PDA

View Full Version : Most lightweight?



Colo2
May 25th, 2012, 09:37 AM
Which is the most lightweight ubuntu? Lubuntu, Xubuntu etc.. - I want to try a lightweight one on my laptop to see if the battery life increases.

Tom

Hylas de Niall
May 25th, 2012, 09:39 AM
Lubuntu is the lightest *buntu i believe.

not found
May 25th, 2012, 09:40 AM
Lubuntu is the lightest as a standard release... but there are many light weight DE and WM that can be installed...


404

BlinkinCat
May 25th, 2012, 09:41 AM
Which is the most lightweight ubuntu? Lubuntu, Xubuntu etc.. - I want to try a lightweight one on my laptop to see if the battery life increases.

Tom

Hi,

Lubuntu is probably the most lightweight although I use Xubuntu and am rapt with it - :P

zombifier25
May 25th, 2012, 09:42 AM
Ubuntu Minimal. Period.

Bucky Ball
May 25th, 2012, 09:51 AM
Ubuntu Minimal. Period.

+1. All depending on how much you load in there, of course. If you install ubuntu-desktop after that then don't bother ... ;)

Colo2
May 25th, 2012, 09:52 AM
Thanks :) With Ubuntu, I've experienced extremely low battery life. Over half of the battery life I get with Windows 7. Do you think Lubuntu would be better?

Tom

mrgs
May 25th, 2012, 09:55 AM
Yes, no doubt.

You can setup you own minimal Lubuntu using this script:
http://andyduffell.com/techblog/?p=689

Here are more alternatives:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1582027

Colo2
May 25th, 2012, 09:58 AM
Cool, will give it a try. Thanks :)

Erik1984
May 25th, 2012, 10:16 AM
Thanks :) With Ubuntu, I've experienced extremely low battery life. Over half of the battery life I get with Windows 7. Do you think Lubuntu would be better?

Tom

Low battery life is another problem, not necessarily caused by a particular desktop environment. Of course it will help if the CPU and GPU have less work to do but I doubt it will lead to a massive increase in battery life (please tell me if I'm wrong :P). It's mainly a problem of the Linux kernel.

Rodney9
May 25th, 2012, 10:23 AM
http://maketecheasier.com/install-a-minimal-ubuntu-on-old-laptop/2012/02/24

Lucradia
May 25th, 2012, 10:24 AM
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=50703

Hylas de Niall
May 25th, 2012, 10:33 AM
http://maketecheasier.com/install-a-minimal-ubuntu-on-old-laptop/2012/02/24

Great link! ;)

hughr2005
May 25th, 2012, 10:34 AM
This may be heresy around here (I haven't been active in the forums very long) but have you tried Arch? It can be a bit of a b***h to set up, but it's basically only very few required packages plus whatever you need. There'd be very few processes running that weren't either integral to the system or that you have started yourself. Otherwise Lubuntu or Ubuntu Minimal or something like that. Having said that, I've got 12.04 running on a server with awful specs, it was made in 1999, so if that can run with no problems (which seems to be the case) I'm not sure how much impact that'd have on your battery life.

Colo2
May 25th, 2012, 12:36 PM
Hi.

Just to clarify. Ubuntu - apart from battery life, performs exquisitely on my Laptop. No complaints..


I'll check out arch, but I like the ubuntu compatibility.

ssam
May 25th, 2012, 12:49 PM
have you tried using powertop to see what is wasting your battery.

Colo2
May 26th, 2012, 10:19 AM
have you tried using powertop to see what is wasting your battery.

no :D I might try that, thanks.

Face-Ache
May 26th, 2012, 10:52 AM
Thread hijack! :)

I've got a friend giving me an old laptop. I don't even know the specs yet, but i assume a Lubuntu install will be my best option.

What are the minimum and recommended requirements for it?

mips
May 26th, 2012, 10:57 AM
Thread hijack! :)

I've got a friend giving me an old laptop. I don't even know the specs yet, but i assume a Lubuntu install will be my best option.

What are the minimum and recommended requirements for it?

