Which Lightweight Distro do you prefer and why?

[galacticaboy]

Lightweight distros are great, what one do you prefer and why?

[galacticaboy]

I choose Xubuntu. Xubuntu is great for me, it is light on resources and it still provides all of the functionality of a normal Gnome of KDE desktop. It also just looks damn great and that little mouse is so adorable! =-\

[Spice Weasel]

Alpine Linux / Windows 2000

[XubuRoxMySox]

Of the ones listed, I think Xubu is my favorite because:


It's a model of simplicity

It uses the ginormous Ubuntu repositories

It's agile and quick on my modest hardware

Installation is a breeze

Xfce is stunningly gorgeous and configurable, yet simple and kid-friendly.


It rocks my socks!

[galacticaboy]

Alpine Linux / Windows 2000

What is Alpine Linux, I tried looking it up but I cannot find any pictures of it. =-\

[boydrice]

Slackware and Debian are my favorite lightweight distros. Why, they are extremely configureable, flexible, stable, and light on resources.

[23dornot23d]

Arch Bang ..... because its brought one of my older machines back to life ....

The speed is the thing here and low memory usage :)

[KBD47]

Very hard choice between puppy and xubuntu. I chose puppy but xubuntu is great.

[wojox]

Arch/dwm FTW :P

[lykwydchykyn]

The operative question is, of course, "For what purpose?"

I've gotten some good use out of tinycore in some special situations, and I've been enjoying tinkering with slitaz some.

But usually if I want to make an old computer useful, I just pull something custom together from debian.

[galacticaboy]

The operative question is, of course, "For what purpose?"

I've gotten some good use out of tinycore in some special situations, and I've been enjoying tinkering with slitaz some.

But usually if I want to make an old computer useful, I just pull something custom together from debian.

No actually, I don't really care about what purpose you have for using the Distro, I just want to know what ones people prefer. Thats all.

[boydrice]

No actually, I don't really care about what purpose you have for using the Distro, I just want to know what ones people prefer. Thats all.

If that is the case the title of your thread is misleading, as you ask "why". By the way Xubuntu hardly qualifies as light.

[cgroza]

I use Arch. I still dual boot with Ubuntu.
I use it because it is very slim by default and all I have to do is configure it.

[Blasphemist]

I've downloaded this but haven't tried it yet. http://bodhilinux.com/

Anyone have an opinion on it?

[malspa]

SalineOS. Based on Debian Squeeze; quick, easy installation; Xfce is the default DE.

[Plumtreed]

Your thread so I guess it is up to you but, the inclusion of Xubuntu and not some others in the light catagory, such as.....PepperemintTwo and PeppermintIce is questionable....so let's put them in the 'other' classification even though they probably deserve a better consideration.

.....very lightweight winner is Slitaz that ticks along, full featured, in RAM at less than 30MB!

[sammiev]

I've downloaded this but haven't tried it yet. http://bodhilinux.com/

Anyone have an opinion on it?

Yes, It's a ripped down version of Ubuntu 10.04 and very fast to say the least. You can also try it live from the CD. :)

[Blasphemist]

Yes, It's a ripped down version of Ubuntu 10.04 and very fast to say the least. You can also try it live from the CD. :)

Enlightenment looks nice too. I usually don't like the lightest distro's because of the ascetics. I do think I'll have to give bodhi a shot.

[galacticaboy]

If that is the case the title of your thread is misleading, as you ask "why". By the way Xubuntu hardly qualifies as light.

Actually, you are quite right. I am sorry, I have had so much going on today my mind is not right. So go ahead! haha

[XubuRoxMySox]

Before the school year started I had a chance to play a little with SalixOS (http://salixos.org) and it was absolutely amazing. Xfce desktop, Slackware base (mega long-term support). The LiveCD experience was actually faster and snappier than installed Xubuntu!! That has never happened for me before, where a LiveCD outperformed my installed OS (other than WindowsXP, which was really slow by the time I started looking elsewhere). Flawless, fast, and pretty, I'll likely switch to it during the summer break and give it the proper attention it appears to deserve. If the installed SalixOS experience is as fast or faster yet than that LiveCD experience was on this modest, aging hand-me-down Dell, and with it's ultra long-term support and lack of breakage caused by ordinary updates, it could become my new favorite!

[IWantFroyo]

#! with Openbox.

I love how you can customize Openbox, while keeping it blazing fast.

Plus, you get all of Debian's packages. What's not to like?

[Cpierce]

Depends on the computer. If it is over a 1 ghz processor then I like Lubuntu and Peppermint. But if it is less, then I like SliTaz. I have been very impressed with Slitaz. I have an old i386 with 256 MB of Ram, and you wouldn't believe how snappy it is.

[vanquishedangel]

I love Lubuntu for may reasons

1. no other small distro's would install on my laptop except puppy(compaq armada m300, 600 mhz processor, 320 mb ram) but Lubuntu did and ran well to boot (pun not intended)

2. I like to have desktop environments not just window managers

3. It is clean, very clean. I hate hot mess operating systems like galpon minino, puppy, or many others although they are good there is just too much crap.

4. has the functionality of ubuntu

5. is way lighter than xubuntu or many other so called light distro's

[Megaptera]

I've not tried Puppy 5.28 so I think I'll give that a try later today.

[KBD47]

Right now I'm using puppy 5.2.5 with an xfce desktop--really nice and lightweight distro and xfce makes puppy easier to configure and manage. 5.2.8 looks really good and I need to update.

[kvarley]

lubuntu!

[hakermania]

TinyCore, so tiny with so many features build-in!

[docbop]

Xubuntu lightweight clean interface. Nice selection of app's.

[2F4U]

My favorite is Lubuntu. Have it installed on a really old laptop built in 2004 but it performs wonderfully.

[4Orbs]

Xubuntu is king. Installed it on other computers for the kids and wife, and never have to go back to repair a broken desktop. Ubuntu repositories are a big factor. Xfce doesn't interfere with other sessions (openbox) the way gnome (nautilus) does. Can easily turn-off compositing for better performance in games and video playback. The only drawback is that the file manager (thunar) has become slower and a bit of a nuisance in xfce 4.8.

LXDE has gotten very good recently, but I still prefer Xubuntu plus an Openbox session. Xubuntu for convenience and Openbox for an absolutely dependable hot-rod session.

[mips]

How can people call XFCE lightweight? I use it and it's definitely not lightweight.

[4Orbs]

No, it's not lightweight at all. But it still remains significantly less-complex than gnome, unity and kde... the other members of the fatboy club.

[MG&TL]

I got addicted to speed and dual-booted Lubuntu and Puppy Linux on my 4GB RAM laptop....eventually I got fed up with lack of customization, so I've got Ubuntu development release, but it was fun while it lasted...

I really preferred puppy, but lubuntu had th packages I needed.

[XubuRoxMySox]

Xfce is lightweight, but not as lightweight on Xubuntu or Phoenix (PCLinuxOS' Xfce variant) as you might find in other Xfce distros like Debian, SalineOS, Vecor, SalixOS, etc.

Xfce can be as much or as little as you like. That's why it's called "lightweight." You can make any DE "heavy" if you load it up with eye candy and stuff.

[4Orbs]

The Lubuntu beta1 looks really nice, and it now comes in 64bit version. Probably will be my next install once the final is released. Puppy is also great, but just as MG&TL said, I prefer the selection of packages available in the Ubuntu repositories. After much distro hopping during the past three years I believe there are no "bad" distros, just some I like more and some I like less.

[Sylslay]

Knoppix becouse is only one that works on oldest machine I ever use.

I try Sabayon, Fedora, Lubunut and oteher distro with lxde,

I did not testet very small distros becouse I need full desktop env with my native language

NOT EVERYONE SPEAK ENGLISH, around me.


Spec:

Olde P3 600MHZ, 40gb HDD and 512 (2x256 SDRAM - pulled out from siemens servers :-))

And I was disaponted with performance of old mobe,
p3 800MHZ lenovo works great with ubuntu 10.04

[Sylslay]

64bit version FOR LOW SPEC HARDWARE :popcorn:

[4Orbs]

DamnSmallLinux (the oldest version built from Knoppix) was the only live cd I could get to boot on an old IBM box made in 1998. I did the "Poor Man's Install" and had to use a floppy disk to make it boot after installation. It worked, but was really lousy and pretty much unusable for anything beyond surfing the web with a text-only browser. A good learning experience though.

[FormatSeize]

I like Crunchbang. It's simple, elegant, and simply works. It's minimalism at it's best.

