Do you run light OS on your high end system?

[donniezazen]

I am thinking of trying Lubuntu on a 8GB i7 machine. Are there people who choose smaller Linux distros over Gnome or KDE for their high end distos? Do mention following.

Your OS - basic configuration of your system

Thanks.

[boydrice]

Since Lubuntu is just Ubuntu with LXDE rather than Unity are you more asking does anyone run a light window manager or desktop environment on a high end PC?

[donniezazen]

Since Lubuntu is just Ubuntu with LXDE rather than Unity are you more asking does anyone run a light window manager or desktop environment on a high end PC?

I am trying Lubuntu at the moment but it could be anything like Openbox+Arch or Slackware, etc.

[gutterslob]

Depends on what you consider high-end. My main desktop is a Core i7 + 8GB RAM + SSD and I run a minimal Debian Sid (GRML) install with a tiling window manager and very few services and daemons running in the background. I don't see anything wrong with using what works best for you.

[Simian Man]

I run KDE on all my systems: netbook, laptop, powerful desktop and HTPC. For me, the usability advantages of KDE far outweigh the minimal additional resources it uses compared to something like LXDE.

If you like LXDE best (though I can't imagine how anyone could), then use that. But I wouldn't use it just because it's lighter. The difference is negligible and totally unnoticed in most cases. It certainly would be with the machine you described.

[Dragonbite]

I am thinking of trying Lubuntu on a 8GB i7 machine. Are there people who choose smaller Linux distros over Gnome or KDE for their high end distos? Do mention following.

Your OS - basic configuration of your system

Thanks.

That must be one screaming machine!

[|{urse]

The difference is negligible and totally unnoticed in most cases.

Well, usually I do. I just installed xfce4 (again), I can't believe the performance improvement (again). I ditched xfce4 initially for the glossy glory that is KDE. Impressed as I am, I might however chuck it for openbox (again).

[Tac2]

I have a few different distros installed on my desktop (i5 CPU and 8 GB RAM) but mostly find myself using Arch + Xmonad. Started using Arch + Xmonad on my laptop because I needed something light on resources to keep temperatures and power usage low, but I fell in love with the simplicty of Xmonad and threw it on my desktop as well. Not sure how long my love of tiling windows will last, but so far I am enjoying it a lot :)

[BeRoot ReBoot]

Yes, the reason I have a four-core i7, 8GB of ram, an SSD drive for OS installations and a high end graphics card is so I can have a system that boots a half a second faster than vanilla ubuntu, spends only 50mb of ram, hardly uses the CPU and doesn't even touch the graphics card.

"Light" OSes are basically an exercise in not using your computer. You have billions of transistors at your command, each operating at billions of cycles per second. Put them to use, damnit!

[donniezazen]

I run KDE on all my systems: netbook, laptop, powerful desktop and HTPC. For me, the usability advantages of KDE far outweigh the minimal additional resources it uses compared to something like LXDE.

If you like LXDE best (though I can't imagine how anyone could), then use that. But I wouldn't use it just because it's lighter. The difference is negligible and totally unnoticed in most cases. It certainly would be with the machine you described.

Anything in particular you like about KDE. I have tried almost everything LXDE, XFCE4, Gnome, and even standalone Openbox. KDE looks very foreign.


That must be one screaming machine!

So far I am impressed with the work Lubuntu team has done in past year. I ran Gnome 3 for a few days. My machine is very sensitive to temp changes and fan gets crazy. I was stuck on Windows. Their is a constant spike of temp and fan speed on Gnome but Lubuntu is fast and quite.


Well, usually I do. I just installed xfce4 (again), I can't believe the performance improvement (again). I ditched xfce4 initially for the glossy glory that is KDE. Impressed as I am, I might however chuck it for openbox (again).

XFCE4 is to-go distro on Arch but I am not big fan of XFCE4 on Ubuntu because it loses it's lightweight quality.


I have a few different distros installed on my desktop (i5 CPU and 8 GB RAM) but mostly find myself using Arch + Xmonad. Started using Arch + Xmonad on my laptop because I needed something light on resources to keep temperatures and power usage low, but I fell in love with the simplicty of Xmonad and threw it on my desktop as well. Not sure how long my love of tiling windows will last, but so far I am enjoying it a lot :)

I am just wondering from distro to distro. Can't seem to find one which is a perfect balance between looks and performance without breaking the back.

Thank you guys.

[donniezazen]

Yes, the reason I have a four-core i7, 8GB of ram, an SSD drive for OS installations and a high end graphics card is so I can have a system that boots a half a second faster than vanilla ubuntu, spends only 50mb of ram, hardly uses the CPU and doesn't even touch the graphics card.

"Light" OSes are basically an exercise in not using your computer. You have billions of transistors at your command, each operating at billions of cycles per second. Put them to use, damnit!

I agree with you. I don't mind it. The only thing I mind is constant fan noise and hard drive noise high end DE creates.

[haqking]

Well i am running Slackware 13.37-current with KDE 4.8 on dual screens at 1920x1080P on the following

I7 2700K
16GB Ram
2 x 128GB SSD
3 x 2TB HDD
Nvidia GTX 580 3GB


It is blistering and see no reason to go for anything light, this may aswell be xfce or lxde on a Supercomputer, this thing can outrun an olympian ;-0)

Love it

[snowpine]

With hardware like that, KDE vs. LXDE vs. Gnome simply becomes a question of workflow: which is the most productive desktop environment for your habits?

