PDA

View Full Version : Light Linux Distributions - Hardware Testing (RAM)



lbrty
September 26th, 2010, 02:13 AM
Last Update: 2011-02-25

I have read and researched about light Linux distributions and decided to test each distribution for hardware requirements (specifically RAM). So far, I have tested the following distributions on VMware Player. They are sorted from lowest RAM usage with default installs and no modifications. I have added links of screenshots for reference.

Please supply feedback, experiences, or new distributions.

Results
Kolibri 0.7.7.0
6MB RAM
http://kolibrios.org/ (No search results on http://distrowatch.com/)
Screenshot: http://use.com/6MB_RAM_Kolibri_0_7_7_0_e9308230d77faac24042

Damn Small Linux (DSL) 4.4.10
20.2MB RAM
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=damnsmall
Screenshot: http://use.com/20_2MB_RAM_DSL_4_4_10_7476704149b41062caf3

Puppy Lucid 5.1.0
30MB RAM
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=puppy
Screenshot: http://use.com/30MB_RAM_Puppy_Lucid_5_1_0_10a881e88ceae4a16b5d

Tiny Core Linux 3.1
32.9MB RAM
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=tinycore
Screenshot: http://use.com/32_9MB_RAM_Tiny_Core_Linux_3_1_c93b052b004ed36de74 6

antiX M8.5
33.5MB RAM
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=antix
Screenshot: http://use.com/33_5MB_RAM_antiX_M8_5_be15d6084afa0fb03ed6

SliTaz 3.0
35MB RAM
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=SliTaz
Screenshot: http://use.com/35MB_RAM_SliTaz_3_0_cea69e863d31ef7bc3bb

Lubuntu 10.04
52MB RAM
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=Lubuntu
Screenshot: http://use.com/52MB_RAM_Lubuntu_10_04_cab08461f977a767dfc0

CrunchBang 9.04.01
63.07MB RAM
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=CrunchBang
Screenshot: http://use.com/63_07MB_RAM_CrunchBang_9_04_01_8453dfd971e8270daac e

wattOS R2
71.3MB RAM
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=wattos
Screenshot: http://use.com/71_3MB_RAM_wattOS_R2_22a8e32d257748eaaf15

Linux Mint 9 Fluxbox
76MB RAM
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=mint
Screenshot: http://use.com/76MB_RAM_Linux_Mint_9_Fluxbox_c7896f89775d4a2467f0

Linux Mint 9 LXDE
80MB RAM
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=mint
Screenshot: http://use.com/80MB_RAM_Linux_Mint_9_LXDE_58f056c09fc2052ec63d

Peppermint One Respin 08042010
80MB RAM
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=peppermint
Screenshot: http://use.com/80MB_RAM_Peppermint_One_e1cb45c575f7df0285b7

Xubuntu 10.04
99.4MB RAM
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=Xubuntu
Screenshot: http://use.com/99_4MB_RAM_Xubuntu_10_04_8bfc9637d8a3b79af663

Linux Mint 9 XFCE
99.6MB RAM
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=mint
Screenshot: http://use.com/99_6MB_RAM_Linux_Mint_9_XFCE_7f81d79208b4071048dd

Fedora 13 LXDE Spin
106MB RAM
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=fedora
Screenshot: http://use.com/106MB_RAM_Fedora_13_LXDE_Spin_17168a76459f1a5e8f94

Debian 5.06 LXDE
109.73MB RAM
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=debian
Screenshot: http://use.com/109_73MB_RAM_Debian_5_06_LXDE_f63cd165b2f133fe7677

Ubuntu 10.04.1 Lucid Lynx
115.4MB RAM
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=Ubuntu
Screenshot: http://use.com/115_4MB_RAM_Ubuntu_10_04_1_45fdef13300814b16478

Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick Meerkat
116.4MB RAM
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=Ubuntu
Screenshot: http://use.com/116_4MB_RAM_Ubuntu_10_10_4ae42d2d01699a38514a

Fedora 13 GNOME
117.8MB RAM
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=fedora
Screenshot: http://use.com/117_8MB_RAM_Fedora_13_GNOME_f2908c3383bd97f42994

