old hardware performance: #! vs Ubuntu

mardybear · 2012-10-28 02:23:14

Greetings...

My first post on this forum.

I've been a happy Ubuntu user for ~6 years. As i use old hardware (700MHz, 512MB ram), i run old Ubuntus (8.04 and 10.04) with Openbox.

The newer versions of Ubuntu seem bloated and i will likely switch to another distribution in the next while. I've tried Puppy Linux and was impressed with the performance but i didn't like the default software, desktops and it felt restricted. I recently trialed #! liveCD and was impressed but couldn't get a sense of system performance running from CD.

At this time i'm contemplating either a #! or an Arch Linux install. As tempting as Arch seems, including many satisfied users, the thought of installing and setting up such a system is probably more than i wish to handle. I have only a moderate knowledge of Linux and would prefer my freshly installed system to pretty much run out of the box with only minor tweaks or preference changes. I also don't need all the bleeding edge software and once i have a system setup to my preference almost cringe when there are too many updates/changes (used my Ubuntu 8.04 install for ~5 years).

So my question, especially to any forum members with actual experience running an old Ubuntu and #! on the same system/hardware, would #! run any faster than an old version of Ubuntu that's already been tweaked for performance, including Openbox?

mardybear

shengchieh · 2012-10-28 02:44:24

I'm sure #! will beat Ubuntu even though I never tried Ubuntu. #! uses a window manager, openbox.
Ubuntu uses a desktop GNOME w/ Unity shell. I'll let others chime in.

Btw, there are Arch derivatives (Bridge, Archbang - I think; and more) that requires no tedious
installation. Check distrowatch.

Sheng-Chieh

VastOne · 2012-10-28 03:14:31

@mardybear... Welcome to CrunchBang!

I have been there with both #! and Ubuntu on the same dated hardware. #! is lights out faster IMO, by simply taking all the fluff out...

I can tell you this all day, but until you run it on your hardware, you can only be the judge of it.

Good luck!

mardybear · 2012-10-28 03:51:27

Thanks for the replies #! users.

VastOne - Which version of Ubuntu and desktop were you running (gnome, openbox, etc) for comparison?

I've already removed much of the fluff from my old Ubuntu installs but i'm thinking #! might be a bit faster.

Can #! be installed onto an ext2 partition to avoid journaling?

What's the easiest way to network with a WindowsXP system: thunar with network plugin, nautilus --no-desktop ?

mardybear

PS - Didn't know i was talking to the grand imperial leader of #!, talk about personal service smile

snowpine · 2012-10-28 05:03:57

Welcome!

mardybear wrote:

old hardware (700MHz, 512MB ram)

In my opinion it is a no-brainer not to use Ubuntu for this type of hardware. Now, will #! be its replacement for you? Taking it for a test drive will help you answer that; for comparison try a bunch more like: antix, slitaz, archbang, salix, "pure" debian, etc. "Distro-hopping" is a rite of passage around here. wink

Now the answer you're not going to want to hear is that ubuntu minimal + openbox is not that different than a similarly-configured debian minimal + openbox system. #! itself was once based on Ubuntu and it was just as fast and great for old hardware as today's Debian version. Most of the so-called "bloat" (it's not bloat to me because I love it! Ubuntu user 7.10 - 12.04!) is the Unity desktop and openbox doesn't suffer that. I used a spin called Fluxbuntu (Fluxbox + Ubuntu) a few years back, and it was every bit as "lightweight" as Debian or Crunchbang. Probably the frustration you are encountering is just your hardware getting old, and getting a new computer would satisfy you more than getting a new distro.

Last edited by snowpine (2012-10-28 05:20:23)

CBizgreat! · 2012-10-28 05:59:28

Like most things nix, a simple question usually turns out to be anything but simple. Buntu makes me wanna vomit ... I bash that distro w/o mercy most times. Just don't like em for various reasons. Though hey, at least they are promoting gnu/nix and attracting more people into the fold. Whether doing it w good intentions or blahblah. That's another (off topic)story, shrugs.

Pointless ... point here. Depending upon the person using it have zero doubt buntu ( even buntu main.) could be trimmed, tweaked and turned lean and mean. Both Debian based ... both CAN be drastically altered depending on the endusers. Only thing of notable diff that popped into my bean with this question. Think buntu keeps up it's own repos ... ppa's/etc and might have newer software available vs #! (out of the box anyway). You can always get newer software onto #! too. Backports, compiling ... mixed OS/repos etc etc yadayada.

Not such a simple question to answer imo. Depending on how much free drive space you have avail + time + <add whatever here>. Could always try em both side-by-side. Find out which works best for you ... Might even wind up keeping both. Am sure both have pros + cons. More than likely won't know what YOU like ... until ya try. Jmo ... think #! is definitely worth a try either way. wink

Vll ! smile

Last edited by CBizgreat! (2012-10-28 06:15:05)

Iranon · 2012-10-28 10:01:28

Installing Arch by hand can be educational, but the unofficial "Ultimate Install Script" does a good job of getting you to a working system. It's still Arch - you're guided through the fiddly technical stuff but you'll end with fairly vanilla configurations rather than "what the average desktop user may want".
Still, you don't seem to be its target audience - if you don't care about bleeding edge software and easy tweakability, Arch possibly makes too many concessions for those in integration/automation/convenience.