[haqking]

With hardware like that, KDE vs. LXDE vs. Gnome simply becomes a question of workflow: which is the most productive desktop environment for your habits?

indeed.

though it was more of a question of aesthetics and eyecandy really and KDE wins for me in that respect.

But i like all DE, and can work well in any of them, but KDE 4.8 just looks great and flies on this thing

[snowpine]

Never been much of a KDE user myself, but I definitely see & appreciate the appeal! :)

A little embarrassed to say I am still using Gnome 2... ;)

[haqking]

Never been much of a KDE user myself, but I definitely see & appreciate the appeal! :)

A little embarrassed to say I am still using Gnome 2... ;)

Well i also run Debian stable and i love that and Gnome 2 together, great mix.

Too be honest i love slack with KDE 4.8 running on it and current is stable as a stable release for me anyways, but there is something nice about booting into debian gnome 2 for sure ;-)

[forrestcupp]

Well i am running Slackware 13.37-current with KDE 4.8 on dual screens at 1920x1080P on the following

I7 2700K
16GB Ram
2 x 128GB SSD
3 x 2TB HDD
Nvidia GTX 580 3GB


It is blistering and see no reason to go for anything light, this may aswell be xfce or lxde on a Supercomputer, this thing can outrun an olympian ;-0)

Love it
Are you designing a planet or something? :)

[dagroves]

I am going to be getting a computer with an Intel Core I7, 8GB ram, 2TB HDD, and I am going to put Elementary OS on it.

[haqking]

Are you designing a planet or something? :)

Well funny you should say that, i am actually in Windows 7 right now so i can play Star Wars The Old Republic

Killing plenty of Planet inhabitants, but who knows what is to come down the levels ;-)

[Dry Lips]

LXDE = Morris Mini.
XFCE = Volvo.
Gnome 2 = Ferrari.
KDE = A crystal carriage drawn by dolphins, quantum tunnelling it's way throughout the interstellar nebulas of our galaxy.

[dagroves]

lxde = morris mini.
xfce = volvo.
gnome 2 = ferrari.
kde = a crystal carriage drawn by dolphins, quantum tunnelling it's way throughout the interstellar nebulas of our galaxy.

lulz

[gutterslob]

KDE = A crystal carriage drawn by dolphins, quantum tunnelling it's way throughout the interstellar nebulas of our galaxy.
Sounds like something Ru Paul would drive.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

I run virtual machines on my high end systems. The lighter the virtual machines are, the more virtual machines I can run concurrently.

[doorknob60]

Right now I use Xfce on Arch, so that qualifies as light. I use what works well and is functional, and that's what Xfce is. Doesn't matter that I have 4 GB of RAM and a quad core, no point in using anything unneccesarily large (though I don't mind KDE).

[forrestcupp]

I run virtual machines on my high end systems. The lighter the virtual machines are, the more virtual machines I can run concurrently.

That reminds me of the conversation about how many virtual machines within virtual machines can you run. :)

[donniezazen]

I am going to be getting a computer with an Intel Core I7, 8GB ram, 2TB HDD, and I am going to put Elementary OS on it.

I am never going to buy a laptop or computer which is not fully and ootb supported by Ubuntu/Linux. Make sure you do your research. Quite a few things doesn't work ootb on my thinkpad.


I run virtual machines on my high end systems. The lighter the virtual machines are, the more virtual machines I can run concurrently.

What is your base OS and system config?

[uRock]

I have lubuntu on my USB for using on the school's AMD quad core. It loads and runs much faster than ubuntu did. I just purchased an i5 machine with 6GB RAM and Lubuntu was lightning fast as well, but I installed ubuntu for Unity on it. I do not think you notice any difference in running speed when comparing ubuntu and lubuntu with an i7 CPU.

[donniezazen]

I have lubuntu on my USB for using on the school's AMD quad core. It loads and runs much faster than ubuntu did. I just purchased an i5 machine with 6GB RAM and Lubuntu was lightning fast as well, but I installed ubuntu for Unity on it. I do not think you notice any difference in running speed when comparing ubuntu and lubuntu with an i7 CPU.

I have tried all distos, they all perform well on my system, but power consumtion goes high in Gnome and KDE. Power consumtion on Lubuntu remains well under 10W compared to Gnome where it is around 14W.

[IWantFroyo]

I've used CrunchBang with my T235D Toshiba lappy (4GB RAM, x2 1.5GHz AMD Turion). IMO it's a matter of preference over need. Running Lubuntu on a high end system is good if you like Lubuntu, but it doesn't really help anything if you prefer an OS with higher requirements (that won't slow your system down).

[TeamRocket1233c]

I somewhat intend to, as a lightweight distro would run laps around a full-size one on high-end hardware, and my fave distro, Crunchbang, is a lightweight distro.

[wolfen69]

Yes, the reason I have a four-core i7, 8GB of ram, an SSD drive for OS installations and a high end graphics card is so I can have a system that boots a half a second faster than vanilla ubuntu, spends only 50mb of ram, hardly uses the CPU and doesn't even touch the graphics card.

Too funny.