I've tried, but don't like, ElementaryOS because it felt like there just wasn't enough stuff there out of the box.

I've tried Damn Small Linux, and I will have to say that it is the worst Linux experience I have ever had. Yes, it is even worse experience than distros that I haven't been able to properly install. Sure, having a working system on a computer run an OS on a Pentium Zero processor, no hard disk, and one stick of 128 MB DDR0, that's pretty novel for about five minutes. But beyond that, I can't imagine why continuing on with it is anything more than a conversation starter, perhaps. This is just my personal preference; I don't mean to be offensive to anyone that uses the OS.

Xfce is pretty good, but that's more a byproduct of using Slackware rather than it is a preference for Xfce. I do use Xubuntu 11.04 on one of my older machines that won't run any other *buntu 11.04. It's nice, just not Crunchbang.

[galacticaboy]

I like Crunchbang. It's simple, elegant, and simply works. It's minimalism at it's best.

I've tried, but don't like, ElementaryOS because it felt like there just wasn't enough stuff there out of the box.

I've tried Damn Small Linux, and I will have to say that it is the worst Linux experience I have ever had. Yes, it is even worse experience than distros that I haven't been able to properly install. Sure, having a working system on a computer run an OS on a Pentium Zero processor, no hard disk, and one stick of 128 MB DDR0, that's pretty novel for about five minutes. But beyond that, I can't imagine why continuing on with it is anything more than a conversation starter, perhaps. This is just my personal preference; I don't mean to be offensive to anyone that uses the OS.

Xfce is pretty good, but that's more a byproduct of using Slackware rather than it is a preference for Xfce. I do use Xubuntu 11.04 on one of my older machines that won't run any other *buntu 11.04. It's nice, just not Crunchbang.

Well being a MOD for like 2 weeks with Elementary OS has taught me one thing. Elementary OS is not supposed to give you a whole lot out of box. Now with the next release of it, Elementary Luna, there will be a whole bunch of changes. New file manager, new windows manager, new everything. It will be completely different. Elementary Jupiter was just the first release. Elementary is great, I find it to run quite well on older machines.

[drawkcab]

This a wide range of distros that are light weight in the sense that they're lighter than those that employ full Gnome and KDE desktops.

After that it becomes an issue of what you are using the distro for. For example if you have a system with 1gb of ram then you might be completely happy with xubuntu which frees up some resources. On an older system with less ram/smallish ssd, however, xubuntu might be way too heavy.

Trying a bunch of these distros and figuring out what works well for you is a great project.

[kazuya]

+1 for archbang.
Archbang for sure gets the nod.
This is by far the speediest distro I have used. I know it is based on archlinux, but this light distro is the sole reason I am indirectly running archlinux and loving it today. It is fast and fully functional even from the livecd mode.

The advantage I see with archbang is that even after installation and add of many bloated applications and Desktop environments like gnome 3 and kde 4, etc., the system still runs incredibly fast. I cannot say the same for the Debian-based counterparts like crunchbang, mepis antix, macpup, etc. Granted Puppy and antiX runs equally fast when nothing else gets installed besides default installation.
Xubuntu is not even in the conversation of speedy. Salix was comparable to archbang, but slightly slower in my day to day test. I did my test on an older system as well as newer PC system (intel core 2 duo with 4 gig RAM)

The benchmark profiler seems to compare the systems as comparable, but actual use for me shows archbang considerably more responsive and smooth than all debian-based comparisons. antiX and macpup were closely comparable to archbang in speed. After install archbang seems faster.
If you do not believe me, then try running cheese (webcam video recording) after install and compare them. You would notice that in archbang, video has much less lag if any than the other distros.

I open up a whole lot more apps in archbang before I start seeing the slow down. And I tested this on opebox, xfce4, gnome 3, and kde.

The only knock on archbang for many users might be the lack of a gui package manager (e.g synaptic in debian-based) and gslapt in slackware-based.

[galacticaboy]

+1 for archbang.
Archbang for sure gets the nod.
This is by far the speediest distro I have used. I know it is based on archlinux, but this light distro is the sole reason I am indirectly running archlinux and loving it today. It is fast and fully functional even from the livecd mode.

The advantage I see with archbang is that even after installation and add of many bloated applications and Desktop environments like gnome 3 and kde 4, etc., the system still runs incredibly fast. I cannot say the same for the Debian-based counterparts like crunchbang, mepis antix, macpup, etc. Granted Puppy and antiX runs equally fast when nothing else gets installed besides default installation.
Xubuntu is not even in the conversation of speedy. Salix was comparable to archbang, but slightly slower in my day to day test. I did my test on an older system as well as newer PC system (intel core 2 duo with 4 gig RAM)

The benchmark profiler seems to compare the systems as comparable, but actual use for me shows archbang considerably more responsive and smooth than all debian-based comparisons. antiX and macpup were closely comparable to archbang in speed. After install archbang seems faster.
If you do not believe me, then try running cheese (webcam video recording) after install and compare them. You would notice that in archbang, video has much less lag if any than the other distros.

I open up a whole lot more apps in archbang before I start seeing the slow down. And I tested this on opebox, xfce4, gnome 3, and kde.

The only knock on archbang for many users might be the lack of a gui package manager (e.g synaptic in debian-based) and gslapt in slackware-based.

I think with Xubuntu it depends on what hardware you have. I have older hardware made back when Windows XP was first released and Xubuntu 10.10 with Xfce 8.x runs awesome. It is way faster than CrunchBang or any other ones I have tried. And I cannot get my Internet to work with Puppy Linux, that bums me out because I would love to try it.

[XubuRoxMySox]

Elementary is great, I find it to run quite well on older machines.

Their web site doesn't offer a hardware compatibility page, minimum system requirements, or even a description of what DE it uses. It may be a fine distro, but with none of the vital information immediately available to visitors to their web site, I just skipped over it.

[Blasphemist]

Here's what my recommendation, bodhi, requires.
300mhz i386 Processor
128megs of RAM
1.5g HD space

[sammiev]

Here's what my recommendation, bodhi, requires.
300mhz i386 Processor
128megs of RAM
1.5g HD space

Sounds like you tried it. :)

[PendragonUK]

Joli-OS

I like Jolicloud because it works on my netbook! I have an Acer AspireOne with flunky Intel GMA500 chipset. I can get her to run Ubuntu and with 2D Unity it's slow. Joli-OS runs as sweet as a nut without error or issue. The Cloud based nature of the OS is well suted to the type of usage I put my little netbook to. Quite how well suted it would be for a desktop I'm not sure but on a portible platform it's ace!

Link to running Ubuntu on intel GMA500 hardware:https://wiki.ubuntu.com/HardwareSupportComponentsVideoCardsPoulsbo

Link to Jolicloud: www.jolicloud.com

[galacticaboy]

Their web site doesn't offer a hardware compatibility page, minimum system requirements, or even a description of what DE it uses. It may be a fine distro, but with none of the vital information immediately available to visitors to their web site, I just skipped over it.

True, that is something they are working on. Elementary is based off of Ubuntu Maverick, the next release, Elementary Luna, is going to be based off of 12.04. I will take your concern to the web developer.

[blaede22]

Their web site doesn't offer a hardware compatibility page, minimum system requirements, or even a description of what DE it uses. It may be a fine distro, but with none of the vital information immediately available to visitors to their web site, I just skipped over it.

Seeing as how Jupiter was based on Ubuntu 10.10, all those things are the same as Ubuntu 10.10's. We launched that back in March. Nothing has changed with it since then.

The site, however, has changed a lot. Before, it was literally one page. Now it's a large site with a wealth of information. Jupiter's technical specs are here: http://elementaryos.org/docs/user-guide/technical-specifications. I agree it's not the easiest to find, but it's also not the most important thing. Our target audience is primarily the non-technical user who just wants their computer to work.

Also, as a side note (and kind of ironically), I can't for the life of me find even that information on the main Ubuntu site. There's the certified hardware section, but that's about it; it doesn't even list requirements as far as I can tell.

I think the problem that a lot of geeks have with elementary is that it's different. A lot of operating systems are targeted to geeks and throw all the technical details up front. But as you can see from elementary (and even Ubuntu!), the target audience doesn't care about these things as much. In both cases, there are ways to get to the info with a bit of looking through the sites (I assume Ubuntu has that info on a forum or wiki somewhere, though it's not obvious).

With that, I'll look at getting an official FAQ up. It might be a nice place to feature questions and answers that we feel are important to feature on the site.

