Which OS would be faster?

[gam3r21]

Hey guys, I'm wondering whether Windows XP or (EDIT) Xubuntu 10.10 would run fastest on my specs.

The processor is an AMD 500 MHz, the RAM is 384 MB (100 MHz speed), and the hard drive is 20 GB.

Thanks.

[Rabhak]

Hey guys, I'm wondering whether Windows XP or Kubuntu 10.10 would run fastest on my specs.

The processor is an AMD 500 MHz, the RAM is 384 MB (100 MHz speed), and the hard drive is 20 GB.

Thanks.


if your hard drive is just 20 GB. i recommend Ubuntu 9.04 or 9.10
But if you want it to be more lighter. use xubuntu.

[Rabhak]

xubuntu for your processor's sake.

[gam3r21]

Right now I'm using SliTaz linux because I used to have only 56 MB of RAM and just upgraded to 384.

So Kubuntu would be better? My mom had an old Dell Deminsion with only 256 MB of RAM and a 70gig hd, it ran fast until it got a virus.

I'm guessing that because of the 500 MHz processor there is a lot of limitation.

Also, does Kubuntu come with a flash player? My brother likes to play flash games online so I was just wondering.

[dmaxel]

Right now I'm using SliTaz linux because I used to have only 56 MB of RAM and just upgraded to 384.

So Kubuntu would be better? My mom had an old Dell Deminsion with only 256 MB of RAM and a 70gig hd, it ran fast until it got a virus.

I'm guessing that because of the 500 MHz processor there is a lot of limitation.

Also, does Kubuntu come with a flash player? My brother likes to play flash games online so I was just wondering.

I would completely forget about Kubuntu because it's the most resource-hoggy out of Kubuntu/Ubuntu/Xubuntu. Please, if you'll choose Linux instead of Windows XP, choose Xubuntu, not Kubuntu. Also, no matter what flavor of Ubuntu, flash doesn't come by default, but you can easily install it.

[gam3r21]

I'm an idiot! This whole thread was supposed to be about Xubuntu and Windows XP! Not Kubuntu. Wow, I must have been reading about Kubuntu before I posted...

[Zzl1xndd]

I would probably go Lubuntu. I have had a lot better results with it then Xubuntu.

[gam3r21]

So is Lubuntu just a lighter weight desktop than Xubuntu?

[Bölvaður]

Flash is the main problem I see.
I also have an old computer but not as slow as your's. When I got flash running my fan spins like there is no tomorrow... the cpu get's a lot to do.
The problem is that Adobe doesn't put much effort into flash on linux. They did first implement 64 bit version way before win and mac but it does not show their focus. Flash on linux requires more cpu than on windy.

But Windy XP has some problems too, but mainly that you'll need to maintain your system and know exactly what is being installed and run on it as it tend to start bulge out and stretch the limits of your ram...
So if I'd be you I'd dual boot XP and some light weight linux. Perhaps Mint with fluxbox like I am running at the moment or as you said xubuntu (but it's not really that small compared to any other xfce distro).

It is very easy to install flash. You can probably install it through the appstore or from the adobe website (click the .deb link and make firefox open it in the package manager which automatically sets everything up for you)

[Bölvaður]

So is Lubuntu just a lighter weight desktop than Xubuntu?
yes but it is not as complete. I used it on this computer for a short time and I liked it.

But you can go for a lighter desktop than that.
Any of the *box window managers will be lighter. Fluxbox is great and openbox can be too with some configs. You might even want to look into Enlightenment.
Tiling window managers are super light weight, but it is mostly good if you dont use mouse and mainly utilize the terminal.

the bottom line is:
the more things are done for you the more it takes in ram and cpu.
the lighter the desktop is the more you'll have to do your self (harder).

So starting out with xubuntu might be the best thing when starting to learn into linux and then move to a lighter desktop :)

[gam3r21]

Thanks for the info, how would I go about dual booting?