Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 65

Thread: Xubuntu vs Ubuntu+XFCE

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Beans
    735

    Re: Xubuntu vs Ubuntu+XFCE

    Thanks for the replys guys! Its going onto a 4gig ram machine ^^

    Ive not thought of Xubuntu as being for old machines for a while now. I mean Ubuntu needs 256ram and Xubuntu needs 192ram or something right? Thats not realy helpfull on your average desktop that goes from either 128 to 256. For the speed Ive had ubuntu hardy working on a 256ram machine with little slowdown. Xubuntu wouldnt work at all on a 128ram machine. doesnt make much sense to me saying Xubuntus for older machines. Now Puppy linux, thats for older machines ^^

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Beans
    125

    Re: Xubuntu vs Ubuntu+XFCE

    Quote Originally Posted by Naiki Muliaina View Post
    Thanks for the replys guys! Its going onto a 4gig ram machine ^^

    Ive not thought of Xubuntu as being for old machines for a while now. I mean Ubuntu needs 256ram and Xubuntu needs 192ram or something right? Thats not realy helpfull on your average desktop that goes from either 128 to 256. For the speed Ive had ubuntu hardy working on a 256ram machine with little slowdown. Xubuntu wouldnt work at all on a 128ram machine. doesnt make much sense to me saying Xubuntus for older machines. Now Puppy linux, thats for older machines ^^
    Oh OK then use Xubuntu. It'll run fine on that hardware.
    DRUG FREE FOR LIFE

  3. #13

    Re: Xubuntu vs Ubuntu+XFCE

    Quote Originally Posted by tel93 View Post
    Yes. On my K6-2:
    Debian with XFCE: ~30mb RAM usage
    Ubuntu minimal with XFCE: ~50mb RAM usage
    Xubuntu: ~110mb RAM usage
    Cool. I've gotten Arch systems running Openbox to boot on 17Mb. Some ancient Ubuntu machines I worked with needed only 22Mb for the same arrangement.
    Quote Originally Posted by tel93 View Post
    Yes, but what is Xubuntu made for? Old computers.
    I think that's my problem with Xubuntu, at present. The definition of "old" is different to me -- I think this is old. In the old days (like 2005 and earlier) the idea was a strictly GTK2 application whenever possible. I was using Xubuntu Breezy on a 233Mhz machine and it was magnificent.

    As it got more popular and the user base grew, people were using Xubuntu just because it was faster than Gnome Ubuntu, and for someone sitting at, say, 1.4Ghz, the difference was tangible. The gap between 200Mhz and 1.4Ghz is considerable, but with more people using it and touting it as a solution for their "old" machine, it still has that reputation.

    As it is now, I wouldn't install Xubuntu on anything slower than that -- 1.4Ghz or so. Anything under that just suffers the Death of a Thousand Cuts, and I go crazy waiting for Firefox to render a page. Blech.

    On the other hand, the event horizon for a lot of other distros, like Arch, seems a lot lower to me -- somewhere around 300Mhz or so. And for a compile-it-yourself distro, you can get a lot more done at even slower speeds.

    So "old" is what you make of it. Speaking strictly for myself, I have a much greater appreciation for pure XFCE because it's such a considerable improvement over Xubuntu. I'd be quite confident installing XFCE by itself on anything as slow as a 450Mhz K6-2 running plain-jane minimal Ubuntu.

    But if you think old is an early Pentium 4 ... then sure, Xubuntu is for an old computer.
    Ubuntu user #7247 :: Linux user #409907
    inconsolation.wordpress.com

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cydonia
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Xubuntu

    Re: Xubuntu vs Ubuntu+XFCE

    Quote Originally Posted by K.Mandla View Post
    Cool. I've gotten Arch systems running Openbox to boot on 17Mb. Some ancient Ubuntu machines I worked with needed only 22Mb for the same arrangement.

    I think that's my problem with Xubuntu, at present. The definition of "old" is different to me -- I think this is old. In the old days (like 2005 and earlier) the idea was a strictly GTK2 application whenever possible. I was using Xubuntu Breezy on a 233Mhz machine and it was magnificent.

    As it got more popular and the user base grew, people were using Xubuntu just because it was faster than Gnome Ubuntu, and for someone sitting at, say, 1.4Ghz, the difference was tangible. The gap between 200Mhz and 1.4Ghz is considerable, but with more people using it and touting it as a solution for their "old" machine, it still has that reputation.

    As it is now, I wouldn't install Xubuntu on anything slower than that -- 1.4Ghz or so. Anything under that just suffers the Death of a Thousand Cuts, and I go crazy waiting for Firefox to render a page. Blech.

    On the other hand, the event horizon for a lot of other distros, like Arch, seems a lot lower to me -- somewhere around 300Mhz or so. And for a compile-it-yourself distro, you can get a lot more done at even slower speeds.

    So "old" is what you make of it. Speaking strictly for myself, I have a much greater appreciation for pure XFCE because it's such a considerable improvement over Xubuntu. I'd be quite confident installing XFCE by itself on anything as slow as a 450Mhz K6-2 running plain-jane minimal Ubuntu.

    But if you think old is an early Pentium 4 ... then sure, Xubuntu is for an old computer.
    Agreed. On a Pentium 3 with 128MB RAM (what I use to determine if a light distro is "light"), Xubuntu simply doesn't cut it. I've replaced that computer with Puppy Linux.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    WD Caviar BLACK
    Beans
    227
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.10 Quantal Quetzal

    Question Re: Xubuntu vs Ubuntu+XFCE

    Quote Originally Posted by Naiki Muliaina View Post
    I found myself loving the XFCE enviroment. I could make it looks great without Compiz effecting my 3d proggys. So im curious to know, whats the advantage of using Xubuntu over Ubuntu+XFCE? Is it just thunar vs nautilus or is there other differences in the way it actually works?
    Do you know if your hard drive speed is 5400 RPM or 7200 RPM? I'm thinking, with 4 GB RAM , it must be 7200.

    Let me know.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    WD Caviar BLACK
    Beans
    227
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.10 Quantal Quetzal

    Re: Xubuntu vs Ubuntu+XFCE

    Quote Originally Posted by picpak View Post
    Agreed. On a Pentium 3 with 128MB RAM (what I use to determine if a light distro is "light"), Xubuntu simply doesn't cut it. I've replaced that computer with Puppy Linux.
    Yes definitely puppy on that system/

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Beans
    735

    Re: Xubuntu vs Ubuntu+XFCE

    Bart_D: Its 7200

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    US
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu

    Re: Xubuntu vs Ubuntu+XFCE

    Why does it matter? Eventually you will be running into applications which need GTK or some other libraries to run, in which the Xfce with Ubuntu will be just as inefficient as Xubuntu.

    In the end, they both play the same, only Ubuntu + xfce will baggage all the Gnome stuff anyway, more so than Xubuntu.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Beans
    735

    Re: Xubuntu vs Ubuntu+XFCE

    Another quick question

    Ive noticed in Xubuntu theres quite a few things that cause a pause. Such as just after ive typed in my password to do something like a software update. They dont happen when im running Ubuntu with gnome. With the Ubuntu base install (no gnome etc) with just xfce ontop, will i get them little delays? Is it just the 'crud' installed in Xubuntu that causes them little pauses?

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Beans
    125

    Re: Xubuntu vs Ubuntu+XFCE

    @L815:
    Not if you don't use GNOME apps.

    @Naiki:
    It'll be absent.
    DRUG FREE FOR LIFE

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •