Best "tiny" distro - Crunchbang, TinyMe, Antix...?

[manilaph]

Guys,

I want a secondary "tiny" distro to use on an older computer P3 (wired internet). I've read a lot of good reviews on the following:

crunchbang
tinyme
antix
u-lite
pud
dsl
puppy

just to name a few.

i prefer it to work "out of the box". i will basically use it for surfing and word processing (abiword is fine) and spreadsheets (gnumeric is fine).

how would you rate the tiny distros?

Thank you.

[RATM_Owns]

Tinycore is 10MB.

EDIT: BTW, Arch is light. I recommend it. :P

[bodhi.zazen]

Moved to recurring discussions. This has been asked and answered many times.

See : http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=575456

and distrowatch.

[Stan_1936]

1. Crunchbang Lite

[doorknob60]

Arch. Not an out of the box distro though. Out of your list from the ones I've used, Crunchbang is overall the best since it's based on Ubuntu, meaning it has pretty recent software and a great package manager, and it's pretty light.

[wolfen69]

tinyflux, antix, and puppy

[Orlsend]

The best one I seen is Puppy, out of the box...ready to work. under 78 MB.

[manilaph]

i've narrowed my choices to antix, crunchbang and tinyme based on the good reviews i've read on various forums and blogs.

arch has countless of good reviews but its disclaimer is it is not for newbies at all.

i need something that works wireless out of the box.

[chamber]

Crunchbang, using it right now and I love it.

[cmay]

debian lenny lxde+openbox cd image.
or just cd1 and uncheck desktop and standard system and then build it from base and up. then there is all the debian packages available and its stabile.
and as a extra goodie, "its debian " :)

[bodhi.zazen]

debian lenny lxde+openbox cd image.
or just cd1 and uncheck desktop and standard system and then build it from base and up. then there is all the debian packages available and its stabile.
and as a extra goodie, "its debian " :)

You can do the exact same thing with Ubuntu, check out the Ubuntu Minimal CD.

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD

The Ubuntu Minimal CD is a smaller download, < 10 Mb

It is a new install , so all the packages are up to date "out of the box". I installs a small, command line only system, just add what you want.

[manilaph]

Thank you for your replies.

I've downloaded the livecd's of the following:

1) Crunchbang - works out of the box including wireless

2) antiX - works out of the box including wireless

3) TinyMe 2008 Acorn - cannot load... something to do with X or graphics card. Tried the same Livecd on my PC and it works out of the box but not on my laptop. I wonder why.

Is there a step-by-step guide on how to use the minimal ubuntu cd and will it work my wireless (network manager) out of the box. I really require it to work to be able to install other stuff.

[bodhi.zazen]

The minimal ubuntu is a command line installation only and there is no GUI or network manager installed.

It sounds as if most distros recognize your wireless, so the minimal install will probably work.

From there (the command line) you will need to manually install your packages, including X if you want a GUI.

It sounds as if you do not know how to do this, so be prepared to read and learn.

With that said, it is not hard, start with these :

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/LowMemorySystems
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/minimal#barebones

[brack]

Have that question in mind as well. Presently using IceBuntu (distro, not a theme), but this project sims to be dead. There are no new versions after 2.3 which is gutsy. I looked at a few forums and reviews of tiny distros, and looks like AntiX can be fasted on old hardware, it is based on debian and I tried debian before, it was noticably faster than ubuntu derivates, but then I have a few PCs and all of them have ubuntu, so ubuntu derivate would be preferable for my conditions. Anyway, it IS hard choise for me. Have in mind Crunchbang or antix.

Sorry, just realizes that antix is Mephis deriviate, I didnt try Mephis.

[manilaph]

i was just wondering... if crunchbang is based on ubuntu, then would it be "slowed-down" because of the ubuntu-related software?

this is the same logic as someone previously said that Xubuntu is slow because of the ubuntu-related software instead of it being just a purely xfce remaster.

faster "tiny" installations would be the ones you do from scratch like Arch + XFCE / LXDE?

or Debian + XFCE / LXDE?

newbies go for those "ready to use out of the box" cd images wherein no major tweaking is necessary (that's me).

is there a cd image whether debian or arch that has something working (at least wifi) because without wifi... nothing can get installed or upgraded or expanded?

or even an ubuntu minimal... with working wifi? where there is an easy way to install stuff?

my PC has 1gb Ram and Ubuntu feels sluggish at times.

i am using Xubuntu right now on my laptop after having tried antix and crunchbang on the same machine. i would say that Xubuntu is more "complete" than the other 2 but of course at almost 700mb, Xubuntu is not considered a "tiny distro".

Sidux XFCE does not work on my laptop.

[snowpine]

i was just wondering... if crunchbang is based on ubuntu, then would it be "slowed-down" because of the ubuntu-related software?

this is the same logic as someone previously said that Xubuntu is slow because of the ubuntu-related software instead of it being just a purely xfce remaster.

You said you've tried Crunchbang; what was your experience? Did you find it to be "slowed-down"?

My understanding of Crunchbang is that its creator was very careful to use only GTK+ applications wherever possible, and there is also a full suite of speedy command line applications.

I am not a very experienced Xubuntu user, but in my limited experience, Crunchbang is noticeably faster.

My very favorite "tiny" distro (it's under 30mb) is SliTaz. The brand new Feb. 28 Cooking version has wireless working out of the box. It is my distro of choice on older Pentium 3 hardware, dual booting with Crunchbang for the times when I need an application from the Ubuntu repositories.

[manilaph]

snowpine,

yes you are correct... crunchbang is indeed faster than xubuntu and i am amazed by its stability too.

i am wondering as to why it has a low rank at distrowatch. so far, there are many praises about crunchbang on the internet.

i checked-out the crunchbang forums and there are lots of friendly and helpful guys over there.

hopefully a "lxbuntu" will be made....

i don't notice any speed difference between xubuntu and ubuntu. it sometimes even seems that ubuntu is faster.

[bodhi.zazen]

snowpine,

yes you are correct... crunchbang is indeed faster than xubuntu and i am amazed by its stability too.

i am wondering as to why it has a low rank at distrowatch. so far, there are many praises about crunchbang on the internet.

i checked-out the crunchbang forums and there are lots of friendly and helpful guys over there.

hopefully a "lxbuntu" will be made....

i don't notice any speed difference between xubuntu and ubuntu. it sometimes even seems that ubuntu is faster.

As you have pointed out, xubuntu is not really *that* much lighter then Ubuntu.

The issues in making a faster distro are in reducing the services running in the background and what apps one uses. gedit is faster then open office and dillo is faster then firefox.

The other issue is to install the window manager, and not the desktop. install KDE not kubuntu-desktop and install xfce, not xubuntu-desktop.

Ubuntu is targeted to new desktop users and as such tries to make things easy (automatic hardware recognition, automatic wireless, hibernation, etc) and there is going to be a trade off between bloat and functionality.

As you become a more experienced user, however, a minimal install or customized install can be optimized further. The most "extreme" is to go with Gentoo which will allow the most flexibility. The trade off is time spent in optimizing your system vs time spent using your system :twisted:

[ArtF10]

@OP Crunchbang Linux

[ikisham]

i am wondering as to why it has a low rank at distrowatch. so far, there are many praises about crunchbang on the internet.


Distrowatch has its public, that biases towards the american distros. Also there are local distros that have an active development and community but don't pay much attention in entering links in Wikipedia entries, for example.

[sgosnell]

Crunchbang is fine, but I wouldn't call it tiny. I have a variant of it (Cruncheee, optimized for the Asus EEE PC) on my Asus 701, and it works well for that. It has OpenBox, not really a desktop manager, but it gets the job done more or less. I wouldn't want anything less for normal use. I have a few tiny distros around for emergency use, but I wouldn't want to use them every day.