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Lubuntu#System_Requirements

A Pentium II or Celeron system with 128 MB of RAM is probably a bottom-line configuration that may yield slow yet usable system with Lubuntu. It should be possible to install and run Lubuntu with less memory, but the result will likely not be suitable for practical use.

Face-Ache
May 26th, 2012, 11:42 AM
That's great, thank you mips.

forrestcupp
May 26th, 2012, 12:26 PM
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Lubuntu#System_Requirements

Lol. I think the only lower you can go from that is a C64. Celerons should have been outlawed.

Face-Ache
May 27th, 2012, 04:03 AM
Okay, i got my hands on this laptop today; it's got a 1.8Ghz processor and 512mb of RAM, so should be sweet.

I booted it into Windows XP, and it took over 20 minutes to fully load. Then double-click a folder, and literally wait 5 minutes for it to open. The whole time the hard drive is churning away.

So i suspected it might have a bad HDD.

I'm currently running on an Ubuntu 11.10 USB, recovering some 20GB of personal data from the previous owner. Taking about 4 hours to transfer to an external HDD.

I used Disk Utility to check the HDD. It's only 60GB in size, and passed all the relevant tests, but looks to have a few bad sectors. Ubuntu doesn't seem to mind these at all, and was quite happy to open files and folders on the hard-drive almost instantaneously.

I'm thinking that my next step might be to format the hard-drive, and install Ubuntu from the USB.

Do you think that's a viable option?
Will 512mb of RAM be enough to run Ubuntu 11.10?
Or would Lubuntu 12.04 be a better option?

Any other suggestions regarding turning this laptop into a functional and usable machine?

Bucky Ball
May 27th, 2012, 06:30 AM
Okay, i got my hands on this laptop today; it's got a 1.8Ghz processor and 512mb of RAM, so should be sweet.

I booted it into Windows XP, and it took over 20 minutes to fully load. Then double-click a folder, and literally wait 5 minutes for it to open. The whole time the hard drive is churning away.

So i suspected it might have a bad HDD.

I'm currently running on an Ubuntu 11.10 USB, recovering some 20GB of personal data from the previous owner. Taking about 4 hours to transfer to an external HDD.

I used Disk Utility to check the HDD. It's only 60GB in size, and passed all the relevant tests, but looks to have a few bad sectors. Ubuntu doesn't seem to mind these at all, and was quite happy to open files and folders on the hard-drive almost instantaneously.

I'm thinking that my next step might be to format the hard-drive, and install Ubuntu from the USB.

Do you think that's a viable option?
Will 512mb of RAM be enough to run Ubuntu 11.10?
Or would Lubuntu 12.04 be a better option?

Any other suggestions regarding turning this laptop into a functional and usable machine?

Might be best to post a new thread rather than jumping on this one. You'll get more specific help and avoid confusion. Post a link back here if you like. ;)

PS: Would definitely go Xubuntu or Lubuntu rather than Ubuntu.

Face-Ache
May 27th, 2012, 07:48 AM
Oh i did start another thread, over here;
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1988117

But more opinions will make for a more informed decision on my part, as to what to do next. Am looking at a Lubuntu install from here; got a 12.04 disc ready to go :)

mips
May 27th, 2012, 11:43 AM
The way to recover that partition is to use gnu ddrescue to make a image of the partition to another physically good drive. Once you have imaged the partition recover the data from there. I would not do this via a USB interface. Remove the drive from the laptop and connect it to a desktop via pata/sata connector and image to another pata/sata drive.

The fastest way to erase the drive is to use the drives own internal ata secure erase command which you can do via hdparm
https://ata.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/ATA_Secure_Erase
http://tinyapps.org/docs/wipe_drives_hdparm.html

Afterwards you can check the SMART data again but once the bad sectors start it's usually an indication of worse to come. So plan on getting a replacement drive.

That laptop is plenty powerful, buy another 1GB SODIMM for it and you can do plenty with it. More ram is always a good thing in linux. It's cheap and even cheaper second hand to acquire and will provide you with a much better usability experience.