Linux Mint 9 GNOME
119.5 RAM
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=mint
Screenshot: http://use.com/119_5_RAM_Linux_Mint_9_GNOME_905f5302c48f322bd473

Ylmf OS 3.0
125.9MB RAM
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ylmf
Screenshot: http://use.com/125_9MB_RAM_Ylmf_3_0_54f8bfe43d4ca8f65d29

Absolute Linux 13.1.5
160.42MB RAM
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=absolute
Screenshot: http://use.com/160_42MB_RAM_Absolute_Linux_13_1_5_41e7cf1c31dfa4b 94b4f

Unity Linux 2010 Final
172.6MB RAM
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=unity
Screenshot: http://use.com/172_6MB_RAM_Unity_Linux_2010_Final_caa23241a0cdb1e e77f2

snowpine
September 26th, 2010, 04:48 PM
Very nice work! Thank you so much for running these tests; it is good to have solid numbers when making a decision. :)

lbrty
September 26th, 2010, 11:27 PM
Thanks! I just wanted to give back to this great community! =)

snowpine
September 26th, 2010, 11:31 PM
If you are taking suggestions for further testing, I suggest Debian + LXDE. I'd be curious to see how it stacks up to Lubuntu.

mrgs
September 26th, 2010, 11:32 PM
Good work. Bookmarked!

Maybe a comment or two for each distro would be helpful. Damn Small Linux seems to be a stalled project, for example.

lbrty
September 27th, 2010, 12:01 AM
@snowpine
Thanks for the reply! That is a good idea! =) I am downloading the .iso file now.

@mrgs
Thanks for the reply! I thought about doing so, however just wanted to keep the information as simple as possible. What type of comments would you put? =) Thanks!

whoop
September 27th, 2010, 12:28 AM
tiny core :-)

lbrty
September 27th, 2010, 12:53 AM
@whoop
Thanks for the reply! The main reason I did not include Tiny Core Linux is do to the following statements from tinycorelinux.com:


It is not a complete desktop nor is all hardware completely supported.
The core runs entirely in ram...I definitely like the idea of the OS, however was looking for light distros that offered more out-of-the-box and could install to a hard drive or flash device. What is your experience with Tiny Core Linux? Do you like the OS?

whoop
September 27th, 2010, 01:25 AM
@whoop
Thanks for the reply! The main reason I did not include Tiny Core Linux is do to the following statements from tinycorelinux.com:

I definitely like the idea of the OS, however was looking for light distros that offered more out-of-the-box and could install to a hard drive or flash device. What is your experience with Tiny Core Linux? Do you like the OS?

Didn't really use it. I actually never "hands on" use these light distros. I installed it on some old hardware once to showcase some ancient code, that's about it...

For me it's basically, rich desktop or no desktop, so I guess I'm not the guy to ask.

jmszr
September 27th, 2010, 01:53 AM
lbrty,

Thanks much for making the time and effort to run these tests. This information should prove quite useful.

lbrty
September 27th, 2010, 05:35 AM
You are most welcome. =)

mrgs
September 27th, 2010, 05:05 PM
Thanks for the reply! I thought about doing so, however just wanted to keep the information as simple as possible. What type of comments would you put?



I was just thinking of brief information of general interest, like:

Damn Small Linux: Apparently in a stand-still
Peppermint: Focusing on cloud computing

and so on.

lbrty
September 28th, 2010, 08:11 AM
@snowpine
The results for Debian 5.06 LXDE were added in the original posting (#1).

@mrgs
Nice. I will look into adding that information.

lbrty
October 1st, 2010, 12:01 AM
The results for Absolute Linux 13.1.5 were added in the original posting (#1).

lbrty
October 11th, 2010, 02:43 AM
The results for Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick Meerkat were added in the original posting (#1).

lbrty
November 23rd, 2010, 06:32 AM
The results for the distributions below were added in the original posting (#1).
Fedora 13 GNOME
Fedora 13 LXDE Spin
Linux Mint 9 Fluxbox
Linux Mint 9 GNOME
Linux Mint 9 XFCE
Tiny Core Linux-3.1
Unity Linux 2010 Final

racie
November 23rd, 2010, 10:29 PM
Nice thread! I've been watching it. :P

mrgs
February 8th, 2011, 11:01 PM
Here are some more examples of really light distros:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1682922

s.fox
February 9th, 2011, 11:45 AM
I have reopened the thread.