[init1]

SliTaz, although I can't get wireless to work

[cardinals_fan]

SliTaz is my overall favorite distro at the moment. Excluding NetBSD, of course.

[brack]

ok, I did a few tests, which are quite subjective, but do not relay on them too much. I tested a few ready "tiny" distros on my VirtualBox and here are the results:
CrunchBang Lite:
# larger download file but fast download
# straightforward and fast installation
# moderate to fast startup (ubuntu)
# logical but not automatically updated menu
# good settings GUI
# youtube works ok on default 800x600
# feels a little "thinking" in general
# shutdown option is hidden behind menu "exit"

AntiX Lite
# smaller file
# messy but understandable after reading F1 on startup screen of CD
# should read docs before starting live cd
# impression of slowness on livecd
# clear shutdown and restart buttons
# no splash during startup
# cannot login, giving up, too many problems.

Puppy 4.1.2 k2.6.25-16
# Very small file
# textual setup
# after selecting xorg and waiting for over 5min on black screen, almost gave up
# after several options was able to run livecd
# nice tools and speed
# youtube is a bit slow, slower then previos
# installation is quite advanced
# after installing on hd hangs during startup (probably xorg).

eeebuntu base
# largest of all file
# a bit slow livecd
# installer of Ubuntu simular to CrunchBang
# not fast, actually even slow

Debian netinstall
# smallest file
# fastest download
# choice of text/graphic install (I tried graphical automatic with LXDE)
# has advanced or automatic installation
# very long installation comparing to others
# requires some post installation setup (can be done with script e.g. http://debian.cante.net/stem/)
# youtube is very slow, maybe because debian took the highest possible resolution by default, otherwise one of the best performers

I did some testing to Ubuntu mini cd + LXDE and it looks good, but I think this is exactly what U-lite is and CrunchBang suppose to be faster as it uses more of "tiny" software.
So, after all I would probably give CrunchBang a try when I'll have a little more time.
I have icebuntu on my Celeron-566/RAM-319Mb and it works fine but the version is 7.10 and the project is not very active. The owner says that we should expect new version till this May. I wouldnt recommend it though because the is no formed community of this project, and thus no bright future.

[hellion0]

I run Ubuntu Minimal + LXDE (essentially U-Lite the hard way) on my oldest active machine, a Pentium 2, and it flies compared to most other stuff I've tried on it. I'd definitely advise it for that P3 of the OP's.

[wirepuller134]

We use Kateos on older systems, without any issues. The most active part of their forums is in Polish though.

[manilaph]

doing the ubuntu minimal cd install plus lxde sounds interesting.

is it possible to do this with only a wifi connection?

i am on ubuntu 8.10 and then installed lxde via synaptic. when i entered the lxde session, i could not find a way to connect via wifi anymore.

[Whorehay]

I second the LXDE suggestion. It not only "feels" faster but it actually uses less RAM. In my experience it's about 40-50MB less, which isn't significant if you have 2 GB's of RAM but it's a lot if you have 256 MB.

As for wireless connection, I've used Wicd (http://wicd.sourceforge.net/) to manage my wi-fi connection.

Some of Wicd's features include:
1. No Gnome dependencies (although it does require GTK), so it is easy to use in XFCE, Fluxbox, Openbox, Enlightenment, etc.
2. Ability to connect to wired and wireless networks
3. Profiles for each wireless network and wired network
4. Many encryption schemes, some of which include WEP/WPA/WPA2 (and you can add your own)
5. Remains compatible with wireless-tools
6. Tray icon showing network activity and signal strength

However, your question was which is the best tiny distro. In my experience, the latest antiX (http://distrowatch.com/?newsid=05328) worked best for me. The wi-fi worked right out of the box in the live CD, it has plenty of packages available (I don't care for compiling from source), it's pleasant to look at, and it only needed about 50-60MB of RAM at boot.

You can always try for yourself with something like UNetbootin (http://unetbootin.sourceforge.net/) without having to burn 10 CD's.