I'm thinking about building a super-cluster of computers to run crunchbang. And I'm not going to do anything but surf and check email. :)

[Version Dependency]

Always wanted a 16-core desktop with 64 gigs of RAM...with, say 24 SSDs in RAID...running xmonad.

[pommie]

I run Lubuntu strictly for the menu system, I know, I know, its an outdated type of desktop but I like it, even though my system can run whatever O/S + D/E I throw at it, even 'gulp' windows.

AMD phenomII x6 @ 2,800 (when not O/Ced)
4 gig ddr3 1600 (@1600)

Cheers David

[Rodney9]

Re: Do you run light OS on your high end system?

Yes I run Lubuntu 11.10

I love the look and speed.

Rodney

[Muddypaws]

I often do, but because I absolutely adore E17, not because I want a lightweight system ^^ What a waste of a 16gb, Phenom filled, ATI 6970 stromping beast ^^

*Muddy pimps a desktop* ^^

[LillyDragon]

When I first read the topic's title, I thought it referred to an actual operating system, "Light OS". xD Makes sense now, despite that.

Anyway, even though I have 3GB of RAM and two processors to work with, I still want those resources to be used properly. Windows is the worst when it comes to memory management, and so backwards that if didn't have a pagefile, it would consume every byte of RAM and crash! Don't even want to go into further details, it makes me want to punch a wall! I just hate it when Windows runs all those sneaky background services while I'm trying to actually use my system. No matter how little priority they try to take, it still knocks a very noticeable dent in my performance.

One other reason why I love Linux; it's so lean, quiet, smart, and gives you more control over what's going on under the hood. I know Ubuntu doesn't count as a light OS, but at least its MMU actually tries to manage my memory! 250MB is the most of my RAM it uses, and the swap partition is collecting dust in the corner. It's making the lightest impact on my system while still outperforming Windows in so many ways, this thread wouldn't be the place to list it all.

[mips]

Right now I use Xfce on Arch, so that qualifies as light. I use what works well and is functional, and that's what Xfce is. Doesn't matter that I have 4 GB of RAM and a quad core, no point in using anything unneccesarily large (though I don't mind KDE).

Similar setup here, Ubuntu 11.10 base + XFCE.
Also have Openbox installed but I never got round to setting it up to my liking, will eventually get round to it.

[chickenPie4breakfast]

I installed LXDE to try instead of Gnome2 but programs looked odd (one alternative file browser lost it's top bar!)I also hated the file browser it came with PCman so I switched back to Gnome.
I have tried lighter distros like Crunch bang but the thing is they dont seem to have the same driver support and I couldn't get my wifi to work even though I searched their forums for an answer. Ubuntu just connected to my wifi without a hitch.

[Dry Lips]

Sounds like something Ru Paul would drive.

I don't know this "Ru Paul"... Is he one of your friends? ;)

[|{urse]

XFCE4 is to-go distro on Arch but I am not big fan of XFCE4 on Ubuntu because it loses it's lightweight quality.

Yeah, this is on Fedora, Xubuntu does crawl in comparison, but it has so many more features and is more user-friendly that I generally recommend it to customers with older systems.

[Theredbaron1834]

I run Lubuntu strictly for the menu system, I know, I know, its an outdated type of desktop but I like it, even though my system can run whatever O/S + D/E I throw at it, even 'gulp' windows.

AMD phenomII x6 @ 2,800 (when not O/Ced)
4 gig ddr3 1600 (@1600)

Cheers David

Same here, I was on vanilla buntu till unity. And the fallback gnome3 is crap too.

I have it running on a:

AMD Athlon(tm) II X2 240 OCed to 3.2ghz
6gb DDR3 x1600
ATI 5770 1GB.

I get a sub 10 sec boot, before I change some stuff. I guess I really shouldn't say I am using Lubuntu, as the only part I use is lxpanel, and pcmanfm as my desktop(hate it as a browser, and I can't change nautilus/caja background well). Firefox, banshee, SMPlayer and caja(as file browser) are much better, imo, then what comes with it. I don't like openbox, so I use compiz. Takes a bit longer to boot to desktop, but I like it much better.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

That reminds me of the conversation about how many virtual machines within virtual machines can you run. :)

Recursion doesn't seem to work very well when using virtual machines. LOL :)

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

I run virtual machines on my high end systems. The lighter the virtual machines are, the more virtual machines I can run concurrently.

What is your base OS and system config?

At home, I have a quad-core Lenovo and a dual-core Compaq tower as virtualization nodes. I have a type-1 hypervisor installed on each virtualization node; such as KVM or ESXi. I understand that KVM and ESXi make use of the Linux Kernel; however, I would not call a type-1 hypervisor a base OS.

I think you are referring to a type-2 hypervisor where the virtual machines are running on top of a host OS. That would be something like VirtualBox, for example.

Edit: this is an introduction to type-1 versus type-2 hypervirsors...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervisor

[ratcheer]

I currently have three Linux systems installed on my PC. See my sig for specs.

My main system is Ubuntu 11.10 with gnome-shell 3.3.

My secondary system is Arch Linux with lxdm and OpenBox. It is very light on resources.

My third system, which I just installed a couple of hours ago, is Ubuntu 12.10 with Unity.

Tim

[wojox]

Arch64 + dwm on my Compaq Windows Media Center. I've since put Ubuntu 11.10 back on. I originally needed something lightweight for my Asus 900 Netbook.

