T7300 or T8100.  These are available for less than $10 shipped on eBay, and are going to be a huge boost over the T5250 and a noticeable one over the T5450.

The T7700 and T8300 are available for $15 or less, and will give you a roughly 20% boost over the T7300.

The T7800, X7800, X7900, and T9300 all run about $30, and will be another step up.  The X7900 only makes sense if it's the same price as the X7800, as both are unlocked.  The T9300 is arguably the best choice here with larger cache likely being more beneficial than the T7800's extra 100 MHz, and cooler running to boot.  The X-series CPUs may beat the T9300 in performance when clocked at 2.8 GHz, depending on the application, but will run much hotter, at the cost of battery life.

The T9500 is running about $50, which is not worth it over the T9300.

The X9000 tends to carry a significant premium as the best possible processor for a large range of laptops, and is almost never worth it from a value standpoint.  I do not see any available for sale right now.

In summary, I'd argue the processors listed in bolds above are the rational choices, depending on how much you want to spend.  The Core 2 Extremes and T9500 will have the best performance, but are not worth the battery life tradeoffs (in the case of the Extremes) and price difference in the case of the T9500, over the T9300.  It's also worth noting that if a 1520 with a T9300 isn't fast enough for what you need today, you probably should be considering a newer laptop as the solution rather than the modest bump a faster compatible processor would give you.

How Fast Can the 1520 Go?

The absolute fastest processor is the X9000.  It stocks at 2.8 GHz, and is unlocked.  But can you overclock the X9000 given the 1520's cooling system?

I don't have an X9000 to test with, but I do have the next-best thing, an X9000.  In the case of the X9000, the fastest speed the 1520 can handle for both cores is 2.8 GHz - the stock speed, with Arctic Silver cooling compound.  Perhaps with exotic cooling mods or IC Diamond, 3 GHz could be hit.  But at 2.8 GHz, the temperatures reached the mid-90s, and even if the voltage could be bumped to make 3 GHz stable, there is not enough thermal headroom to run it.

With one core disabled in the BIOS, the X7900 with Arctic Silver can reach 3.2 GHz in the 1520, giving a maximum single-threaded performance of a full gigahertz higher than any stock option!  In practice, this is unlikely to ever make sense over the 2.8 GHz dual-core option, but if you really need maximal single-threaded performance in a 1520, that is an option.

My best guess would be the X9000 might give one more multiplier of performance (200 MHz), if you're lucky two (400 MHz).  I'd love to see someone test this, and would also be curious if higher-end thermal compound makes a difference.  But for now, I haven't read of anyone exceeding these speeds on the 1520 - do feel free to try!

More Sections to Be Added

Optical, storage, wireless, finding good batteries for the 1520 so you can take it with you wherever you go even in the 2020s (yes, my 1520 still visits coffee shops!).

[Aaron44126]

9 hours ago, Sandy Bridge said:

The 1520 and Vostro 1500 only officially support 4 GB of memory, but unofficially work with up to 6 GB (4 + 2).  The 1720/1700, IIRC, support up to 8 GB (4 + 4).

I do not believe 1520 or 1720 work with 8 GB.  As I recall, you can install 4+4, and it seems to work at first but the BIOS gets hung up at the end of the memory check phase (very end of the boot progress bar) and the OS will not boot.

Dell never tested this configuration (4GB modules were not available when the system launched) — they probably could have fixed it with a BIOS update, but never bothered.  The fact that 6GB works (4+2) is a lucky happenstance.

[Sandy Bridge]

3 hours ago, Aaron44126 said:

I do not believe 1520 or 1720 work with 8 GB.  As I recall, you can install 4+4, and it seems to work at first but the BIOS gets hung up at the end of the memory check phase (very end of the boot progress bar) and the OS will not boot.

Dell never tested this configuration (4GB modules were not available when the system launched) — they probably could have fixed it with a BIOS update, but never bothered.  The fact that 6GB works (4+2) is a lucky happenstance.

Well, that motivated me to dig into the history files, and it turns out you are right!  In post #61 of the thread "Inspiron 1720 with 6 GB RAM Tested", frenchglen documented his unsuccessful attempt to upgrade to 8 GB.  No one was able to prove otherwise in the remaining 32 posts of that thread.

I'll update the post above, and link to the source when the time for that arrives.

