PDA

View Full Version : xubuntu vs. crunchbang



blur xc
September 23rd, 2009, 08:32 PM
I installed Crunch Bang lite in VBox on my work XP machine, just as another way to help the time go by and was impressed with how small and fast this install is. How does it compare to Xubuntu as far as it's foot print on system resources?

comparatively, I also installed Ubuntu 9.04 w/ all the compiz effects and junk enabled in VBox, and it crawls. I admit, VBox developers are doing a pretty good job though...

I guess in part it could come down to openbox vs. xfce...

Thanks,
BM

pookiebear
September 23rd, 2009, 08:42 PM
pretty similar but openbox looks a tad cleaner in my opinion. You want to try something else out. Look at puppy linux or slitaz. Try your ubuntu without compiz too it will be a lot faster.

Skripka
September 23rd, 2009, 08:46 PM
I installed Crunch Bang lite in VBox on my work XP machine, just as another way to help the time go by and was impressed with how small and fast this install is. How does it compare to Xubuntu as far as it's foot print on system resources?

comparatively, I also installed Ubuntu 9.04 w/ all the compiz effects and junk enabled in VBox, and it crawls. I admit, VBox developers are doing a pretty good job though...

I guess in part it could come down to openbox vs. xfce...

Thanks,
BM

Xubuntu is no lighter on resources than straigt-old Ubuntu. #! should fly.

Kobalt
September 23rd, 2009, 08:48 PM
Crunchbang is a lot lighter than XFCE (Xubuntu, to be correct). It's actually more minimalistic.

coolbrook
September 23rd, 2009, 08:57 PM
That's pretty wild. I was just thinking about this subject. In a few days I'll be taking a look at Crunchbang for one of my older systems since Puppy and Damn Small don't want to play nice with the hardware. One thing I did notice is that the "lite" .iso is over 400 MB.

jaxxstorm
September 23rd, 2009, 09:02 PM
Shameless self promotion, but I develop a lightweight Ubuntu based distribution that uses IceWM as its window manager.

Its called Spri - you can get it from http://www.sprilinux.com

I'm currently uploading the Release candidate as we speak, I think you'll like it.


The ISO is under 400mb
Runs on as little as 192mb of RAM
Minimal applications by default

Bölvağur
September 23rd, 2009, 09:04 PM
http://wiki.lxde.org/en/Ubuntu

Im impressed by this.
Im using Masonux on my laptop and it is pretty good. It has everything you need (almost nothing that is).

Mehall
September 23rd, 2009, 09:15 PM
That's pretty wild. I was just thinking about this subject. In a few days I'll be taking a look at Crunchbang for one of my older systems since Puppy and Damn Small don't want to play nice with the hardware. One thing I did notice is that the "lite" .iso is over 400 MB.

The system resources used in both the Full and Lite are about the same, it's just the end-user apps that are changed (which obviously may have an effect on the performance *cough firefox *cough)

I can assure you that it works rather well on more limited hardware. I speak from experience : D

snowpine
September 23rd, 2009, 09:27 PM
I installed Crunch Bang lite in VBox on my work XP machine, just as another way to help the time go by and was impressed with how small and fast this install is. How does it compare to Xubuntu as far as it's foot print on system resources?

There is no competition. Xubuntu is one of the very worst "lightweight" Linux distros. (I personally think of Xubuntu as an excellent "heavyweight" distro for Ubuntu users who prefer Xfce to Gnome.) Crunchbang is much lighter and faster by any standard. The only "disadvantage" (for some people) is that it's not an "official" project of the Ubuntu team. It is not "lightweight" compared to, say SliTaz or Puppy, but it is my favorite Ubuntu variant.

blur xc
September 23rd, 2009, 09:44 PM
There is no competition. Xubuntu is one of the very worst "lightweight" Linux distros. (I personally think of Xubuntu as an excellent "heavyweight" distro for Ubuntu users who prefer Xfce to Gnome.) Crunchbang is much lighter and faster by any standard. The only "disadvantage" (for some people) is that it's not an "official" project of the Ubuntu team. It is not "lightweight" compared to, say SliTaz or Puppy, but it is my favorite Ubuntu variant.

And it has such a cool name - "CRUNCH BANG!!"

I know, it's silly, but I like saying it...

Thanks for all the info- lots of good stuff in this thread. Right now I'll play around a bit w/ learning the openbox interface, ie. change the themes! I'm not keen on all that darkness, I like light and bright...

BM

RedSquirrel
September 23rd, 2009, 09:53 PM
That's pretty wild. I was just thinking about this subject. In a few days I'll be taking a look at Crunchbang for one of my older systems since Puppy and Damn Small don't want to play nice with the hardware. One thing I did notice is that the "lite" .iso is over 400 MB.

You could also try the Ubuntu Minimal CD (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD) and build up from there.


sudo apt-get install xorg openbox menu
startxThe base Xfce package is xfce4 if you want to try that as well.



Edit: Added quotation of coolbrook's post.

SomeGuyDude
September 23rd, 2009, 10:53 PM
As others have said, Xubuntu is basically Ubuntu with XFCE thrown on there. It's no lighter, no faster.

Bigtime_Scrub
September 23rd, 2009, 11:12 PM
I say Crunchbang all the way. #! is fast, xubuntu is just like regular old Ubuntu with xfce. I have used a lot of Ubuntu/Debian based distros. They are all pretty much the same (I am talking about you Mint). The thing I like about #! is that it really is so minimalist. It is kind of like Arch for people that don't like the pain of setting it up.

Or you can just go with plain old school debian and stick whatever WM/DE you like on it. Debian with xfce is 1,000x lighter then Xubuntu.

snowpine
September 23rd, 2009, 11:13 PM
I stand by my previous recommendation for Crunchbang :) but another good one that's worth checking out is AntiX. It's based on Debian/Mepis, not Ubuntu, but most of your Ubuntu skills will transfer over no problem.