[Blasphemist]

Sounds like you tried it. :)

I have/am trying it and have been quite impressed. Enlightenment E17 is quite a different DE and reflects some very good ideas. After using Gnome 3 Shell and unity, Gnome 2 and panels seems real old as do the light weight DE's. Enlightenment is real light and still feels new, well thought out and sophisticated.

[ubiquitin.jf]

Debian minimal install + whatever I need on the machine. I had a Debian/BlackBox setup on my grandma's old PC a few years back which only used 35MB RAM when fully booted.

[mips]

I had a Debian/BlackBox setup on my grandma's old PC a few years back which only used 35MB RAM when fully booted.

My Arch install is not far off from that (46MB) but it loads some apps/daemons up at startup which I could disable and get ram usage even lower I suspect.

[kellemes]

Arch is nice for whatever kind of system you need.. not specifically lightweight.. anything is possible.

The best lightweight ready-to-go distro's I've exerienced are Crunchbang (Debian basically) and Puppy.
I've got an old latitude D600 with Puppy for my kids.. and it's flying.
The wife has a D800 with Crunchbang and it's fast and responsive as well.. and trouble free.

[galacticaboy]

I am seeing that a lot of people are saying that #! is great. I was using it but while I was using it I had a hard drive crash. I just kinda went back to Xubuntu... idk why.

[XubuRoxMySox]

I am seeing that a lot of people are saying that #! is great. I was using it but while I was using it I had a hard drive crash. I just kinda went back to Xubuntu... idk why.

I loved Crunchbang when it was built on Ubuntu 9.04. Flawless, fast, geeky fun! On the Debian base it balks on my hardware and it's much more troublesome. But I still have a soft spot in my heart for Crunchbang and it's community has alot of really smart people. Were it not for the trouble I have with Debian and most Debian derivatives (other than 'buntu and Mepis), I might still be using Crunchbang (Openbox).

I'm down to one 'puter and I share it with other kids sometimes, so it needs to be super-simple so anyone can use it without coaching. Xubuntu 10.04 fits that bill perfectly and runs every bit as fast as Crunchbang (9.04) did.

After my disappointing SalixOS experience I'm happy to stick with Xubu LTS. Even on this very modest hardware it still rocks my socks!

[galacticaboy]

I loved Crunchbang when it was built on Ubuntu 9.04. Flawless, fast, geeky fun! On the Debian base it balks on my hardware and it's much more troublesome. But I still have a soft spot in my heart for Crunchbang and it's community has alot of really smart people. Were it not for the trouble I have with Debian and most Debian derivatives (other than 'buntu and Mepis), I might still be using Crunchbang (Openbox).

I'm down to one 'puter and I share it with other kids sometimes, so it needs to be super-simple so anyone can use it without coaching. Xubuntu 10.04 fits that bill perfectly and runs every bit as fast as Crunchbang (9.04) did.

After my disappointing SalixOS experience I'm happy to stick with Xubu LTS. Even on this very modest hardware it still rocks my socks!

Same here, I did like #! but OpenBox is just not my thing and I don't think the Xfce version of it really lets Xfce shine to its full potential. Xubuntu is great! I did not want 11.04 because it frankly sucks... I was not a fan of it. I am using 10.10 for now until 11.10 is released. I am excited. I used to be obsessed with Gnome until I saw Xfce, there is just something about it that is constantly drawing me to it! I really don't care if it is Fedora based or Suse based, as long as its Xfce I am good, but the Ubuntu advantage is the best.

[amjjawad]

Lubuntu, period.

Why? try it yourself and you'll find out :)

[mips]

Same here, I did like #! but OpenBox is just not my thing and I don't think the Xfce version of it really lets Xfce shine to its full potential. Xubuntu is great! I did not want 11.04 because it frankly sucks... I was not a fan of it. I am using 10.10 for now until 11.10 is released. I am excited. I used to be obsessed with Gnome until I saw Xfce, there is just something about it that is constantly drawing me to it! I really don't care if it is Fedora based or Suse based, as long as its Xfce I am good, but the Ubuntu advantage is the best.

I will also be trying out Xubuntu 11.10 or I might just get the minimal CD and do my own thing.

[XubuRoxMySox]

When it comes to the 'buntus (Lubu, Xubu, Kubu, Ubu) if you're a newbie, I always recommend either to stick with the LTS editions or stay "one release behind" the most recent one, since it takes sometimes weeks or months to work out the kinks. They're all supported for 18 months! Upgrading is optional as long as your version is still supported.

Want to try Lubuntu next time. LXDE in SalixOS 13.37 was sloppy and buggy, seemingly "thrown on top of the Xfce version" except for a choice of lightweight applications. But the Lubu videos I looked at yesterday looked awesome! I think the Lubuntu project will be absolutely stunning by the time they reach 12.04.

[galacticaboy]

When it comes to the 'buntus (Lubu, Xubu, Kubu, Ubu) if you're a newbie, I always recommend either to stick with the LTS editions or stay "one release behind" the most recent one, since it takes sometimes weeks or months to work out the kinks. They're all supported for 18 months! Upgrading is optional as long as your version is still supported.

Want to try Lubuntu next time. LXDE in SalixOS 13.37 was sloppy and buggy, seemingly "thrown on top of the Xfce version" except for a choice of lightweight applications. But the Lubu videos I looked at yesterday looked awesome! I think the Lubuntu project will be absolutely stunning by the time they reach 12.04.

I have always found LXDE to be ugly. I do however like what they are starting to do with Lubuntu, it is actually looking pretty good!

[amjjawad]

Want to try Lubuntu next time.

Go for it.


I think the Lubuntu project will be absolutely stunning by the time they reach 12.04.
Lubuntu is getting much better each and every release. I remember I had lots of issues with 10.04 and I didn't get the same problems with 11.04.

I have joined LXDE and Lubuntu team recently. Actually, we can't talk about them apart.
I love LXDE and Lubuntu. I'm quite sure it will be much better in the coming releases.
In fact, if you take a look at www.distrowatch.com, you will clearly notice that Lubuntu beats Kubuntu and Xubuntu.

My PC is 6+ years old and it has no problem running Unity 3D but I prefer Lubuntu.
This is a test PC and I'm installing many Distros for testing. Planning to get used laptop and once done, Lubuntu will be my MAIN OS on that device.

:)

[amjjawad]

I have always found LXDE to be ugly.

LXDE isn't meant to be used on the most recent machines. LXDE stands for "Lightweight X11 Desktop Environment. One can not expect much from such environment. However, as far as I can tell, the team is doing its best to make it looks as good as possible.
As I posted previously, my P4 PC is capable of running Unity 3D without any problems but I do prefer LXDE :)
But YMMV :)

I have once installed Mint LXDE on a very old machine (1999) and it worked much faster than XP.

[galacticaboy]

LXDE isn't meant to be used on the most recent machines. LXDE stands for "Lightweight X11 Desktop Environment. One can not expect much from such environment. However, as far as I can tell, the team is doing its best to make it looks as good as possible.
As I posted previously, my P4 PC is capable of running Unity 3D without any problems but I do prefer LXDE :)
But YMMV :)

I have once installed Mint LXDE on a very old machine (1999) and it worked much faster than XP.

I wish my P4 PC could run Unity 3D, I can barely do Unity 2D... I hate my pc...

[amjjawad]

I wish my P4 PC could run Unity 3D, I can barely do Unity 2D... I hate my pc...

That's why people with such machines (sorry, not sure what are the hardware specifications of your PC?) go for LXDE, XFCE or other lightweight environment.

Most people coming from Windows 7 think the 3D or "more effect' way. I don't even change the theme. All what I care is a machine that works without any headache :)

[galacticaboy]

That's why people with such machines (sorry, not sure what are the hardware specifications of your PC?) go for LXDE, XFCE or other lightweight environment.

Most people coming from Windows 7 think the 3D or "more effect' way. I don't even change the theme. All what I care is a machine that works without any headache :)

Yeah, my PC specs are P4 2.50, 6GB HDD, YES 6GB, 756MB of RAM with Intel 82865G Onboard Graphics controller. It sucks, bad.

[amjjawad]

Yeah, my PC specs are P4 2.50, 6GB HDD, YES 6GB, 756MB of RAM with Intel 82865G Onboard Graphics controller. It sucks, bad.

Looks like it's older than my PC but NOT that bad if you ask me :)
I got Gigabyte Intel 945 Chipset MB with built-in Graphics Card (Intel GMA 950), P4 @3.0GHz - 2MB Cache, 2GB RAM and a test IDE HDD with 40GB.

You just need another HDD. Not that expensive these days.