[Samir]

I believe I have a 1500 in my collection so some really great info here!  I've tested 4GB, but don't have a 4GB DDR2 module (yet) so I haven't tried 6GB yet.  But honestly, I'm probably just keep it at 4GB and use it as a portable xp gaming system.  I have several laptops of this era so playing a nice session of NFS underground with a bunch of peeps should be fun once I get it all set up. :D

[Sandy Bridge]

14 hours ago, Samir said:

I believe I have a 1500 in my collection so some really great info here!  I've tested 4GB, but don't have a 4GB DDR2 module (yet) so I haven't tried 6GB yet.  But honestly, I'm probably just keep it at 4GB and use it as a portable xp gaming system.  I have several laptops of this era so playing a nice session of NFS underground with a bunch of peeps should be fun once I get it all set up. 😄

Great to hear!  Yeah, mine is at 4 GB (3.5 GB usable in 32-bit Windows), and I'm not sure I'll ever bump it to 6 GB.  It's mostly a legacy gaming/software compatibility testing platform at this point, although I will remote desktop onto my desktop and use it on the couch from time to time.  The Linux dual-boot could benefit from 6 GB, but I haven't had the best luck getting it to cooperate with the 8600M GT (Mint 18 was laggy, Mint 20 isn't laggy but seems to be unstable, although that may have been related to my failing screen).  So, I haven't been running anything intensive enough in Linux to benefit from the extra RAM, either.

I added a CPU section to the upgrade options just now, with way too much information, including the top speeds I've been able to hit on this laptop.  I'm curious if anyone has been able to beat them.  I'd love to see someone be able to hit a 50% boost in CPU speed over the maximum option the 1520 ever shipped with, but I'm really not sure if it's possible given thermal constraints, especially in dual-core mode.

[Samir]

On 2/2/2022 at 2:45 AM, Sandy Bridge said:

Great to hear!  Yeah, mine is at 4 GB (3.5 GB usable in 32-bit Windows), and I'm not sure I'll ever bump it to 6 GB.  It's mostly a legacy gaming/software compatibility testing platform at this point, although I will remote desktop onto my desktop and use it on the couch from time to time.  The Linux dual-boot could benefit from 6 GB, but I haven't had the best luck getting it to cooperate with the 8600M GT (Mint 18 was laggy, Mint 20 isn't laggy but seems to be unstable, although that may have been related to my failing screen).  So, I haven't been running anything intensive enough in Linux to benefit from the extra RAM, either.

I added a CPU section to the upgrade options just now, with way too much information, including the top speeds I've been able to hit on this laptop.  I'm curious if anyone has been able to beat them.  I'd love to see someone be able to hit a 50% boost in CPU speed over the maximum option the 1520 ever shipped with, but I'm really not sure if it's possible given thermal constraints, especially in dual-core mode.

I was finally close enough to it to see the exact model number and it's a 1501 so it's AMD based.  I should have actually looked at my 'systems spreadsheet' that I use to keep track of all my systems (at least the ones I've gotten to at this point)--It's an AMD TL-50 Turion x2 64, but I didn't note the GPU yet so more work to do still on this one.

What's really handy about systems from the xp era is that you can also rdp into them from more modern machines, and this helps for graphics too if anything is graphics intensive since the rdp client on xp era was a slower codec.

I actually just started working on an older Toshiba L555 series that can take 2x 4GB DDR for a total of 8GB, so I think it's almost high time I get a 4GB DDR2 module, even if just for testing.  I also have an HP thin client running xpe that should be able to use it, so it could be used in a bunch of areas.  I recently got some 16GB DDR3 modules for the same type of testing, and it's amazing how my Toshiba L775 and Dell M5010 and even Fujitsu s920 thin client all work well with them for 32GB of memory.  This will definitely keep them alive in the modern era of computing for a few more years.

[Sandy Bridge]

2 minutes ago, Samir said:

I was finally close enough to it to see the exact model number and it's a 1501 so it's AMD based.  I should have actually looked at my 'systems spreadsheet' that I use to keep track of all my systems (at least the ones I've gotten to at this point)--It's an AMD TL-50 Turion x2 64, but I didn't note the GPU yet so more work to do still on this one.

What's really handy about systems from the xp era is that you can also rdp into them from more modern machines, and this helps for graphics too if anything is graphics intensive since the rdp client on xp era was a slower codec.

