Xubuntu Jaunty - not so light anymore

[timzak]

I know out of the box, Xubuntu has never been the lightest distro out there, but I used to be able to disable services and auto-started apps, then eliminate a panel and some panel applets to cut the memory footprint down pretty significantly. With Feisty, I could get it down to around 55 MB. I got Hardy down into the high 60s to low 70s in memory footprint. I could only get Intrepid down to about 100 MB. Now with Jaunty, I can't get the memory footprint any lower than regular Gnome Ubuntu Jaunty: roughly 150 MB. It seems like Xubuntu is moving away from calling itself lighter in weight than Ubuntu, and relabeling itself as Ubuntu with an XFCE DE. More about choice than lightweight. One thing I have to say, though: the default look of Xubuntu 9.04 is stunning. Very attractive out of the box!

Thoughts?

[wolfen69]

you have to realize that memory is very cheap these days, and most people have 512mb or more. if memory is an issue for you, just do a minimal install and build it up the way you want it. or there are other lightweight distros you can use.

[swoll1980]

you have to realize that memory is very cheap these days, and most people have 512mb or more. if memory is an issue for you, just do a minimal install and build it up the way you want it. or there are other lightweight distros you can use.

I agree. this whole memory footprint obsession is nonsense. Unless your computer is like 10 years old, there's no reason to worry about it.

[Kareeser]

wolfen: You have a point, but there are computers in production environments today which use legacy technologies and would be much too costly to upgrade.

For example, my server uses RDRAM, which would cost upwards of $100 for a 1GB stick.

In this case, it would be nicer if Xubuntu were more lightweight. It's a moot point, since I have Intrepid server on it, but the point is made.

[collinp]

I agree. this whole memory footprint obsession is nonsense. Unless your computer is like 10 years old, there's no reason to worry about it.

Really, my computer is a 10 year old HP Pavilion Intel Celeron 1.1GHz 512MB RAM computer. Gnome runs fine under it, with compiz enabled. Probably would have to go older, like 13-14 years old, for it to actually matter.

[CharmyBee]

There are also countries where you can't go out and splurge for gigabytes of RAM like everywhere else. Ditto for bandwidth.

[Icehuck]

wolfen: You have a point, but there are computers in production environments today which use legacy technologies and would be much too costly to upgrade.

For example, my server uses RDRAM, which would cost upwards of $100 for a 1GB stick.

In this case, it would be nicer if Xubuntu were more lightweight. It's a moot point, since I have Intrepid server on it, but the point is made.

Counting my ex-employer just spent $12,000 on upgrading the RAM on the two of our servers, I'm calling that a deal.

[chris4585]

Just use Puppy Linux?

Alternatively, install minimal installation and install xorg, gdm, lxde, firefox, etc... not so hard

[Joeb454]

I agree. this whole memory footprint obsession is nonsense.

I completely agree :)

I used to think "wow I'm using a lot of RAM" (I have 4GB, it was using < 1GB) until one day I stopped and thought "hold on....I have the potential to run all this 3 times over on the same machine!"

I don't worry about RAM usage anymore :)

[Namtabmai]

I completely agree :)

I disagree :) Well sort of, bare in mind my requirements probably differ greatly from the majority of users, but still a low memory foot print is what I look for in a WM.

I spend most of my time in other applications, mostly programming/data processing. I realised about 6 months ago I barely use any of the features of Gnome or any DM for that matter.

While a few hundred MB for a DM doesn't seem like much, when your running MySql, Apache, Firefox, Eclipse, etc those extra MBs can be put to much better use when I'm not ever using any of the features they being used for.

But this is the real beauty of Linux, it scales wonderfully in both directions. You'll have a hard time getting XP to work in a smaller foot print below the specs MS post, and without buying a totally different OS it won't use over 3.5Gb.
With Linux, it scales beautifully. It can run on you internet router, mp3 player or you can through everything you've got at it and it will use it.

[timzak]

Hey, I'm not asking for help or complaining! Just making a point.:P Xubuntu is supposed to be the version of Ubuntu with a lighter memory footprint, but in actuality it is now using the same amount of footprint as the Gnome variant. I'm not looking for a lighter weight distro. All of my machines have at least 512 MB and can run Gnome Jaunty just fine. But it is still an area of interest for me, so I like to see how much ram a distro needs. There's no point in running unneeded services or autostarting apps that you don't use, no matter how much ram you have.

My other observation was that Canonical made Xubuntu Jaunty look so much nicer, not even an attempt to make it look stripped down or "light". That indicates to me that they are moving away from the "light" label for Xubuntu and focusing more on the "different" label. Ie, Xubuntu uses a "different" DE and "different" set of apps with freedom of choice in mind, rather than lightweight.

[SomeGuyDude]

you have to realize that memory is very cheap these days, and most people have 512mb or more. if memory is an issue for you, just do a minimal install and build it up the way you want it. or there are other lightweight distros you can use.

I do always feel kinda stupid when I talk about this or that being too "heavy" for my tastes since I have 2 gigs in there and even a full-blown Ubuntu+Compiz install almost never went above 700mb with every app I ever used going.

[gn2]

I completely agree :)

I used to think "wow I'm using a lot of RAM" (I have 4GB, it was using < 1GB) until one day I stopped and thought "hold on....I have the potential to run all this 3 times over on the same machine!"

I don't worry about RAM usage anymore :)

But if all you could afford was a refurbished P3 laptop which can only accept 192mb of RAM installed you might think differently?

The minimum specifications are moving up and as they do the ladder is being pulled up and some people can't get on it any more.

One of the things Linux has always been good at is breathing life into older hardware, many distros still aim to achieve this, it seems Ubuntu doesn't care about it too much these days.

[swoll1980]

My other observation was that Canonical made Xubuntu Jaunty look so much nicer, not even an attempt to make it look stripped down or "light". That indicates to me that they are moving away from the "light" label for Xubuntu and focusing more on the "different" label. Ie, Xubuntu uses a "different" DE and "different" set of apps with freedom of choice in mind, rather than lightweight.

I think Xubuntu is a community project. I don't even think Canonical is involved with it

[smartboyathome]

I completely agree :)

I used to think "wow I'm using a lot of RAM" (I have 4GB, it was using < 1GB) until one day I stopped and thought "hold on....I have the potential to run all this 3 times over on the same machine!"