Khakilang
February 10th, 2011, 05:11 AM
I have tested most of the light Distro on an old computer with Pentium 4 1.5GHz, 128MB RAM and a 32MB graphic card and I find Lucid Puppy works the best. I have trouble installing SlitaZ, DSL and I am not familiar with Tiny Core CLI installation. But its good to know about all this light Distros.

lbrty
February 22nd, 2011, 07:38 PM
The results for Ylmf OS 3.0 were added in the original posting (#1).

cascade9
February 22nd, 2011, 09:53 PM
Minor note- debian LXDE is not using 109.73MB. Well, actually according to the new MB/MiB ratings it is, but you've listed MiB in the other cases I looked at.

I dont know how you got it to 109732k RAM use anyway, last I tried Debian 5.0 LXDE it was lower than that (like 70-80MB IIRC). I wasnt using it in a virtual machine though....

mrgs
February 22nd, 2011, 10:26 PM
If you have the time, it could be interesting to see how Kolibri OS behaves.

lbrty
February 22nd, 2011, 11:02 PM
@cascade9
Really? Thanks for letting me know. I will look into this further when I have a free moment. I do not modify or run any applications. As soon as the installation finishes, I restart the OS a few times and then view the usage.

What did you do specifically? Can you provide screenshots with the RAM usage in clear view? Thanks!

@mrgs
I checked the website (http://kolibrios.org) and it looks very interesting! I will definitely be looking into this further when I have a free moment.

Also, I wanted to thank you mrgs for getting the thread reopened. Much appreciated! =)

mrgs
February 23rd, 2011, 09:52 AM
You are welcome. We should thank you for taking the time for doing all these tests...

There does not seem to be much development going on in Kolibri, so there are probably a lot of unfixed bugs, but nevertheless: It is interesting to see how little memory is needed.

cascade9
February 23rd, 2011, 11:53 AM
@cascade9
Really? Thanks for letting me know. I will look into this further when I have a free moment. I do not modify or run any applications. As soon as the installation finishes, I restart the OS a few times and then view the usage.

What did you do specifically? Can you provide screenshots with the RAM usage in clear view? Thanks!


I'll make is easier, but more complicated, see MiB/MB, etc-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mebibyte

Bascily, HDD manufacturers decided that they would call a MB 1 000 000bytes, not 1 048 576bytes (etc). Then when somebody took them to court for misleading labeling, they used 'kilo = 1000, therefore kilobyte = 1000 bytes' as a defense. Then they brought SI (Systme international d'units) into the arguement, and so we ended up with KiB/kb, MiB/MB, etc. (bloody stupid if you ask me, computers are binary, base-10 units should not be used IMO).

So you will get some OSes using MB, when technically they should be using MiB. AFAIK all RAM readings are normally in MiB, no matter if it says MiB or MB.

As for the Debian LXDE- I think I've got the install disc around her somewhere. I should really do a reinstall on that machine that I did it with last time, so I'll give it a reinstall if I've got time and take a screenshot or 2. Which shouldnt be hard, it was a pretty fast install IIRC.

BTW, I could be wrong, maybe it was higher than 70-80MB (technically MiB). I just recall that it was lower than Xfce, but not enough lower for me to bother with, and I was at 90-100MB with Xfce.

*edit- I just found the disc, I think. Debian XFCE/LXDE 5.0.4. I cant image that minor upgrades would make much difference, but I'll try to check (install, check RAM usage, update, reboot, check RAM usage again)

lbrty
February 25th, 2011, 11:10 PM
The results for Kolibri 0.7.7.0 were added in the original posting (#1).

@mrgs
Good find! See the results/screenshot in the original posting.

@cascade9
Very interesting information to research. Thanks for the short history. I will look into this further.

That would be great when you have a chance! It will be interesting to see the final results. Thanks for the time and effort.

cascade9
February 26th, 2011, 04:31 PM
Just a minor update- the old junk box I was was using still works. I laughed hard when I saw 'filesystem has not been mounted in 246 days, running check' on bootup.

Not bad for a compaq desktop from 2000 or so I found by the side of the road about a year and a half ago, then moved to my 'junkers' pile when I got a better media box.

BTW, its currently got an (obsolete) version of sidux xfce 32bit on it. No stripping/lightening, I've actually added VLC with all the libs that includes. 66/67MB RAM useage idle on booting. ;) I can probably get a screenshot of that before I reinstall debian 5.0.4 lxde. Then I'll probably put debian 6.0 Xfce or aptosid xfce depending onto it how they go.

Gaygerbil
March 4th, 2011, 09:19 AM
I liked the part where Lubuntu dominated in terms of features for performance.

DMCX
March 6th, 2011, 01:32 PM
This is a great thread, THANK YOU very much for this quality stuff.

coolbrook
March 13th, 2011, 09:46 PM
Thanks for the links. Used drive space would come in handy too.

[deXter]
March 14th, 2011, 05:25 AM
Please remove Kolibri OS from the list, it's not based on Linux.

Also, please add TurboPup Extreme to the list. It's a full-fledged distro based on Puppy which uses just around 10 MB RAM - with X running!

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=40477

RogueMoon
April 26th, 2011, 12:44 PM
Registered to say thanks for the thread.
As a linux beginner with a fetish for small and fast software looking for his first "serious" distro the comparison is really helpful.

I was surprised how AntiX "scored" so close to the ultra lightweights such as TCL and Slitaz. Lubuntu, too, is impressive in that regard.

Edited to suggest Minix (a *nix though) and ConnochaetOS (http://www.connochaetos.org/wiki/) - which seems to get very little publicity...

timcs
April 28th, 2011, 03:58 PM
I have been through some of these on a Toshiba L30 256mb ram laptop. I found that the ubuntu distros to run too slow and after updates didn't run at all.

Lubuntu didnt boot up out of the box but with help from a forum user here, I had got it working via the mini cd and then apt-get install lubuntu-desktop.

This laptop is proving to be a problem with linux as its graphics card ,sound system and wifi do not always work. This means spending a lot of time finding the right configuration to get them to work. Believe me I have spent days on this machine with different distros.

**EDIT**
Latest Watt0S does not boot into the GUI even when choosing xforcevesa.

I have yet to find a fully working distro but will report back when I do :)


*** EDIT 01/05/2011 ****

Found that peppermint to be the best for this laptop, only thing I am unable to get working are the Volume shortcut keys via Fn UP and Fn Down- users from the peppermint forum have tried to help but to no avail. Still it runs very well, got the sound to work as well.

Pierre16
May 30th, 2011, 02:08 PM
This is excellent. It is the first time I see all of these lightweight distros side by side.
Could you please add to this list the following. It should be as fast as Lubuntu

Quelitu: A Lightweight Linux OS Based on Lubuntu (http://wavesofthefuture.net/computers/linux-operating-system-refurbish-computer-free.shtml)

You will find the ISO download link under Quelitu in the top menu.

Thanks again for the comparison. It is great.

Pierre16
June 3rd, 2011, 10:15 PM
Sorry, the Quelitu link above was incorrect. It has been corrected.

Here is the direct download page:
http://wavesofthefuture.net/computers/download-telecharger-descargas-free-gratuit-gratis-quelitu.shtml

HotForLinux
June 3rd, 2011, 10:35 PM
@mrgs
Thanks for the reply! I thought about doing so, however just wanted to keep the information as simple as possible. What type of comments would you put? =) Thanks!

[/QUOTE]

Great work. You are right is nice to have it simple. Maybe disk space needed, if it can run completely in RAM and to what distro-family they belong would be fine.

EarlsFurniture
July 7th, 2011, 06:51 PM
A couple of months ago, I conducted similar testing with more recent versions of distros. All tests were done with Ubuntu 10.04 64 bit as the host, and the VM's were done in VMWare Player 3.x

At first, I was focused on *buntu variants because I wanted to stay all in the same family, but eventually branched out.