I have another PC. P4 but 512MB RAM shared with the Graphics Card so it's around 460MB or something.
Last time, I did a test on it and I gave 256MB for Graphics and 256MB RAM and tried Lubuntu LiveCD and it just worked without any issue. Usually, LiveCD require more RAM but it worked on that Setup.

Don't feel bad. There are people who still use older machines than you ... think this way and you'll never feel bad but instead, will feel thankful :)

[XubuRoxMySox]

Yeah, don't feel bad at ALL! My PC has 512 RAM and an old Celeron processor. Yet Xubuntu 10.04 runs flawless and fast on it! So did Ubuntu 10.04 for that matter!

She won't handle Unity, but I fixed up my Xfce desktop to look and act like Unity just because I think it looks cool.

My next OS might be Lubu 12.04! The more I see of it on the web, the better it looks. Back on 9.04 LXDE was buggy as all getout on minimal Ubuntu, but I found a way to make it work and it was so fast on an even ollllllder computer at the dance studio that it actually won a few of the other dance kids over from Windows that had older 'puters.

[amjjawad]

My next OS might be Lubu 12.04!

Why to wait until 12.04? Lubuntu 11.04 is waiting for you ;)
Give it a try and if you have any question, please let me know :)

[XubuRoxMySox]

Why to wait until 12.04? Lubuntu 11.04 is waiting for you ;)
Give it a try and if you have any question, please let me know :)

Sticking with the LTS releases for now... down to only one 'puter and it's "mission critical!" Can't risk any mess-ups even if they're my own fault. 'Puter's gotta work!

I'll likely even wait until 12.04 is a month or more old before I risk it. I know, I'm such a wimp, lol. All those risk I used to take when I was new to all this, too. Now I'm pro'lly too cautious.

[BrokenKingpin]

Xubuntu is my distro of choice, of crappy and decent machines. People say it isn't that light anymore, but my crappy netbook runs it perfectly. If you really do have something that can't run Xubuntu, then Lubuntu is pretty decent (I had a few power management issues with it though).

[claracc]

Lubuntu 11.04 +1. Quick, light and stable.

Installed on an old pentium III laptop (year 2000), cpu 1GHz, 512 Mb ram sharing 64 Mb of them with the sis 630/730 graphics card, 20 Gb HD.

Lubuntu has allowed to put to work again this equipment (surfing web: epiphany, play music and watch videos: vlc, office tasks: abiword, booting time 1 minute).

[amjjawad]

Lubuntu 11.04 +1. Quick, light and stable.

Installed on an old pentium III laptop (year 2000), cpu 1GHz, 512 Mb ram sharing 64 Mb of them with the sis 630/730 graphics card, 20 Gb HD.

Lubuntu has allowed to put to work again this equipment (surfing web: epiphany, play music and watch videos: vlc, office tasks: abiword, booting time 1 minute).

Very glad to know and read that :D

[DayLite]

I've downloaded this but haven't tried it yet. http://bodhilinux.com/

Anyone have an opinion on it?

I do :) I like especially E17. Enlightenment is the main reason for my switch. Besides, I prefer to choose which programs to install and start from scratch.

For those on this forum that are Jehovah's Witnesses, here is an informative site on the use of 'theocratic tools' (http://bodhisept.homestead.com/TheocraticTools.html) in Bodhi.

[gdesilva]

Slitaz! - I was able to give a new life to my old computers which were gathering dust. It is lightening fast and at the same time has a very small foot print. Tried, Puppy which is also good but I would have to rate Slitaz as the better one. Give it a go - you won't be disappointed!

[sammiev]

Slitaz! - I was able to give a new life to my old computers which were gathering dust. It is lightening fast and at the same time has a very small foot print. Tried, Puppy which is also good but I would have to rate Slitaz as the better one. Give it a go - you won't be disappointed!

There download rate totally sucks!

[DayLite]

Slitaz! - I was able to give a new life to my old computers which were gathering dust. It is lightening fast and at the same time has a very small foot print. Tried, Puppy which is also good but I would have to rate Slitaz as the better one. Give it a go - you won't be disappointed!

It will not work for an old computer that is a Compaq Presario 1245 with 92.0 MB Ram.


designed to run speedily on hardware with 256 MB of RAM. . Quoted from here (http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=slitaz)

[amjjawad]

There download rate totally sucks!

What do you mean "download rate"?

[amjjawad]

It will not work for an old computer that is a Compaq Presario 1245 with 92.0 MB Ram.

. Quoted from here (http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=slitaz)

Regardless what it says, have you tried that yourself?
I'm very interested to know.

Thanks!

[DayLite]

Regardless what it says, have you tried that yourself?
I'm very interested to know.

Thanks!

It is too late tonight, maybe I'll try tomorrow.

[amjjawad]

It is too late tonight, maybe I'll try tomorrow.

On 12 years old HP Omnibook 4150 which has P2 366MHz and 64MB RAM with 4GB HDD, I managed to install Mint LXDE 9 and it worked like a charm. That laptop has NO input device whatsoever except the keyboard so I had to take the HDD out and it's very long story.

Nothing worked but Mint 9 LXDE.
Any OS with GRUB Legacy (version 1) didn't work. Those with GRUB2 were able to boot but didn't work as I wanted with some issue with graphics, etc.

LXDE ROCKS!

I had some interest with Slitaz some months ago but I'm all into LXDE now. However, I still like Slitaz.

Take your time and I'll be waiting for your post ;)

Good night!
It's 10am here :)

[DayLite]

On 12 years old HP Omnibook 4150 which has P2 366MHz and 64MB RAM with 4GB HDD, I managed to install Mint LXDE 9 and it worked like a charm. That laptop has NO input device whatsoever except the keyboard so I had to take the HDD out and it's very long story.

Take your time and I'll be waiting for your post ;)

Good night!
It's 10am here :)

I will try it tomorrow. It is 11:04 PM here.

I am looking forward to test this one out.

[amjjawad]

I will try it tomorrow. It is 11:04 PM here.

I am looking forward to test this one out.

Take your time and I'll be waiting :)
I'm looking forward the result too.

So, 11hours time difference? the world is a small town and Ubuntu Forum is connecting people from all around the world.

[DayLite]

Take your time and I'll be waiting :)
I'm looking forward the result too.

So, 11hours time difference? the world is a small town and Ubuntu Forum is connecting people from all around the world.

How can I sleep with this question. . . will it work on my ancient machine [-o<

I am downloading the iso now, from http://www.linuxmint.com/edition.php?id=60

[amjjawad]

How can I sleep with this question. . . will it work on my ancient machine [-o<

I am downloading the iso now, from http://www.linuxmint.com/edition.php?id=60

I thought you'll give Slitaz a try? that actually what I was talking about :P
I have tried Mint so I know the answer (whether it will work on less than 128RAM) but with Slitaz, I have no idea, never tried that because Slitaz is using GRUB Legacy and it didn't work on that ancient laptop of mine.

[ubun2warrior]

hi

i tried xubuntu on a very old machine, 256MB ram only, it did not work properly.. then i tried antix it worked fantastic, then i tried bodhi linux it was even better, look and feel specially great, with xubuntu and lubuntu the system got stuck and had to be restarted..

so for me AntiX and Bodhi Linux

[amjjawad]

hi

i tried xubuntu on a very old machine, 256MB ram only, it did not work properly.. then i tried antix it worked fantastic, then i tried bodhi linux it was even better, look and feel specially great, with xubuntu and lubuntu the system got stuck and had to be restarted..

so for me AntiX and Bodhi Linux

I installed Lubuntu 11.10 beta 2 on 242MB RAM from LiveCD (or USB? can't remember) and it worked. Both during installation and after that. Yes, it's slow specially I was using an old 20GB IDE HDD but it worked.

AntiX and Slitaz are both very light but couldn't get any of them to work on my ancient Ominbook HP because they are using GRUB Legacy.

Many users here on Ubuntu Forum believe Xubuntu is NOT lightweight at all. I never used it, I just installed it and then removed it after some time.

For me, LXDE whether on Ubuntu (that is Lubuntu) or any other distro, wil be my favourite :)

Why I prefer Lubuntu over antiX and Slitaz? because it simply works out of the box. I don't have to worry about drivers and stuff and yes, I'm very much talking about "Wireless Drivers" because I don't have any other connection at the moment.

[KBD47]

On 12 years old HP Omnibook 4150 which has P2 366MHz and 64MB RAM with 4GB HDD, I managed to install Mint LXDE 9 and it worked like a charm. That laptop has NO input device whatsoever except the keyboard so I had to take the HDD out and it's very long story.