I actually just started working on an older Toshiba L555 series that can take 2x 4GB DDR for a total of 8GB, so I think it's almost high time I get a 4GB DDR2 module, even if just for testing.  I also have an HP thin client running xpe that should be able to use it, so it could be used in a bunch of areas.  I recently got some 16GB DDR3 modules for the same type of testing, and it's amazing how my Toshiba L775 and Dell M5010 and even Fujitsu s920 thin client all work well with them for 32GB of memory.  This will definitely keep them alive in the modern era of computing for a few more years.

How many systems do you have?  It sounds like a lot!  At least if you need a spreadsheet to keep track of them...

You'd need XP Pro to remote into the machines though, right?  I'm on XP Home on my Dell since that's what I upgraded to from Vista.  But I'm a bit confused about how it would help for graphics, wouldn't it still be slower graphics over remote desktop than running them natively in XP?  Would've been handy to be able to remote in when my laptop's backlight was dead though, although once I realized that was the problem connecting to my monitor via VGA worked pretty well, too.

[Samir]

11 hours ago, Sandy Bridge said:

How many systems do you have?  It sounds like a lot!  At least if you need a spreadsheet to keep track of them...

You'd need XP Pro to remote into the machines though, right?  I'm on XP Home on my Dell since that's what I upgraded to from Vista.  But I'm a bit confused about how it would help for graphics, wouldn't it still be slower graphics over remote desktop than running them natively in XP?  Would've been handy to be able to remote in when my laptop's backlight was dead though, although once I realized that was the problem connecting to my monitor via VGA worked pretty well, too.

Soooo...I manage systems at 3 different physical sites so something like over 100, and then probably almost that many that I'm working on in various stages.  Yes, I'm nuts, lol.  Funny thing is the spreadsheet is almost out of tabs!

Nope, you can rdp across all sorts of versions as long as you turn off the strict security on the newer ones.  I think the biggest leap has been my 98se machine rpding into a win 7 machine.  I've used xp to rdp into 7 and 10 as well, but the video is definitely slower.And you can cascade rpd sessions, so for example I have a win 7 thin client I use to rdp into about 20+ systems and then I use another thin client to rdp into that one depending on which site I'm at.

Oh, native video on xp will always be the fastest for the most part.  What I meant was that if you're rdping from xp to say win7/8/10/etc, the video is a bit slower because of the rdp client codec in xp.  But the other way around, rdping from 7/8/10/etc, the video will be faster and the jump from 7 to 10 is quite impressive.  The win10 codec improvements in rdp are substantial.  I actually got a pair of win10 thin clients just because of the video improvements over one of my remote links.  I'm able to see high-res pdfs now as if I was sitting at the main site versus thousands of miles away.

[Sandy Bridge]

5 hours ago, Samir said:

Soooo...I manage systems at 3 different physical sites so something like over 100, and then probably almost that many that I'm working on in various stages.  Yes, I'm nuts, lol.  Funny thing is the spreadsheet is almost out of tabs!

Nope, you can rdp across all sorts of versions as long as you turn off the strict security on the newer ones.  I think the biggest leap has been my 98se machine rpding into a win 7 machine.  I've used xp to rdp into 7 and 10 as well, but the video is definitely slower.And you can cascade rpd sessions, so for example I have a win 7 thin client I use to rdp into about 20+ systems and then I use another thin client to rdp into that one depending on which site I'm at.

Oh, native video on xp will always be the fastest for the most part.  What I meant was that if you're rdping from xp to say win7/8/10/etc, the video is a bit slower because of the rdp client codec in xp.  But the other way around, rdping from 7/8/10/etc, the video will be faster and the jump from 7 to 10 is quite impressive.  The win10 codec improvements in rdp are substantial.  I actually got a pair of win10 thin clients just because of the video improvements over one of my remote links.  I'm able to see high-res pdfs now as if I was sitting at the main site versus thousands of miles away.

Gotcha!  That's a lot of machines.  But those 100 aren't all personal machines stashed in your soon-to-be-laptop museum, it sounds like?  But the "almost that many" might be?  If you do launch a museum someday, be sure to share the news!  I've been to the Early Television Museum and want to go to the Computer History Museum someday.

The codecs... I can definitely believe that, although I've never used Remote Desktop from anything earlier than XP.  Nowadays I only use it on a LAN, an XP's codecs are good enough with that high-quality of a connection.  I can imagine 2001's technology wasn't ideal for higher-latency, lower-bandwidth situations compared to what we have today, though.

Cascading is pretty cool!  We used to do that at a place I worked a decade ago.  Remote into your machine from the conference room to present, then someone else goes to present, half the time they forget to close the remote session and thus remote in from an existing remote connection.  We never figured out how many times you had to cascade to bring things to a screeching halt.  Pretty sure we were on Windows 7 at the time.  I kind of liked that setup, all the computers were desktops so my 2011 work computer was the fastest work computer I had until 2018, and you just left everything at work at the end of the day, no lugging laptops around.  You could even connect remotely via a VPN and boot your desktop via Ethernet if you really needed to access it remotely, like if there was a really bad snow storm.  But it saved the company money on hardware, gave developers better performance, and encouraged leaving work at work.

But I'm still fairly certain that while I can remote from my 1520 when it's running XP, and often have, I can't remote into it with Remote Desktop.  Although checking some sources for this, it appears I might be able to use a client from Linux as well, which would be nice.

[Samir]

16 minutes ago, Sandy Bridge said:

Gotcha!  That's a lot of machines.  But those 100 aren't all personal machines stashed in your soon-to-be-laptop museum, it sounds like?  But the "almost that many" might be?  If you do launch a museum someday, be sure to share the news!  I've been to the Early Television Museum and want to go to the Computer History Museum someday.

The codecs... I can definitely believe that, although I've never used Remote Desktop from anything earlier than XP.  Nowadays I only use it on a LAN, an XP's codecs are good enough with that high-quality of a connection.  I can imagine 2001's technology wasn't ideal for higher-latency, lower-bandwidth situations compared to what we have today, though.

Cascading is pretty cool!  We used to do that at a place I worked a decade ago.  Remote into your machine from the conference room to present, then someone else goes to present, half the time they forget to close the remote session and thus remote in from an existing remote connection.  We never figured out how many times you had to cascade to bring things to a screeching halt.  Pretty sure we were on Windows 7 at the time.  I kind of liked that setup, all the computers were desktops so my 2011 work computer was the fastest work computer I had until 2018, and you just left everything at work at the end of the day, no lugging laptops around.  You could even connect remotely via a VPN and boot your desktop via Ethernet if you really needed to access it remotely, like if there was a really bad snow storm.  But it saved the company money on hardware, gave developers better performance, and encouraged leaving work at work.

But I'm still fairly certain that while I can remote from my 1520 when it's running XP, and often have, I can't remote into it with Remote Desktop.  Although checking some sources for this, it appears I might be able to use a client from Linux as well, which would be nice.

Actually a good number of them are personal machines since I didn't have a budget for setting things up a decade ago.  And then it's been piecemealing stuff that was cheap enough to get (read:old), so a lot of that stuff will be worthless to anyone but me when I'm done with them all. 

A long time ago I had a dream to start a museum like that, but I think what will happen instead is after I'm done with the machines, I will find them good homes, private or otherwise as my time as their custodian will be done and they would need to live on.  I think the Computer History Museum is only 20m away from my place in CA, and I know archive.org used to have a free tour every Friday, but they stopped during the pandemic.  If you're ever out this way and I'm home, definitely reach out as it would be good to go see these things with someone that would be interested in them.  I know the wife won't go, lol.

I only have one working 98se system that I use regularly, so that one has the rdp client on it.  There wasn't an rdp server for win9x afaik, so I haven't tried to set up any remote access to it yet.  Yep, xp is pretty good for lan, but once you're doing youtube videos on xp era hardware, the newer codecs show their strength.  Plus, my remote links are more like 10Mb in reality so in that scenario codec makes a difference.

Yep, I haven't found the cascade limit either except in confusion.  I think there is a way to actually make a 'infinite reflection' of them like a mirror in a mirror ad infinium as I've seen it once, but I've never tried.

Yeah, your work is exactly how I use my setup and it's brilliant for keeping data safe where it should be since even my laptop has nothing on it and I have it set up like a thin client so even the vpn setup and everything has to be set up manually each time before connecting.  It's why there were thin client laptops for a short time during the xpe era (I have about 5 of them--HP 4410T) that were really good at being light and could still do heavy work since it was the machine at the other end doing the real work.

Yep, you can remote from it, but not into it with xph.  With xpp you can do it both ways.  And linux is pretty easy as well as most live cds have an rdp client.  Sometimes it isn't as fast or fluid ime since these are opensource projects that don't have any real development muscle behind it, hence xp with an rdp client is usually quicker than linux on the same era hardware ime.