Another pretty cool one is Razor-QT.

[wolfen69]

My third system, which I just installed a couple of hours ago, is Ubuntu 12.10 with Unity.

Tim
12.10 is out already? Not bad, considering 12.04 is still in alpha stages. ;)

But anyway, I don't care too much for "light OS's", unless the hardware is limited in power. I like eye candy and bling. :)

[viperdvman]

I run a lightweight OS as my secondary Linux on my system (a bit older, but still pretty high end). I run Bodhi Linux with the Enlightenment desktop environment if that counts :) It's lightweight on resources and still has plenty of eye candy to boot

[andrew.46]

Well i am running Slackware 13.37-current with KDE 4.8 on dual screens at 1920x1080P on the following

I7 2700K
16GB Ram
2 x 128GB SSD
3 x 2TB HDD
Nvidia GTX 580 3GB


It is blistering and see no reason to go for anything light, this may aswell be xfce or lxde on a Supercomputer, this thing can outrun an olympian ;-0)

I am also running slackware -current but on a pretty minimalistic computer atm. However I am building a new one using the new AMD FX 8150, 8gig of RAM and a mid-range nVidia card but my plan is to continue using Fluxbox. I am saving the computing power for multiple VMs, shorter encoding sessions with FFmpeg and a great deal more fun compiling kernels and vlc-git :).

[Paqman]

I run a very stripped-down Gnome install on my HTPC, because it's just a platform for XBMC. A minimal install with gnome-core will boot up to about 100MB of RAM so I just use that instead of bothering to get to grips with the foibles of another DE.

Best of both worlds IMO. Familiar environment, but with the smaller updates and lighter footprint of a "light" DE.

EDIT: Hmm, may have spoken too soon. Looks like gnome-core in Precise is getting pretty flabby. They did this to the lightweight KDE packages too. Boo.

[forrestcupp]

You could try Cinnamon, which looks like a light DE, but runs about twice as slow as Gnome Shell. :)



I'm thinking about building a super-cluster of computers to run crunchbang. And I'm not going to do anything but surf and check email. :)

I'll bet seti@home and folding@home are going to love you. :)

[ratcheer]

12.10 is out already? Not bad, considering 12.04 is still in alpha stages. ;)



Sorry. It was a typo, or more like a brain fart. It is 12.04, of course.

Tim

[BrokenKingpin]

My main rig is a Core 2 Duo with 6 gigs of RAM. I currently run Xfce, not because it was light, but because it worked without getting in my way.

Recently though, I have really considered making a full switch to KDE. KDE 4.8 actually runs very well even on my little netbook, but what I am really liking about it is the flexibility. For example being able to set kwin to do tiling for my main desktop is just awesome for my dual 24" monitors. Also, setting up different activities and folder views is quite powerful if when fully utilized.

I think one of the main things holding me back from KDE in the past was the Kubuntu releases just felt so damn buggy. Even 11.10 still has huge package management issues. I still can't open the software center without it crashing. Mint 12 is no better. I know it is not KDE, but leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Sure there are other KDE distros, but I want a Ubuntu base.

At this point I am going to continue forward with KDE because of it's flexibly, but I find myself already missing the simplicity of Xfce.

[viperdvman]

I think one of the main things holding me back from KDE in the past was the Kubuntu releases just felt so damn buggy. Even 11.10 still has huge package management issues. I still can't open the software center without it crashing. Mint 12 is no better. I know it is not KDE, but leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Sure there are other KDE distros, but I want a Ubuntu base.

At this point I am going to continue forward with KDE because of it's flexibly, but I find myself already missing the simplicity of Xfce.

Well, for my KDE, I just installed "kubuntu-desktop" on top of my Ubuntu install. Yes, it takes up more hard drive space to do so, and you have to deal with both GNOME/Unity and KDE dependencies, and have all those semi-redundant apps specific to GNOME and KDE, but I have had absolutely no problems running KDE on top of my Ubuntu install. Just something to consider.

P.S. - I haven't had any packaging problems in Kubuntu when I test-installed 11.10.

[Warpnow]

Oddly, my desktop I have configured to be lightweight with barebones + xfce. Its a quad core system.

My aging laptop (five years and counting) is running regular Ubuntu with Gnome 3 or Unity depending on my mood.

I'm just more concerned with performance on my high-end machine.

[DeathShot]

My laptop has been known to cause multiple nerdgasms and my desktop makes my laptop look like a piece of crap, it seems nothing I throw at it, with the exception of really poorly optimized software (ahem... minecraft) phase it. Poorly optimized software tends to crash the poor thing (fix your game Jeb). I am a PC gamer so naturally coming from Windows Aero (which I think looks beautiful) I want my Linux to look the same. I mostly use Ubuntu and Cent OS so I try to make them look pretty and resource usage be damned. My computer has yet to show any performance improvement by using a light weight OS or D/E so I don't even bother with them.

Basically I make sure I don't ever need to use something ugly by making sure I have top of the line systems. Honestly I don't think I'm spoiled, I still love the Windows 2000 and 98 Interface I use to play really old games but if your system can handle it why not actually use it?

[tkod]

Well I use xubuntu 11.10 on a 4GB ram, i7 quad cpu, quadro fx880m gpu laptop, and I'm quite happy with it. Although it is a bit faster and snappier than gnome-shell or unity, I mainly use it because I like better the looks and interface.