I don't worry about RAM usage anymore :)

Well, on my laptop it has 1GB of RAM. I still have to worry about RAM usage since over 50% gets used when I have Firefox, Openoffice, PCManFM, and gnome-terminal open at the same time. Think of how much more RAM would be used if I used a DE instead of E17. ;)

[Namtabmai]

One of the things Linux has always been good at is breathing life into older hardware, many distros still aim to achieve this, it seems Ubuntu doesn't care about it too much these days.

You're right, Linux's aims is to run on any hardware that someone is willing to support, but that isn't really Ubuntu's aim. Ubuntu, I believe, aims to provide a total modern operating system, which it does really well. But it does this at the cost of requiring a fairly modern spec computer for optimum performance.

Xubuntu's aim's are two fold, 1) to run require the minimum hardware possible, 2) to run the Xfce desktop. From the OP it seems like Xubuntu is missing one of their primary goals.

[swoll1980]

But if all you could afford was a refurbished P3 laptop which can only accept 192mb of RAM installed you might think differently?

The minimum specifications are moving up and as they do the ladder is being pulled up and some people can't get on it any more.

One of the things Linux has always been good at is breathing life into older hardware, many distros still aim to achieve this, it seems Ubuntu doesn't care about it too much these days.

Which would be a machine that's over 10 years old. When do they draw the line, and say OK we're not worried about that machine anymore? As you said there are plenty of distros that cater to older machines. If you are in the minority of people that have a ten year old computer, your going to have to accept the fact that you might get left behind at some point.

[Skripka]

Which would be a machine that's over 10 years old. When do they draw the line, and say OK we're not worried about that machine anymore? As you said there are plenty of distros that cater to older machines. If you are in the minority of people that have a ten year old computer, your going to have to accept the fact that you might get left behind at some point.

Point--but if so, WTH does *buntu STILL compile 32bit as i386????? It doesn't make any sense, whatsoever.

[I-75]

I have several PI and PII desktops, most with a ram limitation of 256MB. So ram upgrades are not a option in these cases. Puppy is too limiting, I would prefer some Ubuntu distro.

I have Xubuntu 7.04 on a PII desktop, it is definitely faster than 8.04 Xubuntu. I did try Fluxbuntu 7.10 and it was pretty buggy and problems with the splash top (the clock would freeze while trying to boot).

As great as Xubuntu is, we need a Ubuntu thats even lighter. There is definite interest in a Ubuntu distro that can run on slow (300 Mhz) machines with as little as 128 MB or even 64 MB ram.

Puppy doesn't cut it.

[Keithhed]

Ya, I was under the impression that Xubuntu was the "light version" of Ubuntu's proper release. I prefer Ubuntu on my main machine, but I have a dinosaur with very limited resources that runs good on Xubuntu 8.1

[0per4t0r]

Is 2 gigs of ram enough?

[sertse]

"Most people have 512 mb or more" isn't an defence for Xubuntu, once you realise that at 1 Gb, you can run Ubuntu without any issues at all. where does Xubuntu fit in then, if it's goal is to be lighter than Ubuntu?

Anyways Xubuntu is not a light OS has been something that's been going on forever. :) Take this from 2years ago: http://kmandla.wordpress.com/2007/01/07/remember-this/

The more you know....

[wolfen69]

But if all you could afford was a refurbished P3 laptop which can only accept 192mb of RAM installed you might think differently?
i wouldn't be using regular ubuntu then. things move forward. it's like only having 512ram and complaining you can't run vista.


The minimum specifications are moving up and as they do the ladder is being pulled up and some people can't get on it any more.
worse things in life have happened. use what works on the computer.


it seems Ubuntu doesn't care about it too much these days.
i'm sure it's not that they don't care, but more of a programming limitation. in other words, to keep the people with more modern computers happy, they will have to leave some users of older pc's out in the cold. remember that old saying: "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

i'm sorry if this does not please you, but that's life. things move forward, and you'll have to do what's necessary for you.

[floborg]

Puppy was mentioned in this thread. I should let you know that the plans for the next major Puppy release are leaning towards a Jaunty-Ubuntu-based Puppy as one of the main releases. The alpha looks an awful lot like a normal Puppt, but I believe you could install most Ubuntu packages.

[adamlau]

Lighter and faster is always better in my book. Like many of you, I started with a x286 and moved on up through the years. Like many of you, I have been spoiled by dual cores and the like as the lag on a minimal CRUX + dwm build on a 1GHz Celeron with 512MB is enough to irritate me.

[billgoldberg]

Xubuntu has never been a real light-weigth distro.

Some people claimed so, but it wasn't.

If you pc couldn't run gnome, well it couldn't run xfce.

I have an old Dell Optiplex PII with 192mb of ram and I couldn't even dream about running Xubuntu on it.

I'm to cheap/lazy to upgrade the ram, so I installed Slitaz.

Now that's lightweigth. Distro is 30mb large and runs extremely fast.

If you are using an old piece of **** pc, forget (x)Ubuntu.

[K.Mandla]

Xubuntu has never been a real light-weigth distro.

Some people claimed so, but it wasn't.

If you pc couldn't run gnome, well it couldn't run xfce.

I have an old Dell Optiplex PII with 192mb of ram and I couldn't even dream about running Xubuntu on it.

I'm to cheap/lazy to upgrade the ram, so I installed Slitaz.

Now that's lightweigth. Distro is 30mb large and runs extremely fast.

If you are using an old piece of **** pc, forget (x)Ubuntu.
Quoted for truth. I've been harping on the OP's point for a long time, and it's what originally drove me away from Xubuntu, years ago.

I don't mind the direction Xubuntu has gone/is going; that is a decision made by the developers and Xubuntu's user base. My complaint is the knee-jerk reaction to recommending Xubuntu for anyone running pre-Pentium 4 hardware, because -- as most people in this thread seem to agree -- Xubuntu is not a lightweight distro. It's just Gnome Ubuntu with an XFCE face.

Just my $0.02: http://kmandla.wordpress.com/2009/01/03/fair-but-honest-xubuntu-810/

[skymera]

Crunchbang Linux is a fully functional very lightweight Ubuntu based OS.

It uses 56MB RAM on bootup and has never gone over 180MB for me (with Emesene, Firefox, Banshee and a game running)

[I-75]

Puppy was mentioned in this thread. I should let you know that the plans for the next major Puppy release are leaning towards a Jaunty-Ubuntu-based Puppy as one of the main releases. The alpha looks an awful lot like a normal Puppt, but I believe you could install most Ubuntu packages.



That would be great.