I used htop for my benchmarking. (I installed it where not already present by default)

Here are my results from lightest to heaviest:
Tiny Core (April '11) - 18MB

Ubuntu Mini Remix - 10.04 i386: 34MB (CLI only)

Slitaz - Cooking 20110329: 37MB

Lupu - 525: 39MB

xPud - 0.9.2: 45MB

MijnPup - 52b3: 48MB

Lubuntu - 11.04: 62MB

Debian LXDE - 6.01a i386: 66MB

Debian XFCE - 6.01a i386: 89MB

Mint LXDE - 10: 98MB

Mint XFCE - 201104: 106MB

Xubuntu - 11.04: 159MB

Ubuntu - 11.04 (running Gnome 2.32, not Unity or Unity2D): 254MB

Kubuntu - 11.04: 502MB

I also tested the following in April '11 with the then most recent versions I could find, but I don't have the actual version #'s handy:

PeppermintOS - 87MB
WattOS - 80MB
MoonOS LXDE - 106MB
Ulite - 63MB

Hope that is helpful to someone.

mrgs
September 20th, 2011, 03:20 AM
Would also be interesting to test http://www.bodhilinux.com/

mrgs
September 30th, 2011, 11:28 PM
Here is some more information on Puppy:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=11297403&postcount=88

Pierre16
November 19th, 2011, 03:29 PM
Here is another website that tests lightweight Linux distribution based on Ubuntu. Note, testing is done with VirtualBox and LxTask (Task Manager). The results cannot be compared directly with those in this thread but can be can be compared with each other.

A Speed Comparison of Lightweight Linux Distributions (http://wavesofthefuture.net/computers/linux-os-speed-comparison-fastest-lightweight-distributions.shtml)

EarlsFurniture
December 6th, 2011, 01:36 AM
I'll add that I recently tried to install Debian 6.01a LXDE on an old Compaq Presario 1277 laptop. It installed fine and runs respectably. (at least as good as Win98 did on it originally)

This system has an AMD K6 at about 400Mhz, and 192MB RAM.
(the K6 restricts choice of distros massively since it doesn't support CMOV)

I think the hardware you install on is an important variable. As this install only chews 31MB while in a VM it was eating over 60MB.

Note, I also did NOT install LXDE from the Debian Installer. I chose the LXDE version to install, but then unselected the Desktop environment when selecting software packages. I then installed LXDE via APT. Perhaps that was the difference. Maybe Squeeze has some install-recommends that the stock LXDE doesn't, thus the lower foot print.

If you're really looking to squeeze extra juice out of your machine, this may be something to look into.

My next attempt may be to build from scratch!!

Cheesemill
January 16th, 2012, 08:24 PM
@lbrty

It might be worth re-testing CrunchBang as since version 10 it has been based on Debian instead of Ubuntu.

Also if you have the time it might tbe worth testing Arch, either with Openbox or LXDE.

I would test myself but unless you do it there is a chance of incomparable results.

Thanks.

Paddy Landau
January 16th, 2012, 08:36 PM
You could have a look at muLinux (http://www.micheleandreoli.it/mulinux/), which claims a mere 8Mb RAM is needed. Very basic, of course.

EDIT: I see that muLinux hasn't been updated since 2003, so maybe not such a good idea.

mastablasta
January 18th, 2012, 04:48 PM
what about Bodhi Linux? it's supposed to be light.

edit: and Vector Linux.

Have downloaded Bodhi to give it a spin. Apparently it can be snappy on these low powered arm processors. They have a demo of tablet running it.

mrgs
January 28th, 2012, 12:44 AM
Freezy Linux:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1874552

cheatos
February 7th, 2012, 10:40 PM
Hi,

it's very nice to have this list sorted by RAM size here, but what about the disk usage?
As with older hardware there usually is less disk space available (i.e. lubuntu will consume about 4GB of disk space, what really goes to the limits of computers with about 100MB RAM, maybe it would be nice if this could be added.
I personally had the problem with lubuntu, was no problem with the other specs, I just had not enough drive space, so I had to find a smaller distro (fortunately I found one made by some guy, which only took about 2.5GB what was okay then)

Still great work though, thank you!

mrgs
August 23rd, 2012, 05:17 PM
http://www.linuxlinks.com/Distributions/Mini_Distributions/

raja.genupula
August 23rd, 2012, 05:22 PM
http://www.linuxlinks.com/distributions/mini_distributions/


+1

noob_jul11
November 9th, 2012, 04:46 PM
Great work and thanks for posting.