[will1911a1]

I haven't tired that many, but I'm gonna have to go with SliTaz right now.

[manilaph]

I second the LXDE suggestion. It not only "feels" faster but it actually uses less RAM. In my experience it's about 40-50MB less, which isn't significant if you have 2 GB's of RAM but it's a lot if you have 256 MB.

As for wireless connection, I've used Wicd (http://wicd.sourceforge.net/) to manage my wi-fi connection.



However, your question was which is the best tiny distro. In my experience, the latest antiX (http://distrowatch.com/?newsid=05328) worked best for me. The wi-fi worked right out of the box in the live CD, it has plenty of packages available (I don't care for compiling from source), it's pleasant to look at, and it only needed about 50-60MB of RAM at boot.

You can always try for yourself with something like UNetbootin (http://unetbootin.sourceforge.net/) without having to burn 10 CD's.

regarding the ubuntu minimal install, how were you able to install the wicd? is it built-in in the minimal install cd? i think i've read in the past the the minimal install of ubuntu and netinstall (minimal) of debian both required a wired connection since there is no wifi built-in in the cd. please correct me if i am wrong.

i am currently looking for a tutorial on the ubuntu minimal install cd with screenshots so that i know what is included in the step-by-step installation process. in the debian process, it required that the wireless driver (intel) would be installed via usb or some other media.

for minimal install cds, i think they should come at least with networkmanager or wicd plus the wireless drivers... just to get things going.

[ArtF10]

ok, I did a few tests, which are quite subjective, but do not relay on them too much. I tested a few ready "tiny" distros on my VirtualBox and here are the results:
CrunchBang Lite:
# larger download file but fast download
# straightforward and fast installation
# moderate to fast startup (ubuntu)
# logical but not automatically updated menu
# good settings GUI
# youtube works ok on default 800x600
# feels a little "thinking" in general
# shutdown option is hidden behind menu "exit"...

The startup is very fast on my machine. Slowness may just be because you've got it setup on virtualbox.

Really, these are not a problem at all.

What?

[Whorehay]

I can't help you there because I haven't experienced with the Minimal Install (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD) (yet). It appears that you will need a wired connection. I found a pretty kickass guide for the installation process here (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/minimal), complete with step-by-step screenshots. Print it out so you remember what to do.

As for Wicd (http://wicd.sourceforge.net/) or NetworkManager (http://projects.gnome.org/NetworkManager/), you'll have to use "apt-get install ____" to download and install the packages. My guess is they won't include these or the wireless drivers because then it wouldn't be an minimal install! Not everyone can/needs to/wants to surf the web from their computers.

[manilaph]

Just wondering....

Is it possible to REVERSE ENGINEER a current distro like Ubuntu 8.10 and start with the full live cd installed and then remove components until it becomes close to the minimal and then work from there? Just making sure that wireless is installed...

I mean... many problems with the minimal cds of Ubuntu and Debian start from no wireless or networking. Similar to the previous entry about Slitaz (no wireless working).

Will this reverse engineering make it faster or will it break things?

Isn't it logical that from the minimal... we work ourselves upward? What if from the upward position, we work ourselves downward?

What would make Ubuntu fast... like using LXDE... remove Gnome?

Brack, good review by the way.

[manilaph]

I can't help you there because I haven't experienced with the Minimal Install (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD) (yet). It appears that you will need a wired connection. I found a pretty kickass guide for the installation process here (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/minimal), complete with step-by-step screenshots. Print it out so you remember what to do.

As for Wicd (http://wicd.sourceforge.net/) or NetworkManager (http://projects.gnome.org/NetworkManager/), you'll have to use "apt-get install ____" to download and install the packages. My guess is they won't include these or the wireless drivers because then it wouldn't be an minimal install! Not everyone can/needs to/wants to surf the web from their computers.

maybe they should come up with an LXDE WIRELESS EDITION and LXDE WIRED EDITION.

or a MINIMAL CD WIRELESS EDITION and MINIMAL CD WIRED EDITION

[Whorehay]

maybe they should come up with an LXDE WIRELESS EDITION and LXDE WIRED EDITION.