[DJiNN]

Well, on my laptop it has 1GB of RAM. I still have to worry about RAM usage since over 50% gets used when I have Firefox, Openoffice, PCManFM, and gnome-terminal open at the same time. Think of how much more RAM would be used if I used a DE instead of E17. ;)

Totally agree!! I've got 2gb on my laptop, and Firefox alone can consume VAST amounts of Ram, especially when you have a few extensions & loads of tabs!

Also, as there are many things that i can't do (or don't like to do) in Linux, i still use XP a lot, but prefer to run a cut down version in VirtualBox, which of course eats up even more memory.

So even with 1-2gb, you can still find yourself running short on RAM, which is pretty pathetic really, hence the need for "Leaner" setups i guess?

I don't bother with Xubuntu anymore, mainly because for a "Light" distro, it's just not so light anymore. On the desktop machine (P4 2.6gig with 1GB RAM) i use antiX mostly, which runs really well & doesn't consume vast amounts of resources.

One last point..... it's not just about RAM, it's the "Speed" factor (for me at least). Most large distros HAVE to have a lot of ram just to be able to work effectively, whereas a smaller/lighter distro that uses less resources, runs great on a machine with limited resources, and even better on a machine with plenty of Grunt!!

Xubuntu is still a nice package though, and as the OP pointed out, looks really stunning OOTB! Just a shame that it's not as light as it could be.

[XubuRoxMySox]

Just a totally wild thought from a newbie, go ahead and laugh if it's dumb (I'll laugh too once someone explains why it's funny):

Would the new Ubunto for netbooks (Remix) work on an older machine? Is it a better "Ubuntu Light" than Xubuntu?

Getting ready for the thrown tomatoes and peals of laughter - but still, could it be?

-Robin

[snowpine]

Just a totally wild thought from a newbie, go ahead and laugh if it's dumb (I'll laugh too once someone explains why it's funny):

Would the new Ubunto for netbooks (Remix) work on an older machine? Is it a better "Ubuntu Light" than Xubuntu?

Getting ready for the thrown tomatoes and peals of laughter - but still, could it be?

-Robin

It is not a bad question, but the answer is, Netbook Remix uses the same core system as "regular" Ubuntu. The main difference is the user interface, which is specifically designed for 7-10" screens. I would not personally use NBR on a non-netbook computer.

[SomeGuyDude]

One of these days Ubuntu is going to have to say "look, we're not going to cater to a computer with less than 256MB of memory."

The Arch forums exploded at the idea that Arch would drop i686 support (an April Fools joke, but still). Someone pointed out that it's been years since computers stopped having 32-bit procs.

Not every Linux distro should feel compelled to cater to low-hardware machines, and frankly any distro that wants to be "big time" SHOULDN'T. The way to breaking it big is to make it take advantage of the hardware consumers have, not throttling it to pander to those who don't have enough power to run a GNOME desktop.

[paulmgreins]

As Long as it can fit on a single cd, It is fine for me.

[Tristam Green]

One of these days Ubuntu is going to have to say "look, we're not going to cater to a computer with less than 256MB of memory."


As Long as it can fit on a single cd, It is fine for me.

I think these are the finer points of this thread.

Support for legacy systems can only last so long.

[4th guy]

I agree. this whole memory footprint obsession is nonsense. Unless your computer is like 10 years old, there's no reason to worry about it.Good grief, I just realized that my old computer is 9 years old!

[majabl]

I agree. this whole memory footprint obsession is nonsense. Unless your computer is like 10 years old, there's no reason to worry about it.

One of my computers is 10 years old (the Celeron 633) and it's the processor requirement, rather than the memory footprint, of Ubuntu or Xubuntu that hurts.

[Salpiche]

I think that there will always be options on this matter, right now for example you can download the minimal cd from https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD and build from there. Yeah it takes a little more work and knowledge but if you want to use it on an old computer with only 128 MB of ram and 400 mhz you still can.

[timzak]

Xubuntu has never been a real light-weigth distro.

Yeah, but at least you USED to be able to trim it down manually a bit to get it significantly lighter than the Gnome version. I think I mentioned earlier in this thread, I used to be able to make it much more lightweight just by disabling a few things. With Jaunty, it seems like nothing I do can get the XFCE footprint less than Gnome.

I'm not sure whether to be more impressed with the Gnome version, or disappointed with the XFCE version.

As someone else mentioned, I think it would be a great move to get a Puppy edition of Ubuntu. Pupuntu?

[Pogeymanz]

i'm sure it's not that they don't care, but more of a programming limitation. in other words, to keep the people with more modern computers happy, they will have to leave some users of older pc's out in the cold. remember that old saying: "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

i'm sorry if this does not please you, but that's life. things move forward, and you'll have to do what's necessary for you.

The problem with this logic is that XFCE is indeed a very lightweight and fully functional DE. It is not a programming limitation that Xubuntu is bloated. Plenty of other distros do XFCE and are way lighter than Xubuntu. Just try Debian with XFCE and compare it to Xubuntu.

I feel like if the Ubuntu devs are going to make Xubuntu so bloated and Gnome-like, they shouldn't bother. Just let people use the minimal install and put XFCE on by themselves.

[wolfen69]

Not every Linux distro should feel compelled to cater to low-hardware machines, and frankly any distro that wants to be "big time" SHOULDN'T. The way to breaking it big is to make it take advantage of the hardware consumers have, not throttling it to pander to those who don't have enough power to run a GNOME desktop.

finally someone with some common sense. thank you.

if you need something lighter than what the default ubuntu install provides, it's simple. do a minimal install, or use one of the many distros out there that cater to older computers. end of story.

[timzak]

I completely agree :)

I used to think "wow I'm using a lot of RAM" (I have 4GB, it was using < 1GB) until one day I stopped and thought "hold on....I have the potential to run all this 3 times over on the same machine!"

I don't worry about RAM usage anymore :)

I see your point, but I believe that MS took this too far when developing Vista. Understandably, technology will always move forward and more can be done in an OS when more RAM and processing power are the norm, but we have to be careful not to have a wasteful attitude when it comes to system resources.

[clubsoda]

I've always preferred Xubuntu for its lower demands on CPU, memory, graphics bus bandwidth and in one case even hard disk space.

About Xfce
Xfce is a lightweight desktop environment for unix-like operating systems. It aims to be fast and lightweight, while still being visually appealing and user friendly.

Google still reports the following from the Xubuntu home page:-
Xubuntu
An official version of Ubuntu Linux that uses the XFCE desktop environment. Designed for low-specification computers.However, a visit to http://www.xubuntu.org shows that those words have now been removed(!)

Of course, Xubuntu can be whatever its creators wish it to be but I don't see it surviving as a distro on the "choice" argument alone - it has to be light too. [IMO]

[billgoldberg]

So even with 1-2gb, you can still find yourself running short on RAM, which is pretty pathetic really, hence the need for "Leaner" setups i guess?



Say what?

I ran Vista and Ubuntu for years on 1gb ram.

In all that time I saw using my swap once.

I know have 2 gb of ram and it never even came close to using it all.

And even if it did, so what?

I don't bought the extra memory for it never to be used.

[snowpine]

Sidux XFCE has removed any desire I ever once had for Xubuntu...

[0per4t0r]

I'm downloading the iso, and it's taking forever!
Probably because the U.S. mirror isn't up yet, and I had to use the waterloo, canada one. :(

[drawkcab]

use a torrent, it's way faster

[0per4t0r]

I'm kinda iffy with torrents.(The computer kind) My dad owns a Pontiac Torrent :D

[forrestcupp]

you have to realize that memory is very cheap these days, and most people have 512mb or more. if memory is an issue for you, just do a minimal install and build it up the way you want it. or there are other lightweight distros you can use.

Then what the heck's the point in even having lightweight DE's? I say either make the supposedly lightweight ones lightweight or don't make them at all. If, like you say, Ubuntu shouldn't cater to the old computers, they shouldn't even have Xubuntu at all. If you're not worried about a low footprint, why in the world would you install an OS that is less capable?

Xubuntu is ridiculous anyway. It's evolving to the point that it's not really that much different than Gnome. We don't need two Gnomes.

I will say that Xubuntu's color schemes are better than Ubuntu's, though.

[0per4t0r]

Xubuntu is good, it has a hamster.
But, since it's jaunty jackalope, they should put antlers on the hamster :D

[snowpine]

Some of you are confusing "distro" with "desktop environment." Ubuntu is not a "lightweight distro" regardless of whether you're using Gnome, Xfce, KDE, Fluxbox, whatever. I view this as a conscious design decision rather than a failure. :)

[Mehall]

Some of you are confusing "distro" with "desktop environment." Ubuntu is not a "lightweight distro" regardless of whether you're using Gnome, Xfce, KDE, Fluxbox, whatever. I view this as a conscious design decision rather than a failure. :)

Then why, exactly, can you use the Minimal install and add only what you want, and run it on a lower computer?

and Crunchbang is based on Ubuntu, yet it is a speedy distro, even on lower hardware (I don't refer to it as a lightweight distro, I refer to it being a speedy distro on most hardware. It's still a full-fat distro, just fast on most hardware)

[snowpine]

Then why, exactly, can you use the Minimal install and add only what you want, and run it on a lower computer?

and Crunchbang is based on Ubuntu, yet it is a speedy distro, even on lower hardware (I don't refer to it as a lightweight distro, I refer to it being a speedy distro on most hardware. It's still a full-fat distro, just fast on most hardware)

That is a great point Mehall. Let me explain myself. To me, "distro" means the full install as envisioned by the developers. The total sum of the parts. By my definition, the minimal install is not the distro, only the full desktop install. And the Ubuntu project seems to me to have a core "sameness" whether Ubuntu, Xubuntu, or Kubuntu, and to me that sameness is the distro that is Ubuntu. "Linux for Human Beings" :)

That being said...

I have never had much luck installing minimal CLI Ubuntu with less than 64mb of ram, whereas there are truly "lightweight" distros that will run a full GUI desktop and applications under 64mb. This leads me to believe there is something fundamentally at the core of Ubuntu that makes it bulkier than many other distros, even as a minimal install.

CrunchBang is a great example, and I'm glad you brought that up too. I consider it a separate distro because it a) has its own repositories, b) its intangible "distroness" is very different from Ubuntu's, and c) would probably continue to exist as a project even if Ubuntu disappeared. I love CrunchBang and say this with all due respect: CrunchBang could be much lighter if it did not use Ubuntu as its core. Which kind of proves my original point. :)

[DJiNN]

As someone else mentioned, I think it would be a great move to get a Puppy edition of Ubuntu. Pupuntu?

Funny you should say that, because i read this very thing somewhere just the other day (Can't remember where now though). Something to do with a Puppy fork using Ubuntu as the base (& i guess because it's got huge repos etc). Could be interesting. :)

[snowpine]

Funny you should say that, because i read this very thing somewhere just the other day (Can't remember where now though). Something to do with a Puppy fork using Ubuntu as the base (& i guess because it's got huge repos etc). Could be interesting. :)

It is called WOOF and it's in alpha:

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?search_id=2015950514&t=41539
http://www.puppylinux.com/blog/?viewCat=Woof

[DJiNN]

Nice one, thanks for the links snowpine. :)

[chris4585]

would probably continue to exist as a project even if Ubuntu disappeared.

If Crunchbang copies Ubuntu's repositories, then it would have to use Debian's repository (which is completely plausable), and its plausable that Crunchbang could be based off of Debian, but without Ubuntu to begin with I'm not sure Crunchbang would be around today.

[etnlIcarus]

Alright, let's cut the bull in this thread:

'512MB RAM is enough' - only for 32-bit Besides that fact that 512 is hardly an all-inclusive barrier, anyone with an early-ish 64-bit processor and a desire to get the most out of their hardware is going to suffer in the RAM department. [X/K]Ubuntu 64-bit is unusable with any less than 1GB of RAM, and even then...

Whether you're running the 32-bit edition with 512MB of RAM or the 64-bit edition with 1GB or RAM, swap usage is still a PITA.

'A minimal install + just the components you want will be significantly lighter than a full Xubuntu install' is not true. I'm running a minimal install. Unless you plan to only use terminal apps, you're going to end up with extra services, regardless of your DE or WM. Unless you plan to restart X every 10 minutes, it's memory usage is going to balloon. Also, the basic design of recent Ubuntu incarnations (eg. the way HAL is now used to provide hardware hot-plug-ability) simply demands more memory.

'Version X of [X/K]Ubuntu uses X amount of memory' is not an accurate measure of memory requirements. Your hardware plays a very large part in determining how much memory the OS requires. Expect to see a considerable jump in memory usage when installing [X/K]Ubuntu on more modern hardware and the inverse is generally also true. To quote about a million people: "results may vary".

[Praxicoide]

I'm running Xubuntu 9.04 on a 128MB RAM computer and it's pretty fast, it's running faster than with 8.10, probably thanks to ext4. I didn't even compile the kernel. All you need to do is to strip a few gnome-dependencies, changing them for xfce apps.

I almost went for an lxde environment because of the constant complaints, but Xfce4.6 is so good that I had to give it another shot, by way of a minimal install, and it did not disappoint.

I have to agree with the poster above, by the time I finished the install, Pretty much all the packages in the standard install were there. It would have been easier to strip down a xubuntu-alternative install.

[graabein]

To me, the goal of Xubuntu should be lightweight first and a complete desktop second. The price of memory or computer parts is not the issue. You have a piece of hardware and run the software best suited. If you have to go out and get new parts for the computer you could just as well use regular Ubuntu og Kubuntu.

I hope they refocus on the next Xubuntu release. Another approach for getting a lightweight Ubuntu is installing the server and LXDE (http://www.lxde.org/).

[Mehall]

To me, the goal of Xubuntu should be lightweight first and a complete desktop second. The price of memory or computer parts is not the issue. You have a piece of hardware and run the software best suited. If you have to go out and get new parts for the computer you could just as well use regular Ubuntu og Kubuntu.

I hope they refocus on the next Xubuntu release. Another approach for getting a lightweight Ubuntu is installing the server and LXDE (http://www.lxde.org/).

I agree.

I use Crunchbang though. it IS minimalist :D

[Praxicoide]

I'm not so sure, it's a balancing act for sure, but Ubuntu is supposed to be linux made easy.

And seriously, Xfce4.6 is wonderful. I don't think it's a lighter and lamer version of gnome. It stands well enough on its own. Configuration has become very easiy and standardized, and its modularity lets you load only what you need. Gone are the crashes that leave you with an empty screen. There are a load of good plugins. The only problem I see is the menu configuration.

EDIT: And again, I have only 128 of RAM and I'm not experiencing any problems. Lxde did not make THAT much of a difference and it's more difficult to configure and uglier (subjective, but still).

More than the DE, speed will depend on your hardware, apps and kernel. Ubuntu's implementation makes it work straight out of the box for most computers, but it's slower than other distros.

[Praxicoide]

My advise would be to get rid of pulseaudio (if it comes by default, I don't know), get rid of the system monitor and go for the xfce4-taskmanager, UNINSTALL APT-XAPIAN-INDEX because it has a serious bug that hogs memory, don't use firefox at all, uninstall it if you can (I don't know if it makes any difference) by installing epiphany (just to solve plugin dependencies) and installing Midori, which is way faster and since 0.1.4 pretty stable (the one in the repos crashes all the time, make sure to add the webkit and midori ppa's). Use claws-mail instead of thunderbird. Use the xfce power manager. You know, details like that.

EDIT: And anyways, if you have the skills to discuss minimal installs and working with just basic window managers, why not compile your kernel? I'm fairly certain that's the best overall speed boost you can perform.

[HavocXphere]

55->70 = 27% increase
70->100 = 43% increase
100->150 = 50% increase

So they do appear to be increasing the footprint quite a bit. (I assume those were all on same hardware & resolution...)

I'm kinda wary of the "RAM is cheap" argument. It reminds me of 2 things: Vista and 100mb+ graphics drivers.:evil:

The other thing to consider is whether that memory footprint includes any caching etc. Not sure how the *nix architecture does these things.

IMO an 50% increase is pushing it. Especially if the releases are made 2x per year.

[lafcina]

Hi,
I've just installed xubuntu 9.04 and I am REALLY DISAPPOINTED with exactly same issue: the Xubuntu is not light any more, not at all :`(

And for these calculating on megabites, GHz, etc. : this is not first issue, I have a laptop fast enough, but I just don't like today's way of doing things: SPEND MORE, USE MORE, DESTROY MORE just they can SOLD us MORE, and SPEND MORE, USE MORE, ...

Regards

[Polygon]

I agree. this whole memory footprint obsession is nonsense. Unless your computer is like 10 years old, there's no reason to worry about it.

when you can only really install like 2 128mb sticks, like in my really really old computer, then yes, it becomes a problem

[Mehall]

What? THat's 256MB of RAM! I ahve a machine that would KILL for 256MB!

It's stuck with two 64MB sticks!!!

[Polygon]

yes, it used to run windows 95 and 98, so its not THAT old...and its still quite usable. only problem is that the ps/2 port for the keyboard no longer works, so i cannot install ubuntu (as it needs to load the kernel first before i can use any keyboard input, and the ubuntu disks need you to press enter to start the live cd)

oh well, there is always arch =)

[jml]

Consider going back to Ubuntu's roots. Debian is very configurable and can be installed with an Xfce desktop and not have the added resource need that the Gnome components of Xubuntu add. Now to be fair, those components are there to add functionality and convienence for the end user.

Interestingly, the editorial in this week's Distrowatch newsletter compared Xubuntu to Debian 5.0.1 Xfce. Here is the link:

http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090427

It was interesting to note that Debian's memory footprint was less than 50% (64.95 vs 140.60 MB)of Xubuntu's and generally it ran faster as well. My take away from this comparison is that if memory upgrades or processor upgrades are not feasable for your hardware, you should be able to squeeze a bit more performance out of Debian Xfce than you can with Xubuntu.

I'm not trying to start a flame war. As you can see from my profile, I am a happy user of 9.04.

Joe

[john_spiral]

"Xubuntu is an official derivative of Ubuntu using the Xfce desktop environment. It is intended for users with less-powerful computers,..."

http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu/xubuntu

ummmm?

[forrestcupp]

What? THat's 256MB of RAM! I ahve a machine that would KILL for 256MB!

It's stuck with two 64MB sticks!!!

What? I have a Commodore 64 that would kill for 128 MB. It's stuck with 64K. :)

[dragos240]

you have to realize that memory is very cheap these days, and most people have 512mb or more. if memory is an issue for you, just do a minimal install and build it up the way you want it. or there are other lightweight distros you can use.

NOOOOOOOOOOO! You're banned :(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(!

[jacob01]

i like the idea of building your own system, i had a dell from 1999 or so with 128mb ram with a 2ghz p4 and installed arch+lxde it ran well and idling only use around 60 mb i was really impresses.

edit: The problem i found with getting ram for old computers is a lot of times it can be expensive and hard to find.

