Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29

Thread: CrunchBang vs Damn Small Linux vs Puppy

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    India
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu 16.04 Xenial Xerus

    CrunchBang vs Damn Small Linux vs Puppy

    Hi,

    Besides Ubuntu 10.10 I am using CrunchBang 10 openbox on the old Celeron computer (see my sig. ).

    CrunchBang is running well but even a little multitasking is making my pc slow. For example, if I run FF alone it performs well but if I try to listen to some music using vlc or smplayer it becomes very slow.

    Now, has anyone here used both CrunchBang & DSL or CrunchBang & Puppy ?

    I am trying to know which one of these is the lightest & can be installed to hard drive ?

    Please confine your choice within these three.

    Thanks in advance.
    Ubuntu 16.04
    free
    showing high ram usage ? Read this
    When people say "you've changed " there's a 95% chance that you just stopped acting the way they wanted you to.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Beans
    5,636

    Re: CrunchBang vs Damn Small Linux vs Puppy

    DSL is dead; hasn't been updated since '08 (I think).
    Replace it with Slitaz.

    From all the above mentioned, the lightest is an Arch linux install with Openbox stand alone (or any other feather weight window manager).
    My 2 drachmas.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Beans
    6,029

    Re: CrunchBang vs Damn Small Linux vs Puppy

    ^^
    Last edited by mips; March 20th, 2011 at 10:39 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Beans
    45

    Re: CrunchBang vs Damn Small Linux vs Puppy

    Crunchbang - The only thing light about it is the window manager. It has programs that are meant for newer computers.

    Puppy - Not as light as DSL, but it is actively being updated, and has a lot of programs.

    DSL - Not actively developed, but it runs like a champ on 10+ year old hardware. I've heard that it flies on 32mb RAM with X.

    Personally, I would go with Arch + IceWM or Openbox, or go for Slackware. Or, if you prefer the complete package, SliTaz is good.

    I had the same specs on my older laptop, and there really isn't a limit to what distros you can and can not use on it. I had a pretty good experience with Linux Mint Debian on it.

    Kick Firefox for something lighter. I really liked Dillo, and Netsurf, but you could always go for a more feature-rich browser, like Midori.
    Last edited by Hur Dur; March 20th, 2011 at 10:37 PM.
    Pentium Dual-Core 2.0ghz
    3GB RAM
    Intel 4500MHD
    Windows 7 Home Premium/Linux Mint Debian XFCE

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Beans
    6,029

    Re: CrunchBang vs Damn Small Linux vs Puppy

    Quote Originally Posted by TeoBigusGeekus View Post
    From all the above mentioned, the lightest is an Arch linux install with Openbox stand alone (or any other feather weight window manager).
    My 2 drachmas.
    For that Archbang could be an option.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Beans
    6,029

    Re: CrunchBang vs Damn Small Linux vs Puppy

    Quote Originally Posted by linuxyogi View Post
    For example, if I run FF alone it performs well but if I try to listen to some music using vlc or smplayer it becomes very slow.
    FF is a hog, maybe try a different browser.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago
    Beans
    344
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: CrunchBang vs Damn Small Linux vs Puppy

    Quote Originally Posted by linuxyogi View Post
    Hi,

    Besides Ubuntu 10.10 I am using CrunchBang 10 openbox on the old Celeron computer (see my sig. ).

    CrunchBang is running well but even a little multitasking is making my pc slow. For example, if I run FF alone it performs well but if I try to listen to some music using vlc or smplayer it becomes very slow.

    Now, has anyone here used both CrunchBang & DSL or CrunchBang & Puppy ?

    I am trying to know which one of these is the lightest & can be installed to hard drive ?

    Please confine your choice within these three.

    Thanks in advance.
    Your processor is not stopping you, it seems to be the RAM. I like Puppy, SliTaz, Tiny Core. (and FreeNAS, I will never stop recommending FreeNAS and a couple big HDD's.) You might want to check out XBMC Live distro, it runs fairly well on the specs you give (provided you have a decent graphics card, mine is a GeForce 6600, and it flies.)

    Also try a lighter browser. Midori, Dillo, Chromium, Epiphany, even Opera.

    Try using mplayer from the command line. It's really not that much more effort than using smplayer or vlc, although you will miss a lot of features.
    Last edited by jerenept; March 20th, 2011 at 10:43 PM.
    The above post definitely does not contain any sarcasm at all.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    West Hills CA
    Beans
    10,050
    Distro
    Ubuntu 14.04 Trusty Tahr

    Re: CrunchBang vs Damn Small Linux vs Puppy

    Celerons have a small cache and generally don't perform as well as Pentiums for desktop use. I agree with jerenept that freenas will run fine and provide many services without taxing the processor and celerons use much less power than Pentiums.

    So although it's fun to play with these light distros, as soon as you find better hardware, you will quickly switch the Celeron to server use and then you will look at freenas.
    -------------------------------------
    Oooh Shiny: PopularPages

    Unumquodque potest reparantur. Patientia sit virtus.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Beans
    61
    Distro
    Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick Meerkat

    Re: CrunchBang vs Damn Small Linux vs Puppy

    CrunchBang is definitely not light.

    Go with what everyone else is saying. Arch, OpenBox, and Tint2 would be a fairly simple but still nice setup. Midori is a nice lightweight browser and PCManFM or Thunar are lightweight file managers. I think it's XMMS that's a commandline music player so should be fairly lightweight. Might be worth checking the Arch forum and searching for low spec builds.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    India
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu 16.04 Xenial Xerus

    Re: CrunchBang vs Damn Small Linux vs Puppy

    Presently Downloading Puppy. In case I don't like Puppy I will try Arch.


    I have used both Chromium & Opera & I like them both. I am still with FF because of its security features. In FF I have added Addons like Adblock Plus, No Script, Better Privacy.
    I have no other issues about replacing FF with another browser other than security. What about security ?
    Can browsers like dillo, Chromium offer the same amount of security as FF (with all these addons)?

    I will write back about my experience with Puppy.

    Thanks to all you guys.
    Ubuntu 16.04
    free
    showing high ram usage ? Read this
    When people say "you've changed " there's a 95% chance that you just stopped acting the way they wanted you to.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •