Who knows, maybe there is a huge difference between Win2000 and Mandrake on a slow system. Im quite spoiled on my 433, I tend to forget what windows was like on a 120.
Don't worry poo, im just venting. Im not n00b enough to throw in the towel just because XP says I should. Chances are how fast your mandrake performs is DIRECTLY related to how much shit you know about unix.
I've learnt that Linux is a totally new experience. You go in imagining wind0ze like things to happen(Besides crashes etc.), and they don't.
You bought Mandrake correct? Thus it should come with a book(possibly). So if it came with a book, then READ THAT BOOK!
My advice.
1)I noticed a huge difference between KDE and GNOME speedwise and ease of use wise. GNOME is neat, but there is NO ROOM for apples and oranges when one of them goes slow as shit. So use KDE.
2)Those services you have loading up, they likely have a major effect. HOWEVER, you must learn what ones you can disable without the GUI not loading. If only someone hear would answer my previous question.
3)I've found that Mandrake is very stable. If something crashes, it don't feel like a windows crash. The crash feels much weaker. Your system won't shut down, you won't end up with wierd anamolies that can only be fixed with rebooting etc.
4)Wine is an example of how Linux is less user friendly. But for all I know, perhaps the Wine creator could be a dum dum, and some people make their installations more user friendly. In addition, it will probably seem friendly enough once you master Linux.