My impressions with !# is that being lean and ultra-light isn't a priority as much as providing a clean and comfortable experience out of the nonexisting box. Your hardware should handle it though.

Most of Ubuntu's "bloat" is in the desktop environments. Unity is probably the biggest resource hog around, and some alternative versions are heavier than one way assume. For example, their XFCE edition is larded-up, quite good for those wanting a comfortable "traditional" desktop but a nasty surprise for those who picked it because they associate XFCE with light weight.

*

With your preferences and history, I'd have assumed Precise Puppy to be the best fit for you... Ubuntu LTS based, friendly enough, lightweight. If that doesn't appeal to you, I'd consider Crunchbang, then SliTaz. Arch is a last measure... "tired of hunting for ready-to-use stuff that doesn't fit my needs, at least this one is built for easy DIY".

dura · 2012-10-28 11:21:47

My problem with arch, though I've been tempted for a while, is learning another language. Coming from debian or buntu flavoured distros you share a language and that helps a lot. I tried arch for a while and was enjoying it, but it was educational without the ease in use, and at that time I needed to get some work to do. It was more a hobby machine- something I now mess about with on a raspberry pi.

Waldorf, bless him, seems to work really well on old machines. Not as old as yours, but he runs well on a 6-7 year old dell 1525, and a ten year old dell dimension something or other.

I've played with puppy linux in different guises- it always seems very basic and isolated in some ways, with its particular icons. Some things shake a bit when using it as well, etc., but I've seen some people take the simplicity of puppy and theme it to look like the cutting edge distro it is. Once the playful icons, etc., are out the way its lightness I guess would be great. And its very thoughtful, with lots of nice scripts. I guess thats something it shares with #!.

I would never use anything buntu now. Or really recommend it. Debian, and control over the sources, as well as resisting reliance upon a 'corporation' like canonical (though its very important) is something I find meaning and possibility in. #! is a perfect blend of my needs. The community is unique it seems. I've never been anywhere so busy and vibrant. The community is also as light as you can get wink

Last edited by dura (2012-10-28 11:23:32)

joek · 2012-10-28 13:11:43

I have used all of Ubuntu Natty, #! Statler, and Debian Squeeze on my old Dell Latitude D400 (1.4Ghz Pentium M processor, 512MB RAM (previously 256MB)). Out of the box, both statler and squeeze beat ubuntu hands down, and both can be trimmed down further (I am comparing the Debian install with the Desktop package set, for a 'fair' comparison). Presumably the same is true of ubuntu, but by the time you've trimmed the bloat out, you might as well have built debian up from scratch.
Another alternative, if you want to use a debian-based system, is to do a debian base install only, and install Xorg yourself; or do the same with the Ubuntu Server Edition (http://mirror.sov.uk.goscomb.net/ubuntu-releases/).

snowpine · 2012-10-28 14:34:55

^--- Don't use Ubuntu Server Edition for that purpose (unless you are actually running a server). Better to use the netinstall disk, which is pretty much exactly the same as the Debian netinstall, and allows you to build an equally minimalistic system as described here: http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/minimal

Installing #! of course is a good shortcut for not having to do that, if you like #!'s defaults and configs better than what you'd come up with on your own (as I do).

el_koraco · 2012-10-28 14:38:23

Take note, the Alternate Install CD is gone since Quantal. They've added most of the functionality to Ubiquity, but I will never ever use that installer on my system again.

snowpine · 2012-10-28 14:58:24

Haven't tried 12.10 yet (prefer the LTS), I stand corrected. smile

joek · 2012-10-28 19:06:12

@Snowpine: I was going to advise the alternate disk, but couldn't find it.
Thanks to you and El_K for clearing that up...

mardybear · 2012-10-28 21:46:14

Thanks for all feedback...too many responses to address individually.

I took another look at Puppy Linux but i just don't like any of the flavours and the package manager is just okay. Guess i'm used to synaptic.

All i want is openbox, no other window manager required. Heard good things about fluxbox but it doesn't interest me....would rather just stick with openbox as it serves my needs.

The minimal versions of Linux are just too bare bones for me. I need something more functional out of the box to run my home office and although they can be built-up that is not their primary purpose. Plus i have more than enough hard drive space to perform a full install.

Installing Arch Linux is too much...just want something that works.

Archbang is somewhat appealing but still too much, still different lingo. I also noticed the following on their website, 'Many new users of ArchBang are having serious problems updating after installing the May release. We are well aware of the problem, but there is no easy fix.'

