I think it's not unreasonable to expect that a perf-focused distro would perform poorly on old hardware. But I also think that a double digit percentage of the

I think it's not unreasonable to expect that a perf-focused distro would perform poorly on old hardware. But I also think that a double digit percentage of the included window managers shouldn't fail, and the install shouldn't fail, and the system should reliably get through the boot process. In fact, the author of the article really didn't complain at all about the performance, they complained that the distro has rough edges that shouldn't really exist on any hardware. That said, I'm not sure what the author of the article was trying to do by testing this distro on old hardware. Even assuming the rough edges didn't exist, how useful is it to know how well it runs on hardware that's old enough to be in middle school? This is clearly not a distro for people with old hardware, so what reader is the author trying to reach? At best they were hoping it would breathe new life into the device (but it's pretty clear that's not what it was meant to do) and at worst they were looking to publish a "gotcha" article about how the distro didn't live up to the expectations.