[goldshirt9]

Well, for my KDE, I just installed "kubuntu-desktop" on top of my Ubuntu install. Yes, it takes up more hard drive space to do so, and you have to deal with both GNOME/Unity and KDE dependencies, and have all those semi-redundant apps specific to GNOME and KDE, but I have had absolutely no problems running KDE on top of my Ubuntu install. Just something to consider.

P.S. - I haven't had any packaging problems in Kubuntu when I test-installed 11.10.
I totally agree ,
mine runs a treat

[Snow Keld]

I am just wondering from distro to distro. Can't seem to find one which is a perfect balance between looks and performance without breaking the back.


i think its usually best to run the same OS on all your systems, netbook to high end desktop.

and i feel gnome 2 is ok, but gnome 3, and kde are too heavy.
also, stock xfce, lxde, e17 and others lack the look and feel.

this is likely why gnome 2 was/is so popular. a very good balance.

i also like to stick with current software versions, so gnome 2 is long gone.



i went and made my own distro.
debian sid + xfce + (optional) compiz
i use most applications found in gnome, simply because they are very user friendly.

might be worth giving it a try.
to make it a truly lightweight distro disable compiz and maybe kill AWN as well (those take up the resources but make the desktop very nice to look at and navigate). also i do not think i will use gnome-system-monitor for any future releases. dont use it to judge your resource usage because it uses too much itself!

try it out: Imagine-Linux (https://sourceforge.net/projects/imagine-linux/)

[GERGE]

I think purpose of a DE is to provide an environment to use applications. So, lighter the DE, faster the applications. I use Xfce4 on Arch. My system is pretty fast, but there is no reason to waste more then necessary on a DE. Xfce offers a good balance between usability and weight.

[sidzen]

Because optimum performance is a set goal for my PCs, I began using light distros on one PIII and a few P4 machines that were originally donated to me. Then Gnome became bloated to the point it would not run as quickly as I wanted on these single-core dinosaurs. By then, LXDE had gained popularity and I had a Core2 Duo e8400 in a Shuttle.

I have tried many distros with this e8400 machine (and on others) and find that no matter the CPU : RAM : HDD read/write speed interaction and synergy, I prefer LXDE distros or those with just a Windows Manager and no DE at all.

Apps preference sometimes gets in the way of performance, too. For instance, for quite awhile k3B was my preferred cd/dvd burner app. But so much of the KDE library is needed for dependency resolution before it will function that it slows down response time to initiate way too much for me. I now go with Xfburn. Likewise, I prefer PCManFM to Thunar as a File Manager. XFCE is as “heavy” a desktop as I will go in my quest for optimal performance.

Platfom versatility is another plus for LXDE. Lubuntu and peppermint both function nicely on laptops as well as desktops. This increases its value as a DE.

On my upcoming Phenom II build, I will most likely have at least four gigs of high-speed low-latency RAM and will still go with a distro using LXDE. So yes, OP, I do run a light OS on high-end machines because I value performance over eye appeal and functionality over appearances.

[neu5eeCh]

i think its usually best to run the same OS on all your systems, netbook to high end desktop....

I run a different desktop on my two laptops (one high end) and have multiple partitions on each with alternative DEs. I use Xubuntu 90% of the time, and am presently using the Gnome Shell desktop on my high end laptop (rather than Cinnoman). I try to shake things up just so I can see what all the different DEs are up to and what the advantages and disadvantages are, of each.

So far, Xubuntu is the most malleable and customizable of any of the DEs (and more mature than any of them!). It's also the quickest and easiest to use. Strangely enough, I find XFCE more customizable, where it matters, than KDE. For example, I can assign (keep Window on top) to a key stroke in XFCE but so far all my queries on this forum (and at the Kubuntu forum) have not shown me how I can assign the same in KDE. This makes KDE less customizable and more difficult to use . I can also maximize the window (as opposed to F11 -- and very useful with the browser since I can still see the tabs minus the window border) with a keystroke in XFCE. I haven't found a way to "maximize" the windows in gnome shell and don't think I can do it Unity (though I haven't pursued this fully). I can't recall whether I've tried to reproduce this in KDE. As it is, it requires clicking through a menu and sub-menu.

I like to use my mouse's "scroll button" to shade the windows. So far, no queries have revealed how to assign this function to window borders in Gnome Shell. XFCE does this out of the box. KDE can do this but requires some fiddling and faddling, and because KDE's window management is so higglety-piggelty, some windows look good when they're shaded, others don't. Unity can do this through Ubuntu Tweak. That may change if Shuttleworth declares a Jihad against CCSM.

[donniezazen]

In last year Ubuntu has become super resource intensive OS. I love everything about Ubuntu - themes, artwork, software selection which saves hours and keeps me happy. But the big problem is my system idles at over 55C to 60C compared to 50C of windows.

I ran Lubuntu last week and it is probably the only Linux which has a balance in performance, theme and low resources.

[haqking]

In last year Ubuntu has become super resource intensive OS. I love everything about Ubuntu - themes, artwork, software selection which saves hours and keeps me happy. But the big problem is my system idles at over 55C to 60C compared to 50C of windows.