Sticking with debian would be my preference as i'm already familiar with the lingo and processes. The new Ubuntu releases are bloated and seem too commercial, although an Ubuntu or minimal install still interests me. Although i think Canonical has overall been good for Linux i have similar thoughts than some others on this forum.

I'm not interested in upgrading my hardware. I have parts to build a 1.7GHz system in the basement (don't laugh), which would fly compared to my current 700MHz setup but i actually prefer to keep this old machine running.

Hmmm...debian, out of the box install, openbox...kinda sounds like #! smile

#! liveCD trial ran very well...everything ran out of the box, including flash and my prefered desktop resolution. It was especially nice that i didn't have to tinker with my sound card settings, something i've always had to do with previous Ubuntu installs.

I had additional questions in my initial posts that were not addressed but i can start a new thread later as needed. If anyone has additional comments regarding #! vs other distributions i enjoy the feedback.

Take care and nice to meet you all.

mardybear

mynis01 · 2012-10-29 01:54:30

#! vs ubuntu? Is that a syrys question? Try and idle under 100 mb with an Ubuntu install with a fully functional desktop with video and audio capabilities and get back to me.

mardybear · 2012-10-29 03:15:41

mynis01 wrote:

#! vs ubuntu? Is that a syrys question? Try and idle under 100 mb with an Ubuntu install with a fully functional desktop with video and audio capabilities and get back to me.

Hi mynis01.

Of course this is a serious question, why would i ask otherwise.

I'm currently running Ubuntu 10.04 with the following primary applications running: Openbox with lxpanel, Firefox 16 and xterm. This is a 'fully functional desktop' that allows me to browser the internet, watch flash, listen to music, edit files, run a home network and operate my business.

xterm indicates i'm presently using 166MB/496MB RAM as follows:
99MB Firefox
9MB lxpanel
7MB gnome-power-manager
6MB xterm
+ misc

So when you do the math i'm 'idling' far less than 100MB (query ~45MB) if i choose to run without a screensaver/power manager and close Firefox, xterm and lxpanel. As i mentioned earlier, my Ubuntu install has been extensively customized to run lean on old hardware.

This in essence is the reason for my post. I'm not sure a #! install would run any leaner on old hardware than my present setup.

mardybear

VastOne · 2012-10-29 03:20:39

I ran Hardy with Xfce/Gnome/Lxde when I was on it...

Here is an interesting thread that may interest you..

The lean #! Sub 100 Club

It may not answer all your questions but as you will see there is a lot of great information there on tweaking #! to a very lean stable machine.

mardybear · 2012-10-29 03:38:50

Thanks for the sub100 club link...i'll take a good read with my evening coffee later smile

I closed the apps mentioned above and htop indicated i was 'idling' at 91MB RAM...that's pretty good for a 'modern' OS. I wanted to attach a couple htop screenshots of my 'sub100' Ubuntu but couldn't figure out the forum's image attachment system. Not trying to start a flame war or bash #! in any way...it's just informative.

My next install will either be Ubuntu minimal or #!, but as i don't install/change often it can wait until i have a major hardware failure, break down and build my 1.7GHz powerhorse smile or have extra time during Christmas vacation.

Thanks again for all your info/replies.

mardybear

CrunchBang Linux

SEARCH

#1 2012-10-28 02:23:14

old hardware performance: #! vs Ubuntu

#2 2012-10-28 02:44:24

Re: old hardware performance: #! vs Ubuntu

#3 2012-10-28 03:14:31

Re: old hardware performance: #! vs Ubuntu

#4 2012-10-28 03:51:27

Re: old hardware performance: #! vs Ubuntu

#5 2012-10-28 05:03:57

Re: old hardware performance: #! vs Ubuntu

#6 2012-10-28 05:59:28

Re: old hardware performance: #! vs Ubuntu

#7 2012-10-28 10:01:28

Re: old hardware performance: #! vs Ubuntu

#8 2012-10-28 11:21:47

Re: old hardware performance: #! vs Ubuntu

#9 2012-10-28 13:11:43

Re: old hardware performance: #! vs Ubuntu

#10 2012-10-28 14:34:55

Re: old hardware performance: #! vs Ubuntu

#11 2012-10-28 14:38:23

Re: old hardware performance: #! vs Ubuntu

#12 2012-10-28 14:58:24

Re: old hardware performance: #! vs Ubuntu

#13 2012-10-28 19:06:12

Re: old hardware performance: #! vs Ubuntu

#14 2012-10-28 21:46:14

Re: old hardware performance: #! vs Ubuntu

#15 2012-10-29 01:54:30

Re: old hardware performance: #! vs Ubuntu

#16 2012-10-29 03:15:41

Re: old hardware performance: #! vs Ubuntu

#17 2012-10-29 03:20:39

Re: old hardware performance: #! vs Ubuntu

#18 2012-10-29 03:38:50

Re: old hardware performance: #! vs Ubuntu

Board footer