Nothing worked but Mint 9 LXDE.
Any OS with GRUB Legacy (version 1) didn't work. Those with GRUB2 were able to boot but didn't work as I wanted with some issue with graphics, etc.

LXDE ROCKS!

I had some interest with Slitaz some months ago but I'm all into LXDE now. However, I still like Slitaz.

Take your time and I'll be waiting for your post ;)

Good night!
It's 10am here :)

I've got an old computer like that, 64 mb ram and 4 gig hard drive. I almost got Puppy to boot on it. I might try Mint 9 LXDE on it. I just wonder if you can actually do anything with a computer like that having so little RAM?
I use LXDE as an alternate desktop to log into on Natty and really enjoy it, though I wonder if using it that way actually loses some of the speed? Seemed much faster from a live usb.
KBD47

[DayLite]

I thought you'll give Slitaz a try? that actually what I was talking about :P


I'll try Slitaz too. But the way you were so positive of Mint made me want to try it now.

[amjjawad]

I've got an old computer like that, 64 mb ram and 4 gig hard drive. I almost got Puppy to boot on it. I might try Mint 9 LXDE on it. I just wonder if you can actually do anything with a computer like that having so little RAM?


Hey KBD47, good to see you here too :D

I did that test a year ago just to prove to myself and maybe some other friends that Linux can do wonders and it's MUCH better than Windows. It was a personal challenge more than anything else.
I tried to use that laptop (I do have a wireless card) but it was so slow. It's not about the RAM, it's about the CPU. P2 366 is so slow, not to mention 64MB is so little. Oh and the laptop is really broken :) hahaha.

http://ubuntuforums.org/picture.php?albumid=2136&pictureid=7114

Now, it looks even worse because it fell down.



I use LXDE as an alternate desktop to log into on Natty and really enjoy it, though I wonder if using it that way actually loses some of the speed? Seemed much faster from a live usb.
KBD47
Sorry, I didn't get your question?

[amjjawad]

I'll try Slitaz too. But the way you were so positive of Mint made me want to try it now.

Check my previous post and see the screenshot :)

OMG, I think you guys are motivating me a lot to bring that almost dead broken laptop and give it another try :D

I didn't turn it on after it fell down but will give that a try and if it worked, I think I'll do some more tests.

[DayLite]

Check my previous post and see the screenshot :)


Well, I burned it to a CD and it booted to the black screen with the 5 dots. It has been like this for 10 minutes.

I will let you know if it makes any progress.

[KBD47]

Hey KBD47, good to see you here too :D

I did that test a year ago just to prove to myself and maybe some other friends that Linux can do wonders and it's MUCH better than Windows. It was a personal challenge more than anything else.
I tried to use that laptop (I do have a wireless card) but it was so slow. It's not about the RAM, it's about the CPU. P2 366 is so slow, not to mention 64MB is so little. Oh and the laptop is really broken :) hahaha.

http://ubuntuforums.org/picture.php?albumid=2136&pictureid=7114

Now, it looks even worse because it fell down.



Sorry, I didn't get your question?

I'm not sure what the cpu is on my dinosaur in the closet, but probably way slow. I got that computer in 1998 and it was running Windows 98. I've thought about trying to find more memory for it, but it probably isn't worth it.
I know I've seen you several times on the message boards :-)
My question was--I have Natty, regular Ubuntu, 11.04 installed on my hard drive and I also installed LXDE desktop, just the desktop, not Lubuntu, and I log into LXDE from Natty. I was just wondering if it runs slower using it that way compared to a regular full install of Lubuntu?
KBD47

[amjjawad]

Well, I burned it to a CD and it booted to the black screen with the 5 dots. It has been like this for 10 minutes.

I will let you know if it makes any progress.

If your machine can boot from USB, try that. If not, try Plop Manager.
With LiveCD and very low RAM, I doubt you'll make any progress at all.

In my case, I had to take the HDD out because even Plop didn't help much.

I do have a thread here about my tests on that laptop and on antiX forum too.

[DayLite]

If your machine can boot from USB, try that. .

It doesn't have USB.

[amjjawad]

I'm not sure what the cpu is on my dinosaur in the closet, but probably way slow. I got that computer in 1998 and it was running Windows 98. I've thought about trying to find more memory for it, but it probably isn't worth it.

Do that as a challenge if you like that :)
I would do that if I were you. Not for the sake of daily use but for the sake of the fun :)


My question was--I have Natty, regular Ubuntu, 11.04 installed on my hard drive and I also installed LXDE desktop, just the desktop, not Lubuntu, and I log into LXDE from Natty. I was just wondering if it runs slower using it that way compared to a regular full install of Lubuntu?
KBD47

I guess there will be some differences.
One way to find out, wait few hours until the official release of Lubuntu 11.10 and give that a try. If you'll download it, please make sure to use Torrent and Keep Seeding :D

I can't wait ... COME ON Lubutnu 11.10 :D

[amjjawad]

It doesn't have USB.

Oh, OK.

Mine has dead CD-Drive. One USB Port but the BIOS doesn't support booting from USB. Had to use Plop which didn't help. Taking the HDD out was the only way. I can't ever forget that ... it took one month :)
that was in Nov, 2010.

[KBD47]

Do that as a challenge if you like that :)
I would do that if I were you. Not for the sake of daily use but for the sake of the fun :)



I guess there will be some differences.
One way to find out, wait few hours until the official release of Lubuntu 11.10 and give that a try. If you'll download it, please make sure to use Torrent and Keep Seeding :D

I can't wait ... COME ON Lubutnu 11.10 :D

I tried Lubuntu 11.04 on live usb and was impressed with it, that's why I added LXDE desktop to Natty. I'm wondering if there are any real changes from 11.04 to 11.10 Lubuntu? I was told there is not much change on the Xubuntu 11.10 release from 11.04.
KBD47

[amjjawad]

I tried Lubuntu 11.04 on live usb and was impressed with it, that's why I added LXDE desktop to Natty. I'm wondering if there are any real changes from 11.04 to 11.10 Lubuntu? I was told there is not much change on the Xubuntu 11.10 release from 11.04.
KBD47

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Lubuntu/Announcement/11.10
That is not final yet. It's a draft.

Lubuntu is improving so fast with each release. There is a huge difference between 10.04 and 11.04. I have tired and used both, huge difference IMHO.

I just don't feel comfortable with the idea of adding another Desktop Environment on the top of an existing one. I don't mind Multi-Booting and that's what I do. I'm one of those who believe that it's better to run everything on its native environment. Yes, for testing purposes, I would do anything but not for daily use. YMMV though :)

[DayLite]

Well, I have waited long enough, this ancient laptop is not progressing past the 'dots'. I call it quits.

Check out the specs of Compaq Presario 1245. (http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c00255309&tmp_task=prodinfoCategory&cc=us&dlc=en&lang=en&lc=en&product=94995)
Mine has 96.0MB Ram.

I believe this machine is hopeless. Windows 98 still has the old software programs working great. :D

[KBD47]

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Lubuntu/Announcement/11.10
That is not final yet. It's a draft.

Lubuntu is improving so fast with each release. There is a huge difference between 10.04 and 11.04. I have tired and used both, huge difference IMHO.

I just don't feel comfortable with the idea of adding another Desktop Environment on the top of an existing one. I don't mind Multi-Booting and that's what I do. I'm one of those who believe that it's better to run everything on its native environment. Yes, for testing purposes, I would do anything but not for daily use. YMMV though :)

Probably because LXDE is so light I've had no problems beyond having to initially check the network on the startup menu to get it to auto-connect to wireless. It's just a simple log in and log out between Unity-classic (Gnome)-LXDE.
KBD47

[amjjawad]

Well, I have waited long enough, this ancient laptop is not progressing past the 'dots'. I call it quits.

Check out the specs of Compaq Presario 1245. (http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c00255309&tmp_task=prodinfoCategory&cc=us&dlc=en&lang=en&lc=en&product=94995)
Mine has 96.0MB Ram.

I believe this machine is hopeless. Windows 98 still has the old software programs working great. :D

Can't deny I thought to install Win98 on mine but it was just a bad thought :D

My laptop had WinXP. I had to wait 5 mins just to wait for Start Menu to appear. With Linux, it took 2.5 - 3 mins to have a working desktop.