I ran Lubuntu last week and it is probably the only Linux which has a balance in performance, theme and low resources.

edit. never mind

[DeathShot]

This thread got me thinking, what if things changed and new light weight distros actually do make a difference now? So being the edumicated scientist that I conceder myself to be I proposed a test to gauge the responsiveness of my machine using 4 different *buntu flavors. I am going to install 4 identical VM's with Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, and Lubuntu and run them side by side to see if there is a different. The reason for this is because it seems people claim that running a "light" DE or OS seems to improve performance significantly and while I like good looks I am willing to compromise just thought I didn't have to.

So the base system is a Dell XPS 15 gaming laptop with a 3GHz Quad Core i7 and 8 Gigs of DDR3 RAM with a 2GB Nvidia 540 Graphics card and a 7200RPM HDD. The VMs are going to be VM Workstation 8 with a quad core processor and 4GB of ram using the recommended emulated SCSI drives with a 20 GB primary partition and a 4GB SWAP.

The three Ubuntu based OS' are going to be pitted against Ubuntu 11.10 to see if they are actually faster. I shall post the result here later. Feel free to give me tests to run so I can gauge speed better.

[neu5eeCh]

Will be interested to hear your results Deathshot. If I had any ideas for your test, I would forward them. I know that on my own machine, Xubuntu loads much more quickly than Kubuntu. There's also much less "tear out" if I drag a window across the screen.

[sidzen]

. . .
So the base system is a Dell XPS 15 gaming laptop with a 3GHz Quad Core i7 and 8 Gigs of DDR3 RAM with a 2GB Nvidia 540 Graphics card and a 7200RPM HDD. The VMs are going to be VM Workstation 8 with a quad core processor and 4GB of ram using the recommended emulated SCSI drives with a 20 GB primary partition and a 4GB SWAP.

The three Ubuntu based OS' are going to be pitted against Ubuntu 11.10 to see if they are actually faster. I shall post the result here later. Feel free to give me tests to run so I can gauge speed better.
SUGGEST --
Limit your RAM and Swap to 2GB each and throw in peppermint two (all 32-bit) -- use this config for baseline.
Then do again with 64-bit versions with VM config as you say above.

[DeathShot]

SUGGEST --
Limit your RAM and Swap to 2GB each and throw in peppermint two (all 32-bit) -- use this config for baseline.
Then do again with 64-bit versions with VM config as you say above.


I wouldn't mind doing that, but (there is always a but) I am wondering what this will bring to the table (it would be nice to know what I'm doing :P) This is a learning experience after all.
2gigs of ram is far from high end 32bit machine, and 4gigs of ram is pretty much as low end as you can get on a 64bit machine.

Also I would like to know if Linux minds having the swap partition re-sized. If I shrink it from 4gigs to 2gigs will it just work? Or do I have to reconfigure something?

[medic2000]

If you like LXDE best (though I can't imagine how anyone could)

Wow. You can not imagine? I use only and only Openbox and its usability and stableness far surpasses anything.

[sidzen]

@haqking
Such restraint!

@DeathShot
If it is a learning experience only, then go ahead as planned, but some minimal baseline needs establishment and consistency in hardware/software needs to be stated. I was looking at lo-, mid- and hi-high end as subcategories, since someone referred to a Core2 Duo as high end, in their opinion. Thanks!

@medic2000
Right on. LXDE is truly a great DE, as far a DEs go. IceWM and openbox are Windows Managers of choice by devs in their respective distros for good reason. E touts itself as neither DE nor WM, but has not shown me much since Moon. XFCE has turned into a "compromise" DE with deference towards those who still, for some reason, stick with the antiquated KDE. Using the latter is kinda like driving a V8 SUV when gasoline is $5 a gallon, IMHO!

Back on track . . .

[a2j]

xubuntu

Quad Core AMD A8 2.9GHz (oc to 3.0), 8Gb DDR3 1600, 4 drive RAID10 (no ssd, yet), getting another GPU for dual GPU setup.
I also run it on my "slow" netbook.

[mips]

xubuntu


Xubuntu is NOT lightweight. I dunno what Xubuntu does compared to Debian or Arch with XFCE but it takes up way more resources and feels way more sluggish compared to Debian or Arch.

If you look at Crunchbang XFCE for example it boots way faster and it feels way snappier! Ubuntu has become a donkey!

[DeathShot]

@DeathShot
If it is a learning experience only, then go ahead as planned, but some minimal baseline needs establishment and consistency in hardware/software needs to be stated. I was looking at lo-, mid- and hi-high end as subcategories, since someone referred to a Core2 Duo as high end, in their opinion. Thanks!

Ahh Ok. Well I can do that as well but all of the OS' aside from Peppermint which I am working on installing right now have been tested using the above rig and I can say with pretty great certainty that the DE and FM don't matter. They all boot at about the same time, all start applications at about the same time. They all do everything at about the same time. The only difference is the look and feel of the DE and how it works which is a matter or personal preference.

Kubuntu has a lot of extra crap in it so it's not light weight and feels very bloated but it's just as responsive as Lubuntu. So on a maxed out 32bit system they all run the same which means it just boils down to what you like. If you like your OS to feel bloated then you get Kubuntu, if you want it to feel light weight then you get Lubuntu, if you want it to feel like a more densely packed slightly more light weight version of Ubuntu you get Xubuntu, and if you want a polished operating system you get Ubuntu.