They have something like that (http://blog.lxde.org/?p=208) in mind.

You can remove GNOME IF you don't have any dependencies. Switch NetworkManager for Wicd (http://wicd.sourceforge.net/), GDM for SLiM (http://slim.berlios.de/), etc. After that you can always purge whatever you know you won't use. Don't have a printer? Remove CUPS. Don't have a scanner? Get rid of XSane and so on and so forth. Keep your apps lightweight. You already mentioned alternatives such as Abiword and Gnumeric.

I don't know about reverse engineering, but you can also check out Ubuntu Mini Remix (http://ubuntu-mini-remix.crealabs.it/). According to their website it's a fully working Ubuntu Live CD containing only the minimal set of software to make the system work. It's only 133MB, and after downloading it you can use Ubuntu Customization Kit (http://uck.sourceforge.net/#features), Reconstructor (http://reconstructor.aperantis.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=37) or any other tool to remaster the ISO and add the software/configurations you want, building your own Ubuntu based Live CD.


I hope I'm not overwhelming you with options!

[ugm6hr]

Is it possible to REVERSE ENGINEER a current distro like Ubuntu 8.10 and start with the full live cd installed and then remove components until it becomes close to the minimal and then work from there? Just making sure that wireless is installed...


Yes. I did exactly that with a Xubuntu 8.04 Alternate CD.

See the Ubuntu + LXDE link below.

for minimal install cds, i think they should come at least with networkmanager or wicd plus the wireless drivers... just to get things going.

Not possible - Wicd and NM require a GUI desktop environment; it would therefore require X etc (and not be a minimal CD).

i am on ubuntu 8.10 and then installed lxde via synaptic. when i entered the lxde session, i could not find a way to connect via wifi anymore.

The LXDE networking tool is a bit rubbish at the moment. Both Wicd (http://ubuntu-lxde.wikidot.com/wifi-control) and NM will work, you just need to edit the autostarted apps (http://ubuntu-lxde.wikidot.com/autostarted-apps).

[manilaph]

Yes. I did exactly that with a Xubuntu 8.04 Alternate CD.

See the Ubuntu + LXDE link below.

Thank you for the link. I am reading it right now.

how i wish there was just an Ubuntu LXDE "LXBUNTU" LIVE/INSTALL CD so that all the set-up hassles will just be a press of a button.

i think this is the reason as to why Crunchbang, AntiX, TinyMe, Linux Mint Fluxbox CE are gaining ground. many are looking for light distros that work out of the box.

i hope that the Xubuntu team would keep the XFCE light... the way Xubuntu is supposed to be.

[snowpine]

Thank you for the link. I am reading it right now.

how i wish there was just an Ubuntu LXDE "LXBUNTU" LIVE/INSTALL CD so that all the set-up hassles will just be a press of a button.

i think this is the reason as to why Crunchbang, AntiX, TinyMe, Linux Mint Fluxbox CE are gaining ground. many are looking for light distros that work out of the box.

i hope that the Xubuntu team would keep the XFCE light... the way Xubuntu is supposed to be.

Rumor is there will be an LXDE Ubuntu soon, probably not 9.04 though.

It's really easy to make your own though.

Install CLI only with Ubuntu mini.iso
sudo apt-get install lxde
Install wicd: http://wicd.sourceforge.net/download.php

If you're using Jaunty, it's even easier, since wicd is in the repository.

Xubuntu is not a "light" distro, and I don't think it's supposed to be... it is Ubuntu for people who prefer Xfce to Gnome, nothing more, nothing less.

[manilaph]

Rumor is there will be an LXDE Ubuntu soon, probably not 9.04 though.

i think Linuxmint is also planning a LXDE CE too. i think it would be more popular than their Fluxbox CE.

i am currently using LXDE on top of Ubuntu 8.10. of course it is not as light as i want it to be and i do not know which programs to remove to make it lighter. although i removed openoffice and then installed abiword and gnumeric.

what happens if i remove the gnome-related stuff?