My Story with antiX: http://antix.freeforums.org/antix-installed-on-hp-omni-book-4150-t2793.html


P.S.
Your laptop specifications are so close to mine (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fh20000.www2.hp.com%2Fbc%2Fdocs%2F support%2FSupportManual%2Fbpi03931%2Fbpi03931.pdf&rct=j&q=omnibook%204150%20specs&ei=C5KWTsj3BM2xhAeQzPSKBA&usg=AFQjCNG_p2xPMZg6D0tNkR7-mmeYJWMMnQ&sig2=HT4e_Pz0Rwy0ImCoHGKTLQ&cad=rja) :)

[DayLite]

If your machine can boot from USB, try that. .

I just discovered I was incorrect. It does have a USB port. What difference would it make, using that?

[amjjawad]

I just discovered I was incorrect. It does have a USB port. What difference would it make, using that?

First, check your BIOS and see whether it supports booting from USB or not?
If Yes, try to create a LiveUSB using: http://unetbootin.sourceforge.net/

Then boot your machine from that LiveUSB.

LiveUSB is much faster than LiveCD. Beside, Live Session needs at least 256MB RAM. With 92MB RAM, the Live Session will never work.

If your machine doesn't support booting from USB then:
http://www.plop.at/en/bootmanager.html

See also how to set it up with GRUB2 :http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=10769333&postcount=8

[amjjawad]

Some Screenshots may come in handy:

http://ubuntuforums.org/picture.php?albumid=2145&pictureid=7126


http://ubuntuforums.org/picture.php?albumid=2145&pictureid=7191

[DayLite]

Since I have the Linuxmint-9 Lxde I tried it out on my Dell Latitude D600.
I couldn't get the wireless to connect. . not impressed at all.

Download this http://sourceforge.net/projects/bodhilinux/files/bodhi_1.2.1.iso/download

Burn it to a CD and try it. See what you think of Enlightenment. I booted the Live CD on my Dell Latitude D600. It was able recognize all the wireless in my area, I picked mine and typed in the key and it connected.

Tried the Ubuntu live CD and it needed the Broadcom driver. Duh.....If a person has only wireless available it causes a problem. I really like Bodhi, great drivers.

[DayLite]

Some Screenshots may come in handy:


Your right :) I am a visual and 'a picture speaks a thousand words', as the saying goes.

I'm not using anymore energy or time on my old laptop. It isn't any value to go on. If you guys have a solution, not just speculation, I'll try it. But first you have to understand the limitations of my old machine.

I enjoyed communication with all of you, Goodnight,

[amjjawad]

Since I have the Linuxmint-9 Lxde I tried it out on my Dell Latitude D600.
I couldn't get the wireless to connect. . not impressed at all.

As you may know, not all Linux Distribution will work out-of-the box :) some need extra steps. Yes, I wouldn't waste much time as long as there are more than 300 active Linux Distributions over there but it's also fun to get one of them up and running by trying some steps.
All for the sake of learning.


Download this http://sourceforge.net/projects/bodhilinux/files/bodhi_1.2.1.iso/download

Burn it to a CD and try it. See what you think of Enlightenment. I booted the Live CD on my Dell Latitude D600. It was able recognize all the wireless in my area, I picked mine and typed in the key and it connected.
I don't like E17 much. LXDE and GNOME 2.x are my favourites.
Since the support has stopped for GNOME 2.x then I'm all into LXDE at the moment.


Tried the Ubuntu live CD and it needed the Broadcom driver. Duh.....If a person has only wireless available it causes a problem. I really like Bodhi, great drivers.
I read that Broadcom is a pain in the neck big time with Ubuntu. Luckily, I don't have it. My network Adapters work out-of-the box.

Yes, someone like me will have limited options. The Wireless Router is very far from my room and there is no way to connect via LAN so I'm online via Wireless Connection from Range Extender.

[amjjawad]

Your right :) I am a visual and 'a picture speaks a thousand words', as the saying goes.

Unquestionably :D
I do love Screenshots a lot and always use that. That could save my time and everyone's time.


I'm not using anymore energy or time on my old laptop. It isn't any value to go on. If you guys have a solution, not just speculation, I'll try it. But first you have to understand the limitations of my old machine.
If you are serious and up to this adventure then start a new thread and send me the link of that thread (PM) and I'll be more than glad to help :)
Don't worry about what distribution, just make up your mind and whenever you're ready, PM me ;)


I enjoyed communication with all of you, Goodnight,
Same here :)
Good night!

[Algus]

Xubuntu is quite nice and besides working rather well, is probably also a good intro to lightweight distros for people curious about the difference.

[amjjawad]

Lubuntu addicted and loving it :D :P

http://i56.tinypic.com/zmcxsy.jpg


Please don't tell me it's because Lubuntu has new release, etc etc ... Lubuntu has been in better rank than Kubuntu and Xubuntu for a year and half now, if I'm not wrong.

[bob53124]

I like puppy linux its really lightweight and fast

[Penguinnerd]

I like Debian with LXDE. It's one of the few things that can fit on my 4 Gb eee 701 and remain useful, with enough disk space left over for files and extra stuff.

I'm also a huge fan of Lubuntu.

[linuxaddix]

bodhi linux is one of the lightest ive seen but for lightweight id have to say mint lxde.

[krapp]

Debian /thread.

The so-called netinstall gives you a base system with the all-powerful APT!



aptitude install gnome-core


and you're ready to go.

[el_koraco]

Debian /thread.

The so-called netinstall gives you a base system with the all-powerful APT!



aptitude install gnome-core
and you're ready to go.

Gnome's not lightweight.
OT, grml is my present time favorite, the best installer in the business, makes the Debian netinstall seem slow and awkward.

[northwestuntu]

always been a fan of lubuntu. its great that they have a offcial 64 bit version :D which mint lxde lacks :(

[amjjawad]

http://i53.tinypic.com/2lj2wt0.jpg

[moldaviax]

I have tried xubuntu, do the lightweight distros yield much extra battery life for mobile users?

M.

[el_koraco]

I have tried xubuntu, do the lightweight distros yield much extra battery life for mobile users?

M.

No, it's a kernel thing. Install Fuduntu, or just the Jupiter applet. I recommend both highly.

[amjjawad]

No, it's a kernel thing.
Any document that support that?

I don't think it's ALL about Kernel but I might be wrong.

[el_koraco]

Any document that support that?

I don't think it's ALL about Kernel but I might be wrong.

It's about how the kernel parameters are configured. Just because a distro is light on resources like memory and CPU doesn't mean those parameters are set. There are distros that implement power saving parameters, like Fuduntu, or Watt OS, or some that are heavy on power consumption, like Ubuntu, but that doesn't have much to do with how the "weight" is perceived.

Say, a bunch of lightweight Debian based distros have poor memory management by default, because stuff like CPU frequency scaling or power saving scripts are not installed by default.

[mörgæs]

Anything that puts a load on the CPU drains battery, kernel or not. The more eye candy the more battery drain.

[amjjawad]

It's about how the kernel parameters are configured. Just because a distro is light on resources like memory and CPU doesn't mean those parameters are set. There are distros that implement power saving parameters, like Fuduntu, or Watt OS, or some that are heavy on power consumption, like Ubuntu, but that doesn't have much to do with how the "weight" is perceived.

Say, a bunch of lightweight Debian based distros have poor memory management by default, because stuff like CPU frequency scaling or power saving scripts are not installed by default.

But I'm looking for some document(s) that support that theory :)
I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just looking for some docs.

A week ago, one of the users told me that he/she got 20mins extra when he/she switched from Ubuntu (or another OS) to Lubuntu.

I don't have a laptop to test that myself but I do have a laptop with Win7 at home. Sometimes I use it. The more apps I run, the less battery time I get. Common sense :)

[amjjawad]

anything that puts a load on the cpu drains battery, kernel or not. The more eye candy the more battery drain.

+1

[Jerry41]

Bodhi
I have an old (2004) low-end Compaq Desktop that originally ran Windows XP so slowly as to make my teeth itch. I have been trying for a couple of years to find a distro that would make it usable as a backup for my slightly newer (2005) & more powerful (ie, slightly upgraded) HP Media Center.
I have tried most of the distros listed on the poll - with very little improvement, but last week I downloaded the Bodhi iso, burned it, tested the live cd & installed it all the same day. Bodhi is the first distro I have found that actually feels like I am using a real PC when I get on that rig. (AND the display looks good)
I have a REALLY old 1998 Toshiba laptop that will run beautifully on some of the older versions of Puppy, but have never found any distro that will connect via PCMCIA, so all are useless there.