[Keithhed]

i have to run Xubuntu on my older computer, a P4 1.7GHZ with 512Mb mem. It doesn't like Ubuntu 8.1, so i wasn't even going to try to install 9.04 :)

[Mehall]

What? I have a Commodore 64 that would kill for 128 MB. It's stuck with 64K. :)

That's cheating, mine is x86 architecture. ;)

And up until lately I only had 64MB in it, but found another RAM chip.

[etnlIcarus]

"Xubuntu is an official derivative of Ubuntu using the Xfce desktop environment. It is intended for users with less-powerful computers,..."

http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu/xubuntu

ummmm?

Less powerful =/= old, eg. netbooks. Hurray for linguistic nuance!


Interestingly, the editorial in this week's Distrowatch newsletter compared Xubuntu to Debian 5.0.1 Xfce. Here is the link:

http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090427

It was interesting to note that Debian's memory footprint was less than 50% (64.95 vs 140.60 MB)of Xubuntu's and generally it ran faster as well. My take away from this comparison is that if memory upgrades or processor upgrades are not feasable for your hardware, you should be able to squeeze a bit more performance out of Debian Xfce than you can with Xubuntu.
Hmm, now I'm tempted to install Debian Testing. Extremely tempted. Hell, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion.

[gn2]

A modern netbook is a rocketship compared to a P3 500mhz laptop which is what I used until a few months ago.

[etnlIcarus]

A netbook is roughly equivalent to my current desktop. Hopefully the netbook phenomenon will convince enough hackers to reign-in their code for a while longer yet - at least until I buy a new PC.

[Praxicoide]

Debian plays proprietary codecs out of the box? I thought they were a free distro? Wasn't there a ruckus about Ubuntu making it too easy to install non-free components?

[Wiebelhaus]

The dumbest thing ever is a lack of network browsing functionality , seriously wth.

[etnlIcarus]

The dumbest thing ever is a lack of network browsing functionality , seriously wth.

I assume you're talking about Thunar, in which case I agree (there are ways of network browsing but it's a bit hackey). Luckily, they're depreciating ThunarVFS in favour of whatever Gnome uses so bring on 4.8.

[forrestcupp]

I assume you're talking about Thunar, in which case I agree (there are ways of network browsing but it's a bit hackey). Luckily, they're depreciating ThunarVFS in favour of whatever Gnome uses so bring on 4.8.

That could be good or bad. More features sometimes means more bloat, or at least bigger footprint. Xfce is becoming too much like Gnome. Eventually, when Gnome 3 changes everything, Xfce will just end up being what Gnome is now.

[Hallvor]

Consider going back to Ubuntu's roots. Debian is very configurable and can be installed with an Xfce desktop and not have the added resource need that the Gnome components of Xubuntu add. Now to be fair, those components are there to add functionality and convienence for the end user.


Debian is a fantastic distro with an undeserved reputation of being very hard to use. It really isn`t much harder to use than vanilla Ubuntu. And the ability to go rolling release is a huge plus in my book.

[BrokenKingpin]

If you do not care about memory then use Ubuntu or KDE... Xubuntu was supposed to be a more lightweight distro than its two brothers. So I agree that it sort of sucks that it is getting more bloated.

[Kareeser]

It's difficult to determine at what rate a supposedly "lightweight" distro such as Xubuntu should inflate at.

Given today's network usage (youtube, hulu, other bandwidth-driven websites), it's not surprising that more powerful computers are required. Not to the point of Core2Quad setups, but even just normal P4s with a decent smattering of memory.

Furthermore, as time goes on, more and more legacy systems are sent to the trash pile and new systems are bought. Basically, this means that if Xubuntu stays the same, its niche market is getting smaller and smaller.

From a marketing perspective, that's a bad thing :)

[Anzan]

I am a Fluxbox user (running 8.04 and 8.10 on a number of machines) but wanted to see what the 9.04 Ubuntu and Xubuntu installs were like so put them on an old ThinkPad R40 I use for trying out distros.

In GNOME, even xterm takes a while to open. GNOME terminal more so. Gedit? Ugh. Firefox? Well, it takes a long time in Fluxbox too.

But Xubuntu, with no compositing, is pretty snappy. I installed the Debian menu so all apps are available. xterm was almost instantaneous. GNOME terminal was up as in Fluxbox as was Gedit. Firefox? Well...

I had Crunch Bang on it before and will likely do so again for use in between other distro tests.

[NightwishFan]

Xubuntu was never really what I would call light. Ligher perhaps, however it being still more full featured, (support for printing, etc, makes it still heavy.)

It should work on what it says. 256MB RAM.

[bailout]

Consider going back to Ubuntu's roots. Debian is very configurable and can be installed with an Xfce desktop and not have the added resource need that the Gnome components of Xubuntu add. Now to be fair, those components are there to add functionality and convienence for the end user.

Interestingly, the editorial in this week's Distrowatch newsletter compared Xubuntu to Debian 5.0.1 Xfce. Here is the link:

http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090427

It was interesting to note that Debian's memory footprint was less than 50% (64.95 vs 140.60 MB)of Xubuntu's and generally it ran faster as well. My take away from this comparison is that if memory upgrades or processor upgrades are not feasable for your hardware, you should be able to squeeze a bit more performance out of Debian Xfce than you can with Xubuntu.

I'm not trying to start a flame war. As you can see from my profile, I am a happy user of 9.04.

Joe

The review is very impressive but I don't have the time to try a new distro and figure out how to everything again. One big advantage of ubuntu is the ease of finding answers to most questions and the support available.

I am puzzled by the memory usage he quotes though. I have xubuntu 8.10 on my laptop and if I run 'free' after bootup it shows memory usage of 280MB minus buffers yet that article claims 140MB. I assume there will be small differences between different machines but 100MB seems a lot?

It is often claimed that it is ubuntu that causes the bloat rather than gnome/kde/xfce. Similarly many people claim that kubuntu is one of the worst kde distros and it was better to do a minimal install and then add kde rather than use the kubuntu desktop. From what I understand ubuntu is based on debian packages so would a minimal install plus xfce be closer to debian plus xfce?

[dspari1]

What we need now is e17buntu.

[Namtabmai]

The dumbest thing ever is a lack of network browsing functionality , seriously wth.

I don't have a home network, so why should I use a file manager that bloated with extra functionality I don't need. You're not tied to a file manager that comes with a desktop environment.

I'm not saying Thuar should or shouldn't have a network browser, more that not every file manager should have it.

[etnlIcarus]

I dunno. Support for network browsing is not what I'd describe as, "bloat"; that code shouldn't come with a high price.