However, nothing was mentioned about performance when running applications. I have read in some forums that Lubuntu is the lightweight Ubuntu. Thought I give it a try (Lubuntu 12.10)on my aging netbook; I couldn't play movies (using latest VLC) and browse the internet at the same time (using Chromium that came with OS). The movie will lag like crazy. And browser will display in sections and parts like it's being refresh.

During that time, the CPU usage will be 90-100% while 1gb RAM is only using probably 5-10%.

Anyone has any recommendations for a 2nd life of that netbook that will only be used for movies and web browsing?

Thanks

snowpine
November 9th, 2012, 06:00 PM
Great work and thanks for posting.

However, nothing was mentioned about performance when running applications. I have read in some forums that Lubuntu is the lightweight Ubuntu. Thought I give it a try (Lubuntu 12.10)on my aging netbook; I couldn't play movies (using latest VLC) and browse the internet at the same time (using Chromium that came with OS). The movie will lag like crazy. And browser will display in sections and parts like it's being refresh.

During that time, the CPU usage will be 90-100% while 1gb RAM is only using probably 5-10%.

Anyone has any recommendations for a 2nd life of that netbook that will only be used for movies and web browsing?

Thanks

What are your hardware specs?

If it is an aging Celeron or Atom netbook with integrated graphics then your results are typical in my experience. These do not have the "oomph" for a high quality multimedia experience at the same time you are web browsing. The CPU usage at 90-100% strongly implies you have reached the limits of your hardware's performance.

Paddy Landau
November 9th, 2012, 08:00 PM
Lubuntu is the lightest of the official Ubuntu distributions. Bodhi (http://bodhilinux.com/) is even lighter, although it is not an official Ubuntu distribution.

However, I think that snowpine is right, and changing your distro from Lubuntu to an even lighter distro is unlikely to change anything.

But, of course, you can try: load Bodhi using a Live CD or Live USB, and see how well it works.

noob_jul11
November 9th, 2012, 09:43 PM
Thanks, I'll try Bodhi.
Unfortunately, I can't remember the specs on top of my head. The netbook is at home and I'm at work right now.

I used to run the last version of Ubuntu LTS without such issue (was it 10.04?). Made the mistake of upgrading to 12.04 LTS and it hasn't been the same since. And I installed the 10.04 LTS from USB and not CD; and reformatted the USB by now.

mrgs
November 9th, 2012, 09:55 PM
The purpose of this thread is collecting advice regarding light distros, not troubleshooting a specific installation. (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2082438)

Posts concerning light distros in general are welcome here.

mrgs
November 11th, 2013, 07:10 AM
Bump to keep the thread from auto-close.

sudodus
November 12th, 2013, 08:10 AM
Nice thread, that I had not seen before! Thanks for bumping it :-)

If you are interested in this thread, you might also be interested in a thread about Old Hardware (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2130640)

gilligan216
July 20th, 2014, 06:38 PM
we compared Lucid Puppy Linux to Slacko Puppy Linux;
well both are good stable mini systems with surprising features!
i would suggest that every linux fanatic (like myself) look into Puppy!
Slacko Puppy Linux seems to be tailored around multimedia use. it even has a stand alone graphic equalizer!
Lucid Puppy Linux seems more like Ubuntu in minimizing extras to afford that "TRUSTY" feeling.

andrew210
April 1st, 2015, 09:38 PM
all of these distros should work on my hp pavilion ze4900, its only a few years younger than me im 16

mrgs
February 11th, 2016, 06:09 PM
Another bump to keep the thread open.
The contents is still valid and people's contributions are welcome.

DougieFresh4U
May 16th, 2016, 01:41 AM
I put 'ToriOS' on an old old laptop and it came back to life!
They are currently working on 'ToriOS' so it may be worth a look.

mrgs
May 16th, 2016, 09:36 AM
Is ToriOS still in development? The web site http://www.torios.org/ has been down for some time.

sudodus
May 16th, 2016, 11:07 AM
Look at the following links:

http://torios.top

ToriOS - ultra-light distro based on Ubuntu and the window manager JWM (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2302798)