[cortman]

Bodhi
I have an old (2004) low-end Compaq Desktop that originally ran Windows XP so slowly as to make my teeth itch. I have been trying for a couple of years to find a distro that would make it usable as a backup for my slightly newer (2005) & more powerful (ie, slightly upgraded) HP Media Center.
I have tried most of the distros listed on the poll - with very little improvement, but last week I downloaded the Bodhi iso, burned it, tested the live cd & installed it all the same day. Bodhi is the first distro I have found that actually feels like I am using a real PC when I get on that rig. (AND the display looks good)
I have a REALLY old 1998 Toshiba laptop that will run beautifully on some of the older versions of Puppy, but have never found any distro that will connect via PCMCIA, so all are useless there.

Man I hear you with the tooth itch!
I just "accidentally" bought a used laptop off ebay. Didn't expect to get it at my low bid, but hey. It'll be a Dell D600, 1.6 GHZ Centrino, 512 MB ram, etc. I'm obviously looking for a lightweight, fast-running distro to install on it, preferably debian based. This poll will be interesting!

[Kilz]

I do mass installs of Linux for various church and school groups. My preferred install distro is currently Xubuntu. It can be made to run on older donated equipment and has a ton of packages available compared to some other distributions. I may test out lubuntu when the next lts comes out.
Some teachers and schools have new and therefore more powerful equipment. At present I am using Ubuntu 10.04 on them if the administrators approve. But I will be looking into other alternatives, including a respin as I don't like Unity or Gnome-shell at this point.

[amjjawad]

I may test out lubuntu when the next lts comes out.

Lubuntu 12.04, as of today, will not be LTS.


I don't like Unity or Gnome-shell at this point.
Same here!

[Ms. Daisy]

I've got 11.04 Xubuntu on my G4 Emac. It took a fantastic amount of work to install it largely because I had no idea what I was doing. CPU is still maxed out constantly unless I've got a CD in the drive (a nominee for the most elegant solution, no?). If upgrading to 11.10 doesn't solve my CPU woes, I'll explore other options on the list.

[KBD47]

Just playing with Bodhi Linux last night on Virtualbox set at 250 mb ram. It is definitely a good looking light distro. I'm using Xubuntu now as the main OS on my netbook, with Lubuntu as a back up OS. Really like both of the light Buntus.
KBD47

[ratcheer]

Of the ones you listed in the poll, I have used ArchBang, Puppy, and Xubuntu. I like all of them for different reasons. I am currently still running ArchBang as a second OS (to Ubuntu) on my primary PC. Since I have used it the most, I voted for ArchBang in the poll - it is apparently the one I like the best.

Reasons for ArchBang: It is a full, high-powered distro even though it goes very easy on resources. The OpenBox DE is very clean and easy to use. It is a "rolling" distro with no release upgrades because it is continually upgraded. Most components, from the kernel to the web browser, are "cutting edge". For example, it is on kernel 3.0.7-1 (to Oneiric's 3.0.0-12) and it defaults to the Firefox 10 web browser, nightly builds. The main cons to Arch (which is all ArchBang really is, after installation is complete) have to do with its more manual approach to installing software and configuring things. IMHO, this is easier with Arch than with, say, Debian.

Puppy is very cool, but somewhat different from most Linuxes. I really enjoyed it while I was using it, but I got tired of something about it and quit using it.

Xubuntu is a real beauty and I really loved using it until I realized that its applications are quite limited and different. Then, I saw that to build it up to something more similar to Ubuntu, I would basically be reproducing Ubuntu's bloat. So, I gave up on Xubuntu pretty quickly.

This is all just my 2-cents worth, and I don't want to argue about any of it.

Tim

[Nezing]

Peppermint Linux-64 Bit,with it's LXDE Desktop.Easy to use-no useless Unity.Became fed up with Gnome,but not keen on KDE,so my current set-up is fine.Works like a greyhound.No system hog.

[JayKay3OOO]

I chose Puppy Linux because I use on my laptop running from a 4GB flash drive.

Puppy makes the install super fast. Copy the files to the drive, load like a live CD and reboot. Save the session file and add a password if you like. Reboot and use/install the apps you want.

Remove the flash drive when moving the laptop and put in a safe place to keep data safe.

If the session becomes corrupted then just delete the session file and re-load because files will stay intact.

Puppy from a USB2 flash drive loads as fast as Ubuntu unity on a SATA3 hard drive. (actually I'm lying. It's still pretty fast though)

Apps load almost as quick as hard drive load times.

Appart from anything else I like the name and the way it looks out of the box. It's just a sound effect, but there is something cute about your computer giving you a friendly WOOF! the first time you boot it, it makes me smile and that's what computers should do for you.

[wolfen69]

I like Lubuntu on my netbook.

[zamos]

Xubuntu, though to be fair I've only tried Xubuntu and Puppy.

I found Xubuntu to run quite fast and everything was easy to use.
It is also easier to configure dual monitors. In Puppy I had no idea how to.

[xtremo]

Lubuntu for me!

[zamos]

So I figured I'd try out Lubuntu to see how it was, and I don't think I've ever had an OS as fast as this one.
I still prefer Xubuntu, mainly because Lubuntu is a little too basic for me, but an amazing OS still!

[linuxyogi]

I prefer SLitaz but dunno how to setup up NFS under Slitaz. Therefore Lubuntu or Xubuntu.

[vikash_chandola]

computer's specs
P4 2.7GHz
1GIG DDR2 RAM
integrated graphics

I prefer Linux mint LXDE.
I have tried Xubuntu, Lubuntu Ubuntu,fedora gnome & lxde. All are little slower than mint lxde. memory usage of linux mint lxde is lower than others.
However all distros have shut down problem.

[reyemtm]

So far, installed lubuntu 11.10
Here is the resource use: 83MB at idle 2% CPU

P4 Dell Inspiron 2650 with 384 ram which has the acpi problems so running with acpi=off

LXDE does have some bugs regarding the panel bar

Here is why:

Windows XP Pro at idle 169 ram with avast, it runs so slow its hardly worth using

So I tried a few linux distros and live cds, considering I want a full-featured OS, here they are--though I am not sure how mem usage translates to an install--in order of memory usage when running from a live CD at idle:



Ubuntu 11.1 Unity Installed - 205mb plus 106mb swap - more than XP!?!
Mint 11 LXDE live cd - 188mb
Fedora 16 LXDE live cd - 137mb
Xubuntu 9 live cd - 133mb
lubuntu 11.1 LXDE live cd - 123mb
openSuse LXDE live cd - 118mb - froze and could not shut down

[amjjawad]

Lubuntu (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1844755) Dazzling People ;)

[arkanabar]

I'm currently using lubuntu -- 11.04 on my lappy, and 11.10 on my desktop. I've used #! 9.04 and 10, SalixOS XFCE 13.02a and KDE 13.37, PCLOS KDE, Mint LXDE and Fluxbox editions. Each has their advantages, but at this time, Lubuntu beats them all out. It's quick and easy to install and set up to meet my needs. It edges out Mint because lubuntu can be upgraded, while Mint prefers to be reinstalled. It edges out #! 10 and all Mint Debian editions because of jockey-gtk; I had fits getting proprietary drivers working in just about every debian based distro I've ever tried. It beats out PCLOS because I was able to quickly get sound working right in all use cases with my Radeon 46xx video card (when I had nVidia, I used PCLOS almost exclusively). It beats out SalixOS 13.37 KDE (which is remarkably snappy) because it's a lot easier to get current flash stuff going. It beats out archbang cos I am actually able to get it to boot. (admittedly, it's been over a year since I tried to install archbang). It beats out all Pups and DSL because it gets installed. I haven't given tiny core much thought yet, but as I recall, the original paradigm was that tiny core gets reinstalled with every boot in order to prevent bit rot. That's not really to my taste.

Incidentally, the successor to #! 9.04 is Madbox, which is based on Ubuntu 10.10. The site is in french, and the dev uses the #! forums. I may try Bodhi and/or Madbox when they update to 12.04. I'm sick of the reinstall treadmill, and don't really want to have a bunch of distros running that may require regular reinstalls and/or distro-upgrades.

[amjjawad]

I'm currently using lubuntu -- 11.04 on my lappy, and 11.10 on my desktop. I've used #! 9.04 and 10, SalixOS XFCE 13.02a and KDE 13.37, PCLOS KDE, Mint LXDE and Fluxbox editions. Each has their advantages, but at this time, Lubuntu beats them all out. It's quick and easy to install and set up to meet my needs. It edges out Mint because lubuntu can be upgraded, while Mint prefers to be reinstalled. It edges out #! 10 and all Mint Debian editions because of jockey-gtk; I had fits getting proprietary drivers working in just about every debian based distro I've ever tried. It beats out PCLOS because I was able to quickly get sound working right in all use cases with my Radeon 46xx video card (when I had nVidia, I used PCLOS almost exclusively). It beats out SalixOS 13.37 KDE (which is remarkably snappy) because it's a lot easier to get current flash stuff going. It beats out archbang cos I am actually able to get it to boot. (admittedly, it's been over a year since I tried to install archbang). It beats out all Pups and DSL because it gets installed. I haven't given tiny core much thought yet, but as I recall, the original paradigm was that tiny core gets reinstalled with every boot in order to prevent bit rot. That's not really to my taste.