Though I should mention that Kubuntu **** the bed 4 times. Basically it install fine (Takes the longest to install out of all 4) it asks to update, I say ok, mid update it just stops progressing. I gave it 12 hours one time and it didn't do anything new. You have to hard shut down the machine (because it disabled everything with this update and removes all the programs) and then you can't start it up again. Everything else I tested before, during, and after updating but Kubuntu was just before. Also KDE is super bloated and looks like it's trying too hard to look polished which makes it "over polished" which is also a bad thing... but again it all comes down to personal preference at that point.

I Will try Peppermint 2 after this finishes installing and then I will try it with 2gigs of RAM. I don't think I will try a 64bit version because a) pretty much no one here seems to be using a 64bit machine (that is complaining) and b) I don't feel like downloading another 6gigs in OS' just to run the test in 64bit XD

Update: So I'm using Peppermint Two, right now. It looks and feels just like Windows Vista :/ not even kidding. Also it is by far the sluggiest OS I have used to day in terms of web browsing. Pages take longer to load, links require multiple clicks, and scrolling is choppy. I don't know, I just don't like it and from my experienced it is the slowest of everything I used. But with that said it's still not terrible...it's not 50ms response time but when dealing in human reaction in ms what is bad, eh?

In conclusion, on a maxed out 32bit machine, all of these OS' are a viable choice and none of them are really noticeably slower then the others. There is no need running a light OS/DE/WM on your computer unless you are doing something very hardware intensive in the background and hardly have enough resources as it is.... in which case I suggest you kill x completely and just use commend line.

[JayKay3OOO]

For a time I ran Ubuntu with only desktop shortcuts and terminal.

So boot was just the desktop with a few icons on it and shutdown was done using the terminal command.

I did this for a while and had the RAM usage around the 100mb mark, bear in mind that I have 4GB to play with and a quad core CPU.

Currently I don't push my system that hard and mainly use it as a web browser and HD video player.

Anyway, it's always a good idea to keep your OS as small as possible if you do intense tasks because you want as much installed RAM to be used by the work application than just the OS. I.e What's the point in having 8GB RAM when say 4GB is allocated only to the OS.

Though if you have the fastest DDR3 RAM and a good CPU with a fast HDD or SSD then boot problems become not a problem. Windows 7 is not lightweight yet by the time I've got my drink ready it has long since booted. Putting the thing into sleep creates a 3 second delay in wake up time. I tend to sleep it during the day if, say I'm having lunch and I want to read for a bit instead of work. While Ubuntu under Gnome 3 was obviously faster my current routine dictates that I allow for start up times by doing something else and an SSD is not worth the price yet so a light OS does not benefit me.

I run Mint 12 on my laptop and the thing that causes the lag is... ... 'drum roll!'... the hard drive. Bottlenecks the whole system boot time. Bearing in mind that the system is a single core intel with 2gb ram. In this instance a light OS does make some difference to the overall boot time as there is simply less to load, but once loaded I find they run at near similar speeds. Puppy linux being an exception.

Just my thoughts. Your mileage may differ.

[DeathShot]

What's the point in having 8GB RAM when say 4GB is allocated only to the OS.
Well that is a bit extreme considering how even Vista which is arguably the worst OS ever made in terms of resource usage used 1gig tops for just the raw OS. But if all you use your 8Gig computer with a 4gig OS is for browsing the interbutts and stalking people on facebook then 4gigs is plenty and if your bloated OS makes you feel good and runs well why not.

[sidzen]

With all due respect, DeathShot, and no insult, intended (just stating facts), to call yourself a scientist and then run a "test" knowing beforehand the probable conclusion is not science at all (and you are not a scientist); baselines and controls were neither established nor stated -- this is bogus science, much like what occurred during the Shrub Administration. So, please do not foist opinion as science upon the unknowing.

Besides, I do not trust VM to give reproduceable results.

Good try!

[wolfen69]

What's the point in having 8GB RAM when say 4GB is allocated only to the OS.

Which OS does that? It will be some time before a default install uses 4gb ram just to run the OS without any apps running. And by that time, 16-32gb of ram will be the norm. Even with vbox, and many, many apps running, I've never gotten over 2.2gb of ram. Memory is there to be used, not saved for a rainy day. If memory usage is a major concern to you, perhaps getting more would be a more logical thing to do instead of trying to cut back what the OS/apps need.

[DeathShot]

With all due respect, DeathShot, and no insult, intended (just stating facts), to call yourself a scientist and then run a "test" knowing beforehand the probable conclusion is not science at all (and you are not a scientist); baselines and controls were neither established nor stated -- this is bogus science, much like what occurred during the Shrub Administration. So, please do not foist opinion as science upon the unknowing.

Besides, I do not trust VM to give reproduceable results.

Good try!