What's the make & model of the laptop?

Face-Ache
May 27th, 2012, 12:07 PM
Thanks for the response, mips.

The previous owner wasn't too bothered about what i could, or couldn't recover from the drive, but i think it has been a long time since it was used, so he's forgotten what was actually on it.

He said "there might be a few photos on it that you could try and recover". Well, there's 20GB's of wedding photos, holiday photos, family gathering photos, pet photos etc. So i thought it'd be good if could recover the bulk of it.

The recovery is at about 85%, with an hour to go, so i'll just leave it to complete at this stage. Getting late here in NZ, so i'm off to bed after this, so it should finish during the night.

It's a Toshiba Satellite M40X.

It also has a vertical line running down one part of the LCD, but when i press on the top housing/bevel for the screen surround where the line is, it disappears. Currently got a 'bulldog clip' clamping it so it disappears. That's a short-term solution - i've Googled a few other options for fixing this line, and will try the 'card fix' method tomorrow;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Io55FZQUn8

Any other suggestions? About the vertical line, and/or anything else to do with this machine? :)

mips
May 27th, 2012, 12:52 PM
It also has a vertical line running down one part of the LCD, but when i press on the top housing/bevel for the screen surround where the line is, it disappears. Currently got a 'bulldog clip' clamping it so it disappears. That's a short-term solution - i've Googled a few other options for fixing this line, and will try the 'card fix' method tomorrow;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Io55FZQUn8

Any other suggestions? About the vertical line, and/or anything else to do with this machine? :)

Nope, a fix like that looks good. there might be other methods out there so maybe just do a bit of googling. Good luck!

Face-Ache
May 28th, 2012, 07:21 AM
The data-recover completed fine, but the screen has some major issues, so i'm going to swap it out with a new screen.

The existing screen has a resolution of 1280 x 800 - will it be an issue if i swap in a new screen that has a maximum resolution of 1680x1050?

Would appreciate some advice on that please :smile:

Bucky Ball
May 28th, 2012, 08:04 AM
... will it be an issue if i swap in a new screen that has a maximum resolution of 1680x1050?

Would appreciate some advice on that please :smile:

Shouldn't think so. The config should adjust accordingly and if not you can adjust it from the desktop. You could try running the new monitor with a boot from the LiveCD first to see if there are any bugs you need to tweak first (such as adding 'nomodset' or some other tweak).

Face-Ache
May 28th, 2012, 08:31 AM
Thanks for the response.

All the research i've done backs up what you say, so i'll probably pick up a screen i've found on TradeMe (that's kind of an NZ-based version of Ebay). This one;
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=477994169

NZD$75 seems a pretty good price really, what do you think?

mips
August 24th, 2012, 10:59 AM
From what I know you can't just stick any panel into any laptop. Within a laptop series you usually have a range of panels (resolutions) you can substitute with that would be compatible.

What is the full model# & part# of that laptop.

Also have you opened the lcd housing yet as the part numbers on the actual panel would also be useful.

Lucradia
August 24th, 2012, 04:25 PM
Lol. I think the only lower you can go from that is a C64. Celerons should have been outlawed.

Glad Lubuntu isn't the lowest spec. ubuntu config you can go. There's a config on the Debian forums I always link that has even lower requirements, using Openbox and other things to make the transition to it even easier (stalonetray is a biggie for people.) I don't like fluxbox due to the way hotkeys among other things work. Only problem is that you have to sudo the shutdown, because xmessage can't send a sudo command (wish it could without using gksudo or some GUI sudo that requires a ton of GNOME / XFCE /LXDE reqs.)

Jakin
August 24th, 2012, 07:45 PM
Regardless the desktop (and im currently using KDE4); The only time i have experienced saved battery life, is dimming the display, and enforcing low freq via stepping. Thank goodness Ubuntu seems to run OKAY at 800mhz albeit youtube issues.
Then again, if your doing that kinda thing all the time, you should expect to have poor battery life.

Bucky Ball
August 24th, 2012, 08:08 PM
Thread old, was dead, and now getting off topic. Closed.