Yes, people is throwing their slow Windows laptops on the dump. Sadly, that is why MS make so much profit - because many people think that when the computer gets slow they must buy a new one. Money in pocket for MS, but sadly not so good for the environoment.
That MS must be pure cancer.
Anyway, aye, myself I gave to recycle my old laptop when I have bought a new one, the one I use now. The old laptop was - by then - a ten year old
Toshiba Satellite, 1 GB of RAM, do not remember exactly how much GHZ, but something about 1.8 perhaps. Single core, one thread. It run
Vista. I decided to switch it because the integrated graphical module started to melt - peculiar stripes appeared at the bottom of the screen, rather recognizable as some kind of malfunction, heard it was irreparable.
With the current laptop I have, I think that I overpaid, unfortunately.
EDIT:
By the way, is it not quite silly that people by default buy a new version of - typically - Windows, when they get a new laptop? I mean, probably it is still cheaper this way than to buy a single Windows licence separately, although economically speaking, if to invest in one single Windows licence and then get a laptop without any preinstalled operating system, one could save some bit, if to reuse the licence later on another, consecutively owned machine. In particular this could be effective in the light of upgrades between Windows 7 and Windows 10, which I heard of to be available for free. Anyway, just a loose thought.
Oftentimes laptops have hardware setup, which by the industry standard is considered highly customized - especially with the hybrid graphics thing - and in turn requires dedicated support, which is suited to particular operating system. That is what defends an operating system preinstalled by default. I did get that with the laptop I use now. It came with Windows 10 preinstalled.
It is a
Dell machine. On the
Dell customer support website, there is an entire arsenal of drivers meant solely for the particular set of hardware I use, along with a piece of software of optional install, allowing to monitor current essential software versions and providing installs if allowed and required. Long story short, the laptop was kept as good as it gets in terms of the performance. Particularly - no novelty - the GPU was main beneficiary of this condition, as well as the BIOS. Moving to Linux, I did expect to loose such scope of vivid infrastructure and I was quite right with it, infact, I was welcomed by the "sync line glitch" problem regarding the integrated graphics, that I somehow solved only by the help of the Divine Turtle, being a total noob. It does tweak something in a bad way inside the system, though. Well, life in Linux, I guess.
Now, do I break a forum rule admitting the advantage of
Dell-
Microsoft-world cooperation solution over what the contemporary state GNU/Linux dimension does offer? I am simply stating a fact of there being a difference in user experience. The point is, when you go Linux, you go partisan.
Let me put it this way: the joy of life in Linux, has ethical merit to it. If highly pragmatic or not a fan of living by quirky moral ideals without any payoff specifically, stay with what comes by default.