[XubuRoxMySox]

I'm a newbie who has only known WinXP 'til just a little over a month ago. I was always scared away from Linux because of the perception that everything is typed commands. When I finally got the courage to experiment with "Linux for human beings," I was amazed and delighted. But Ubuntu 8.10 ran as slow as WinXP did, so there was little difference in performance - but the difference in cost, in support, and in security is considerable.

But when I get a new toy I love to play with it 'til it breaks, LOL. So in the search for speed I tried Xubuntu. It performed about the same as regular Ubuntu. Google found something called Crunchbang Linux (http://crunchbanglinux.org) which is based on Ubuntu but a true "Ubuntu Lite." Mind bending speed! Woo-hoo! But confusing for a newbie who is used to a desktop environment rather than just a window manager. It still has to be "for a human being" (or at least for this human newbie. So more searching and more lurking in this forum and others, I learned about LXDE. It's right in the repositories too.

LXDE works great on my Crunchbang! Now my Ubuntu is lean and mean and fast, but newbie-friendly too.

If you're not into Puppy or DSL; if you want your Ubuntu but you want it lightweight and faster than Xubuntu, try Crunchbang (which is minimal Ubuntu) and just add LXDE from the repository (after an update). It works like you would expect an "Ubuntu Lite" to work.

I know, we noobs are always bragging about simple things... "Look! I can tie my shoes!" Just bear with me... you were a noob once too). My newly-installed LXDE with my most commonly used apps on the desktop as icons looks eerily Windowsish, but it's definitely cheaper (and probably faster) than Xandros!

-Robin

[vexorian]

Honestly, what is this archaic computer for which you need something lighter than ubuntu itself? I am just saying, this thing from which I am typing is 6 years old, I built it in the middle of 2003... and it actually can just run ubuntu 9.04 without performance issues besides just disabling compiz so I can enable metacity compositing. I also run 9.04 on a 500 Mhz Asus eee, and after tweaks it also runs without any performance problems.

edit :LXDE must the most awful thing I have ever seen.

[NightwishFan]

Up until about 1 1/2 ago my PC had 128MB RAM. So you would be surprised.

At any rate I will explain "bloat" and "slowness" from my limited experience. Please correct me if I am wrong.

An OS speed is generally relative. People think.. Vista is slow and bloated!! That is not entirely true. On the hardware it is designed for, it is fairly fast. Microsoft tried to optimize Vista for high end hardware at the expense of even fairly good hardware.

The speed measured as overall feel of an OS depends largely on disk performance. How fast can it fetch files it needs, how fast and how active does it keep things in RAM. A fairly slow CPU can perform quite well with a Linux OS.

The only real way to improve the speed of an OS is to make sure it optimizes the use your hardware to its capabilities. Using a light window manager should free several megabytes of memory for other uses. The same way XFCE/ICEWM does over GNOME. If you are running Linux, and have say... 512 MB of ram. That should be fairly good for general use. At that amount of RAM you could install something like "preload" to replace your cache (which holds stuff you had opened) with stuff you might open.

Now to my point. Xubuntu is still a fairly full-featured OS with a focus on speed and functionality. It is not fast or "light" as the power users want, though. If you have doubts about Ubuntu's speed, build it from the ground up, using only packages you need. It should perform fairly close to a snapshot of Debian unstable.

Xubuntu still has functionality such as printing and bluetooth enabled, as well as jockey and the update manager, and GNOME services. What you do not need you can disable. Which will free up RAM and perhaps some disk access or cpu time. If you have heaps of RAM you need to use other techniques to make your computer system seem faster.

That is my belief. Like I said if I am wrong, correct me. It is my hope that someone would keep projects such as Fluxbuntu strong. Those use more truly minimal packages than Xubuntu, though they are not as full featured. I would think that Xubuntu would benefit from using something lighter than Firefox though. Aim it toward 128MB systems and not 256MB ones. The only problem with doing that is that more powerful users of Xubuntu have to install more functionality to replace the lighter ones.

[timzak]

Distrowatch just did some nice tests on Xubuntu Jaunty, trying it as a minimal install, a Debian-equivalent install, and default Xubuntu install, and comparing to Debian 5.0 with XFCE:

http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090504#feature

[Brainy142]

12,000 dollers to upgrade a server DUDE you could have bought a new one....

[etnlIcarus]

Distrowatch just did some nice tests on Xubuntu Jaunty, trying it as a minimal install, a Debian-equivalent install, and default Xubuntu install, and comparing to Debian 5.0 with XFCE:

http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090504#feature

They should have included Debian unstable + Xfce in the tests as well. Debian 5.0 is using significantly older versions of many components.

[GermWarfare]

I used to use Xubuntu, because it was lighter than ubuntu or kubuntu... that little bit faster.
About 6 months ago I dropped Xfce and switched over to Fluxbox and found the speed better. But even that is becoming a little slow now. And it's not the memory that's turning me off it. It's the speed.
Load times are slowing with each new release.

I'll be looking into alternatives to *buntu very soon, which is a shame, because it's so easy. :(

That's my 2 cents!

[regomodo]

#

[Saghaulor]

Honestly, what is this archaic computer for which you need something lighter than ubuntu itself? I am just saying, this thing from which I am typing is 6 years old, I built it in the middle of 2003... and it actually can just run ubuntu 9.04 without performance issues besides just disabling compiz so I can enable metacity compositing. I also run 9.04 on a 500 Mhz Asus eee, and after tweaks it also runs without any performance problems.

edit :LXDE must the most awful thing I have ever seen.

You share the mentality of several people in this thread. Unfortunately, it's not a very pleasant mentality. You are obviously neglecting the fact that Linux is meant to be an operating system for everyone, not just those who can afford new(er) hardware. Moreover, being that Ubuntu is Linux for human beings, and that its philosophy is about providing the most accessible operating system to the world, legacy support is an issue.

While I agree an OS can't satisfy everyone, rather than scoffing at someone less fortunate for being less fortunate, perhaps you should recommend they find a project/distro that is more suitable to their needs or recommend modifications that they can implement to help with their situation.

In fairness though, complaining about a project may not be appropriate either, especially if the complaints are misplaced. However, I remember vividly that Xubuntu was pushed as Ubuntu Lite, Ubuntu for legacy hardware. So it's not baseless for a person to complain that such a project is no longer meeting it's mission, assuming that is what its mission still is.

Moral of the story, let's be helpful, not condescending or insensitive.