[manilaph]

there is another Ubuntu-based liveCD LXDE edition called MoonOS.

http://www.moonos.co.cc/

i think it is similar to LinuxMint too.

[brack]

Ok yesterday I tried CrunchBang and U-lite on my real machine Celeron-566/319Mb RAM/15Gb HDD. CrunchBang live cd startup was VERY slow, I was able to make a sandwich for myself while waiting. After I saw livecd I started the installation but succeeded only by installing cli ubuntu + CrunchBang install script found on CrunchBang site. Installation took about an hour and then everything was working. CrunchBang showed itself slugish as I expected and yutube was unwatchably slow. After a few tests with different versions of flashplayer and successful hang of system, I downloaded 8.04 mini cd and install script from U-Lite site. Installation of U-lite took longer than CrunchBang and I had to tweak U-Lite a bit by replacing GDM with Slim, now it starts up faster. Some disappointments:

Opera now takes up to 100% of CPU instead for 80% with IceBuntu based on 7.10
experienced some problems with pcmanfm initial configuration but quickly solved it
Dont see desktop icons by default

What would be the negatives without positives?

computer is fast enough
a lot of familiar applications from gnome Ubuntu
nice and easy GUIfide configuration
can watch Youtube in acceptable quality

I think maybe my results are such because 8.04 generally faster than 8.10? If i'm right then I should soon throw my old computer away. However, IceBuntu based on 7.10 feels faster but, even Opera took less resources, I couldnt watch Youtube.

[manilaph]

i noticed the super-long install of the crunchbang livecd too. i think it is a bug which i read about at the crunchbang forums.

the install seems to stall when it is installing "languages..." at around 84% into the installation.

has anyone tried www.moonos.co.cc yet?

it is supposed to be fast but i have not tried it yet.

[brack]

It looks like lxpanel in u-lite takes 6Mb of memory which is even more that openbox. I have deleted one of the panels but the size reduced only by 1mb so, it takes 5mb still more than openbox itself. Are there any other solutions, I mean alternative panels? IceWM maybe not so enhanced but it has builtin panel and all construction takes about 6Mb which is twice less than openbox+lxpanel. there is something to think about.

[chubble10]

Try "Damn Small Linux"

[Mehall]

I use Crunchbang on anything that will run it, unless I'm messing about with a new distro for fun.

If it won't run it? Puppy ftw, since it is more extendable than DSL, yet runs just as fast. (Hell, you can even get OO.o 3.0 onto Puppy!!!)

EDIT: In case nobody answered,

As well as Distrowatch being geared towards US distro's, Crunchbang only really gained it's popularity since about December. If you look at the 3-month rather than 6-month you'll see it's SHOT up the scale (whereas it's actually lost points in the last 7 days ): )

I am a vehement supporter of Crunchbang, because it is a modern distro that can do everything you need it to, looks great, and doesn't steal all your power just for the bare OS like Gnome/KDE do (and don't get me wrong, I like KDE)

I'm using #! on my laptop, and it's a fully modern PC. My only gripe with it is that it's not got a 64-bit final release yet (there IS one in testing, however) and thats not too much of an issue given my laptop MoBo came maxed at 2GB (won't take any more ): )

[manilaph]

I agree, Crunchbang gives full-functionality plus a lightweight desktop environment. And a big plus is that... it is based on Ubuntu.

Right now I am installing the Debian 5.0 Lenny XFCE_LXDE cd on my wired pc. Just to get the feel of LXDE.

I would think that I would rank them(in my opinion --- functionality + speed):

1) Crunchbang
2) LinuxMint Fluxbox CE
3) MoonOS
4) Xubuntu and LinuxMint XFCE
5) AntiX
6) TinyMe

The rest... DSL, Puppy, Slitaz are just too small.