It was a joke, notice the word "edumicated" before it :P Although you are wrong about there not being a baseline. We are talking about "high end" systems here and a 32-bit OS can not support more then 4GB of RAM at once normally. There for a quad core 32bit processor running 4GB of RAM is pretty much as high end as you are going to get realistically out of a 32bit OS. It doesn't matter if you are in the past, present, or future. There is a reason why modern computers come with 64bit OS and why 128bit OS' are already in the works. Another thing is with VMs, so long as they are ran on the same system they are meant to be consistent. I ran my "tests" on absolutely identical VMs running on the exact same system with the exact same processes running each time in the background (minimal windows) and each OS was as vanilla as it gets. I opened a lot of applications, I messed around a bit, surfed the internet. I wouldn't call it hardcore science but the results do show something. Granted we all knew what the result would be a head of time, but there was enough doubt in my mind that I figured I might as well test it because I have spare time on my hand. Though I do not take it to heart being told I am not a scientist. I am 19 and sitting at home doing nothing real with my life, I know that. With that said I could never get any of my systems to use more then 3 gigs of ram with an exception of an extremely annoying Minecraft bug which makes the poorly optimized, and horribly coded Java game take up every last KB of RAM your system has. At this point there is no excuse for complain that your machine can not handle what you want it to do or that your operating system is too bloated if you have more then a minimum of 2gigs of ram. And IMO if you have less then 4GB and you are complaining then it's time to upgrade... RAM is REALLY cheap. You can gain a lot more power buy investing a little in RAM then in cutting back on your OS' resource usage so if you are having problems the best solution really is an upgrade.

[donniezazen]

Wow. You can not imagine? I use only and only Openbox and its usability and stableness far surpasses anything.

I like Openbox a lot. I ran it for a while on Arch. It requires a huge deal of time to set it up.

[mips]

It requires a huge deal of time to set it up.

It does take a bit of time to set it up the way you like it but once it's done it's plain sailing.

[Artemis3]

Xubuntu is NOT lightweight. I dunno what Xubuntu does compared to Debian or Arch with XFCE but it takes up way more resources and feels way more sluggish compared to Debian or Arch.

There is no special magic, just take a look at the list of installed packages, install the same in Debian and they behave the same.

Xubuntu bundles Network Manager, and lots of gnome things, for instance; or daemons like Avahi which people seldom use, or the polemic pulseaudio, etc.

[alliance1975]

I've switched to Lubuntu 11.10 and am using it on the system below. I guess I could get used to Unity but what is more troubling about Ubuntu is the gradual yet persistent degradation of performance. That is why I left WinXP 4 years ago. Mind you I still use XP on another machine for all my real work.

[Marzata]

Yes, we run Xubuntu. Xfce is such a joy!

[lykwydchykyn]

I was a dyed-in-the-wool KDE user for the longest time, but over the last year or so I started using Awesome WM and find myself using it on all my main workhorse systems.

I guess after so many years of impressing people with composited bling, I just want my applications to start fast and take up as much of the screen as they can; and I don't want to spend any more time than I have to moving windows around.

[Bucky Ball]

i3, 4Gb RAM, love xfce. Installed on other machines in the house also but this machine is the most 'high-end'.

[Peripheral Visionary]

I have a very low-end system that I "inherited" with Xubuntu 10.04 installed on it. Runs great! On a high-end system I think I'd still run Xubuntu because the interface is so simple and elegant.

But unless you're donating unused CPU power to something like Folding@Home, I don't get the point of having a super-hot screamin' machine just idling at minimal power. You got resources? Use 'em! That's what they're there for and what they're designed to do.

[bazcor]

I have a hex-core AMD cpu with 16GB of RAM with a 160GB SSD, and I use it mainly under XUBUNTU. But I am a unity escapee!

[synaptix]

I have a hex-core AMD cpu with 16GB of RAM with a 160GB SSD, and I use it mainly under XUBUNTU. But I am a unity escapee!

What is your boot times with that beast?

[Fragadelic]

I tend to run XFCE as my main desktop on all systems from old P4's right up to my core 2 duo.

I am interested in using the applications on an OS and the desktop should enable you to do that without getting in the way.

Sure it has to look somewhat appealing but it doesn't matter so much as the app window covers everything anyway. If you spend a lot of time looking at your desktop you should probably turn the PC off and do something productive anyway.

At some point in time humans lost the purpose of a computer and what it is supposed to do for you. It should make your life easier rather than consume it and what matters are the applications you use to provide you with information or help you organize your information.

Its all about the data!

[donniezazen]

I've switched to Lubuntu 11.10 and am using it on the system below. I guess I could get used to Unity but what is more troubling about Ubuntu is the gradual yet persistent degradation of performance. That is why I left WinXP 4 years ago. Mind you I still use XP on another machine for all my real work.

Tell me about it.

My old Dell used to work flawlessly on early versions of Ubuntu. But new and expensive Thinkpad just doesn't do well.

[ratcheer]

Since yesterday, I have been playing with Sabayon, which is based on Gentoo. With the E17 desktop, it uses well less than 300 MB memory. I think it is quite a bit "lighter" than my Arch with OpenBox.

Tim

[daniroma]

Yes. While Gnome3 is using so much of my CPU resources (Unity is a mess for me), Xubuntu with XFCE is a joy.
I strongly recommend it.
-----------------------------
XUBUNTU 11.10

[sidzen]

Is this thing still going on? Time to kill it, Moderator!

Use LXDE or XFCE if you must have DE -- period! :-({|=

[foxmulder881]

I think I probably bog my system down too much of the time. I run 2 Linux systems via VirtualBox on top of my regular system which also usually has my Email client and Web browser open all the time. Between those few things alone, I'd say it hogs most of my 2GB available RAM. But I never have any dramas.