[Tipped OuT]

Really, my computer is a 10 year old HP Pavilion Intel Celeron 1.1GHz 512MB RAM computer. Gnome runs fine under it, with compiz enabled. Probably would have to go older, like 13-14 years old, for it to actually matter.

Aww man, I wouldn't mind donating to you dude so you can get a new computer. And I'm not trying to be funny or anything, I want to help out.

I have a 5 year old laptop with 784 MB's of RAM and a Pentium 4 processor and it can get pretty slow at times..

[mips]

1. Do a Ubuntu base/minimal install with XFCE
2. Use Crunchbag Linux
3. Do a Ubuntu base/minimal install with a WM and LXDE panel etc. Roll your own in other words.
3. Move to another distro

You have many options available to you.

I also don't agree with this "memory is cheap" sentiment.
People tend to forget not everyone lives in first world countries and money is very tight in most parts of the world.

[snowpine]

I am sympathetic towards people with older hardware. I am typing this on an ancient Dell laptop right now, not because I can't afford a new one, but because I think it is better for the environment to reuse old-but-functional hardware than manufacture new. In other words, there are lots of reasons why someone would choose/be forced to use an older computer.

I tried Xubuntu on this computer, but ended up installing SliTaz, and couldn't be happier. I don't complain (much) about Xubuntu, though, because Xubuntu is a decent distro when installed on the hardware for which it is designed, and I think it would be unfair of me to demand that Canonical compromise their vision of Xubuntu to spare me the minor inconvenience of installing SliTaz (or Puppy, DSL, etc).

What does bug me is the amount of misinformation propagated on this forum. Someone will post "What distro do you recommend for a 100mhz pentium with 32mb of ram?" and immediately somebody will reply "Xubuntu would be PERFECT for that machine!"

[BazookaAce]

I know out of the box, Xubuntu has never been the lightest distro out there, but I used to be able to disable services and auto-started apps, then eliminate a panel and some panel applets to cut the memory footprint down pretty significantly. With Feisty, I could get it down to around 55 MB. I got Hardy down into the high 60s to low 70s in memory footprint. I could only get Intrepid down to about 100 MB. Now with Jaunty, I can't get the memory footprint any lower than regular Gnome Ubuntu Jaunty: roughly 150 MB. It seems like Xubuntu is moving away from calling itself lighter in weight than Ubuntu, and relabeling itself as Ubuntu with an XFCE DE. More about choice than lightweight. One thing I have to say, though: the default look of Xubuntu 9.04 is stunning. Very attractive out of the box!

Thoughts?

Hmm, i'm using Ubuntu 9.04 (Gnome) and with Compiz, Emerald, and Conky enabled, my system is using around 120MB after reboot.

edit: using Aspire One A150 (1GB RAM, 1,6GHz)

[XubuRoxMySox]

You share the mentality of several people in this thread. Unfortunately, it's not a very pleasant mentality. You are obviously neglecting the fact that Linux is meant to be an operating system for everyone, not just those who can afford new(er) hardware. Moreover, being that Ubuntu is Linux for human beings, and that its philosophy is about providing the most accessible operating system to the world, legacy support is an issue.

While I agree an OS can't satisfy everyone, rather than scoffing at someone less fortunate for being less fortunate, perhaps you should recommend they find a project/distro that is more suitable to their needs or recommend modifications that they can implement to help with their situation.

In fairness though, complaining about a project may not be appropriate either, especially if the complaints are misplaced. However, I remember vividly that Xubuntu was pushed as Ubuntu Lite, Ubuntu for legacy hardware. So it's not baseless for a person to complain that such a project is no longer meeting it's mission, assuming that is what its mission still is.

Moral of the story, let's be helpful, not condescending or insensitive.

+1

Thanks you!

-Robin
(feeling better now)

[etnlIcarus]

Hmm, i'm using Ubuntu 9.04 (Gnome) and with Compiz, Emerald, and Conky enabled, my system is using around 120MB after reboot.

edit: using Aspire One A150 (1GB RAM, 1,6GHz)
Here's one of those confounding factors: The Aspire one has a screen resolution of 1024x600. You'll find X, compiz and emerald (and probably nautilus as well) would all start chewing up more RAM if you were running at a common desktop resolution.

[sertse]

Well, I run sidux fluxbox on AAO with the exact specs, and it uses around 65 ram on desktop after startup.

More interestingly, my desktop Debian Sid Xfce (Pentinum 4 2.6 Ghz, 512 ram, intel card) only uses about 80ish ram on startup and UXA is enabled. UXA is the biggest gain there, after enabling it, it shaved 30-40 mb of ram...

[drawkcab]

I dunno if any of you caught this article on distrowatch.com, but apparently someone is paying attention:

http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090504#feature

[Yellow Pasque]

Sidux Xfce anyone?

[gn2]

I dunno if any of you caught this article on distrowatch.com, but apparently someone is paying attention:

http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090504#feature

I tried that how-to recently on an older PC and got an error that xfce4 was not a valid installation candidate, I had to change it to xfdesktop4

[phaed]

Here's one of those confounding factors: The Aspire one has a screen resolution of 1024x600. You'll find X, compiz and emerald (and probably nautilus as well) would all start chewing up more RAM if you were running at a common desktop resolution.

Yep, at a resolution of 1680x1050, a vanilla Ubuntu install is about 200 MB at boot for me. I just installed it into VirtualBox on Vista where it has a screen resolution of 800x600 and it's like 120 MB. Fluxbox is about 70 MB.

But older hardware has lower screen resolutions. Usually no more than 1024x768, which is not much more than a netbook. So there should be less memory use.

[sertse]

Just a screenshot

Debian Sid XFCE, with some components replaced by LXDE. (Thunar and Xfce Session replaced by PCManFM and Lxsession)

Pentinum 4, 2.6 Ghz
512 MB RAM
Intel Graphics
1280x1024 resolution

56 MB RAM in use after startup and desktop is fully loaded.

If you look at the screenshot, this includes my autostarted apps wbar and tilda, as well as Gnome Screensaver and Gnome Power Manager running in the background. I use ethernet on this computer, so no need for a network manager. Compositing, using Xfce's own, is on.

I also included a 2nd shot where I have a few things running ("in normal use"). Epiphany, Pidgin, XChat...

[anticapitalista]

This is antiX-M8 (full) running xfce4.6-1.

[anticapitalista]

Here is a better link to the above screen shot:

http://mepislovers.org/forums/imagehosting/2444a03750d093a4.jpg