If you noticed, the top 4 are all Ubuntu-based.:D

[brack]

The rest... DSL, Puppy, Slitaz are just too small.


I believe too small is good for me, I really love when the system is flying. Cannot start Puppy running on virtualbox though. Have no idea what is wrong but xorg just wont load, the machine hangs on that point :(

[Mehall]

I believe too small is good for me, I really love when the system is flying. Cannot start Puppy running on virtualbox though. Have no idea what is wrong but xorg just wont load, the machine hangs on that point :(



Did you try vesa mode rather than the other one?

I've honestly had few to no issues with Puppy and I highly reccomend burning it to disc.

If you use it in a comp with 250MB of ram or more, it loads completely to ram and is blindingly fast.

If you have less than that, it's as fats as your average Live cd is, but you can forget it's old hardware!!

[bhishan]

Arch Linux might be the one for you.

[Mehall]

When using a "tiny" distro, I want old hardware support, yet Arch doesn't support 586's at all. Puppy does and, while not optimised, ubuntu should run.

[Stan_1936]

...I would think that I would rank them(in my opinion --- functionality + speed):

1) Crunchbang
2) LinuxMint Fluxbox CE
3) MoonOS
4) Xubuntu and LinuxMint XFCE
5) AntiX
6) TinyMe...

I would put MoonOS ahead of Mint Fluxbox, but that's just me. LXDE feels more complete.

I have given Xubuntu many many chances to prove itself...7.04,7.10,8.04,8.10....I have tweaked it, tried it with Compiz Fusion, managed to speed it up slightly but I just CANNOT be more put off by a (non-KDE) distro than I am by Xubuntu. It's almost as slow as Ubuntu(GNOME) and looks AWFUL!!! Linux Mint XFCE is much better.

EDIT: BTW, Crunchbang (Lite) is DEFINITELY number 1.

[cptrohn]

I really like Puppy Linux for a tiny distro myself...

It was my first experience with Linux on my old Win 98 machine.

[manilaph]

I would put MoonOS ahead of Mint Fluxbox, but that's just me. LXDE feels more complete.

I have given Xubuntu many many chances to prove itself...7.04,7.10,8.04,8.10....I have tweaked it, tried it with Compiz Fusion, managed to speed it up slightly but I just CANNOT be more put off by a (non-KDE) distro than I am by Xubuntu. It's almost as slow as Ubuntu(GNOME) and looks AWFUL!!! Linux Mint XFCE is much better.

EDIT: BTW, Crunchbang (Lite) is DEFINITELY number 1.

I put the LinuxMint ahead of MoonOS because I consider the community behind the product as part of its functionality. Simply put, the LinuxMint name means a lot to many users.

If there would be a LinuxMint LXDE CE, that would be my #1 definitely.

[brack]

Did you try vesa mode rather than the other one?


Yest that is what I choose. When livecd starts if I choose xorg it hangs on livecd but if I choose vesa it works noce except that after installation on hard drive it doesnt ask for vesa or xorg it just hangs.

[Morton's Red Stapler]

I put the LinuxMint ahead of MoonOS because I consider the community behind the product as part of its functionality. Simply put, the LinuxMint name means a lot to many users.

If there would be a LinuxMint LXDE CE, that would be my #1 definitely.

Well, you may get your wish, I am working LinuxMint LXDE CE for Mint 7, so keep a look out.

[Twitch6000]

Well, you may get your wish, I am working LinuxMint LXDE CE for Mint 7, so keep a look out.

I will be sure to use it ;).

[wolfen69]

Well, you may get your wish, I am working LinuxMint LXDE CE for Mint 7, so keep a look out.

i guess that would basically be ubuntu base install with lxde and all codecs. whoop-dee-do.

[Sealbhach]

I tried out Float Linux (based on Arch) on a USB recently. Quite good.


http://fireflylinux.com/


.

[Mehall]

/me is waiting on Evoke aka. Damn Small BSD