Incidentally, the successor to #! 9.04 is Madbox, which is based on Ubuntu 10.10. The site is in french, and the dev uses the #! forums. I may try Bodhi and/or Madbox when they update to 12.04. I'm sick of the reinstall treadmill, and don't really want to have a bunch of distros running that may require regular reinstalls and/or distro-upgrades.

Such a great feedback :)

I also felt sick and tired of Dual/Multi-Booting so I removed everything I have and installed Lubuntu 11.10 as the one and only OS on my machine (PC: P4 with 2GB RAM). However, due to the fact that I test and write guides, compare, etc ... I'm using my other PC (P4 with 512MB RAM that I can drop to 256MB) and have many Distributions installed over there.

Just use whatever works for you. You only need to find another choice when for example a Distribution go wild and adopt different approach and path, just like what happened with Ubuntu. However, it's good to test some other options just in case that day will come.

[amjjawad]

On a side note, I'm glad to see Lubuntu still on the top on this Poll :D

Oh, and on this Poll too :D
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1878387

[bhold]

Debian 6.03 / XFCE 4.6.2. This combo gives me a stable OS with a very usable desktop environment.

[TeamRocket1233c]

Either Puppy, due to having used it, Crunchbang, based on what I've read about it, or Tiny Core, also based on what I've read about it.

[Dlambert]

Anything with xfce!

[wolfen69]

I'm glad to see Lubuntu still on the top on this Poll :D


There's no doubt lubuntu is a great little distro, but I'll probably never use it other than on my netbook, and on older pc's for other people. My desktop and laptop are fairly high end, and I always put the "heaviest", most eye candy os's on those. :)

Lubuntu paired with an ssd makes my netbook lightning fast though. Holy Cow Batman! It's actually a tad faster than my quad core (3.5ghz) desktop.

[amjjawad]

There's no doubt lubuntu is a great little distro, but I'll probably never use it other than on my netbook, and on older pc's for other people. My desktop and laptop are fairly high end, and I always put the "heaviest", most eye candy os's on those. :)

Lubuntu paired with an ssd makes my netbook lightning fast though. Holy Cow Batman! It's actually a tad faster than my quad core (3.5ghz) desktop.

Because it's Simple and Lightening Fast, I installed it on my old and new machines. I have it on P4 with 512MB RAM (which I can downgrade to 242MB), on P4 with 2GB RAM and Core i5 2nd generation with 4GB RAM. There are some other machines at our house but these are not mine so can't install Linux on. However, one of these is Toshiba Laptop with Mint 11 and Win7.

Sometimes, it's not only about speed but also about simplicity :)

[ernestj]

Xubuntu. I love Xubuntu. I have a newer computer. i5,6gig, but I love the beautiful Xubuntu desktop, the speed is icing on the cake!!

[reyemtm]

UPDATE: Lucid Puppy saves the laptop!

Here was my original post -- maybe I should just get a new computer, anyway:

"So far, installed lubuntu 11.10
Here is the resource use: 83MB at idle 2% CPU

P4 Dell Inspiron 2650 with 384 ram which has the acpi problems so running with acpi=off

LXDE does have some bugs regarding the panel bar

Here is why:

Windows XP Pro at idle 169 ram with avast, it runs so slow its hardly worth using

So I tried a few linux distros and live cds, considering I want a full-featured OS, here they are--though I am not sure how mem usage translates to an install--in order of memory usage when running from a live CD at idle:



Ubuntu 11.1 Unity Installed - 205mb plus 106mb swap - more than XP!?!
Mint 11 LXDE live cd - 188mb
Fedora 16 LXDE live cd - 137mb
Xubuntu 9 live cd - 133mb
lubuntu 11.1 LXDE live cd - 123mb
openSuse LXDE live cd - 118mb - froze and could not shut down"

Lubuntu ended up freezing and I dont really like the desktop environment. Then I tried just plain Debian - with acpi=off, works great! Of course for a full install it took hours.

Then I found that the acpi=off was not needed for Lucid Puppy the latest as of 1/20/12.
That's right, whatever all the other major distros have that puppy doesnt means that I can actually use my laptop as a laptop and not have it suddenly shut down because I dont have any power management. Also, the computer actually shuts down with puppy and I dont have to physically turn it off.

So here is my current setup utilizing the auto grub4dos bootloader in puppy.

Lucid Puppy frugal install (108mb ram with firefox running)
Debian 6.0 (acpi=off)
XP Pro

[Version Dependency]

Lubuntu is my "go to" lightweight distro for older machines. It may be favorite Ubuntu variant. I've also used Crunchbang (debian-based) and Archbang (arch-based) and can recommend folks giving them a look...both are great projects as well.

[amjjawad]

Lubuntu is my "go to" lightweight distro for older machines.
And also new machines in my case :)


It may be favorite Ubuntu variant.
Ditto!



I've also used Crunchbang (debian-based) and Archbang (arch-based) and can recommend folks giving them a look...both are great projects as well.

I like the script that you run right after you install Crunchbang but I don't like the very black environment.

Slitaz is promising too but still not for daily use IMHO :)

[talisman.26]

Lubuntu has worked great on three old machines and a new netbook. I turned a 2001 Dell into our HTPC. I only wish it had an HDMI port on it.

[tilii]

Lubuntu for me.

A while back I started trying out various LiveCDs of different distros and just fell in love with the more lightweight DEs prompting me to make the move to dual boot Lubuntu and Mint XFCE.

Both very fast on my older lappy.

[Viman]

I love LXDE, but I think Lubuntu, despite being the lightest *buntu distro, is still too much to be considered "lightweight"

A custom-build LXDE Arch Linux liveUSB is my weapon of choice. If looking for an easily-accessible distro, however, I choose PeppermintOS or SliTaz.

[amjjawad]

If looking for an easily-accessible distro, however, I choose PeppermintOS or SliTaz.

PeppermintOS never worked for me without errors, bugs, etc beside as per my own tests, PeppermintOS after all is not lighter than Lubuntu.
It's based on Lubuntu after all :)

As for Slitaz, I do like it a lot but when it comes to Wireless Drivers, etc ... it does not work out-of-the box :)

Lubuntu, IMHO, beats the above two by:
1- Lubuntu is the official variant for Ubuntu and it's very well supported over here for example.
2- Lubuntu Team, despite they are small in size but they are very active and friendly. I've been on some other forums and noticed how slow and not active they are compared to Lubuntu Community. It's very important to have an active team with great support :)
3- The current approach that Lubuntu is following puts it on the lead.

After all, it's a matter of personal opinion and after all, we all are using Linux :)

[Viman]

PeppermintOS never worked for me without errors, bugs, etc beside as per my own tests, PeppermintOS after all is not lighter than Lubuntu.
It's based on Lubuntu after all :)

As for Slitaz, I do like it a lot but when it comes to Wireless Drivers, etc ... it does not work out-of-the box :)

Lubuntu, IMHO, beats the above two by:
1- Lubuntu is the official variant for Ubuntu and it's very well supported over here for example.
2- Lubuntu Team, despite they are small in size but they are very active and friendly. I've been on some other forums and noticed how slow and not active they are compared to Lubuntu Community. It's very important to have an active team with great support :)
3- The current approach that Lubuntu is following puts it on the lead.

After all, it's a matter of personal opinion and after all, we all are using Linux :)

I'm not diminishing by any chance the capacity of Lubuntu GNU/Linux (I used LXDE+Ubuntu Myself). All I'm saying is that it seems too big to be considered "Lightweight" (in comparison to Puppy, DSL, SliTaz, antiX, etc since there's no specific definition of 'Lightweight'). I used Peppermint in my netbook for a year without trouble, having recently switched to the custom-built Arch Linux OS I've mentioned above.

Either way, I am no longer a Big Fan of "minimalist, Lightweight" distros because no matter how you see them, there will always be something lacking* - you'll eventually find them.

*Note that for this issue, Lubuntu is not a victim. But I don't consider Lubuntu "lightweight" anyway...