- This topic has 22 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated Mar 8-9:46 am by ModdIt.
-
Posts
-
Brian Masinick
I stuck with MEPIS even when it temporarily went to a *buntu base. At the time I think that Warren Woodford thought it would be easier to maintain and update; the opposite was the case. While it still worked, when he returned it to Debian roots, those were some of the very best versions.
As far as antiX working with Kanotix, sidux and a few others, those were precisely the distributions I was looking at in those days because you could run several of them straight from media like we do with antiX today.
While I have not been using removable media as often lately, I still remember those days and I do have removable media, CD, DVD, and most recently, mostly USB; I DO use USB to use and install my own snapshot updates on my different computer systems and that also works for me.
I still use both MX and antiX- the former when I am using desktop environment software and antiX when I only need something lighter and fast.
--
Brian MasinickBrian Masinick
Also under MX hood.
Latest non esr-firefox vs our latest esr firefox .
Sure there are lot more differences.Even MX fluxbox pulls more ram while running vs our Fluxbox edition because of big apps like thunderbird, and other big apps like for music video.
I am surprised no member posted this quote
As secipolla stated, antiX started out as a MEPIS respin for older computers or for those that prefer a ‘mean and lean’ desktop system. The first remaster of MEPIS I did was not long after MEPIS 3.4.3 was released, but I only made it available to a few testers and it was called flepis (fluxbox Mepis, no icewm)
MX left my Panasonic cf-48 in the dust long ago. Along with Fluxbox Mint 6 and Ubuntu Gnome 3. But I am guessing this question is being asked by a member with better gear than I have.
Yeah, thanks again for that roki! A few years ago I was trying to remember that history and anticapitalista himself reminded me of that early stuff, and in fact, I was playing around with the very same stuff back then, just couldn’t remember it until he reminded me then and you cited it again; thanks for “refreshing my memory” yet again!
--
Brian MasinickModdIt
Regarding Kanotix, it followed on the basis of Knoppix which has always been designed to run live.
Last Kanotix version is from 2019.Knoppix is still being developed by Professeor Klaus knopper and is probably still the only live linux to offer a talking desktop for
disadvantaged users.
Very smart distro Looks difficult to get latest version which was exclusive to linux days Chemnitz and a German magazine.
Both 32bit and 64bit kernel supporting both old and new computers, the 64bit version also supporting systems with more than 4GB of RAM and chroot to 64-bit installations for system rescue tasks. The bootloader will start the 64bit kernel automatically if a 64bit-capable CPU is detected (if not manually specified otherwise).
For Computers that can only start from CD, not from DVD or USB flash pen, a tiny bootable CD image has been placed in the “KNOPPIX” folder, which can be burned and used together with the full USB or DVD version in order to start on old computers.
LXDE, the lightweight Knoppix standard desktop featuring the compiz 3D extension (0.8, back to genuine Debian).
Accessible → Adriane Audio Desktop.Brian Masinick
Yes, these were among several of the early distributions where I’d experiment directly from CD. Believe it or not, once upon a time I was able to experiment from CD with PCLinuxOS, before it became too large. MEPIS was there, so was Kanotix. One that I’ve not seen in a long time was Feather Linux. I think there was a Morphix too, and somewhere in the 2005-2007 period I used sidux a lot. These days, I hadn’t followed its successor, siduction much, until I got a new computer that wouldn’t initially boot either MX or antiX, so I grabbed siduction – on that new hardware, WOW, it’s FAST.
But a week or two ago I retrofitted an SSD in place of my 8 TB hard drive, giving me a much faster drive, though I bought a model with just under 500 GB capacity, still MORE than enough, and it has turned by 2015-16 Dell Inspiron 5558 into a much more responsive system once again, and I DO have both MX and antiX on this one!
--
Brian Masinickseaken64
The differences are that antiX runs best on old limited resource computers and antiX uses “Window Managers” (like IceWM and Fluxbox) instead of a full blown “Desktop Environment” (like XFCE or KDE). With old computers with limited RAM the “Desktops” implemented by antiX use a lot less RAM and processing power. This makes antiX the best choice for older equipment, even old Pentium-III and Pentium 4 equipment, or a netbook with only 1GB of RAM.
AntiX tends to be a little more “geeky” in that you have to do some configuration using the command line or editing text files. But there are a lot of “tools” that are similar between the two distros, such as the Live tools and Package managers.
Antix is “lean and mean” whereas MX is a little more mainstream with respect to resource usage. AntiX is “lightweight” and MX is “Mid-weight”.
Seaken64
- This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by seaken64.
gpsblake
To be fair, MX Linux and Antix other than a common looking distro manager (MX Tools and Antix tools) have little in common although both based on Debian. It’s two completely different distros aimed at two completely different sets of users. To me, MX Linux 21 has become bloated, especially their fluxbox edition. It just eats ram compared to MX Linux 19 and uses more RAM than Xubuntu, Debian XFCE now. Antix is a lean, mean fighting machine that’s great for older computers, recovery disk, or even modern laptops where power consumption is minimal with Antix.
Brian Masinick
MX Linux 21 does eat more RAM than antiX but it’s well suited to a mid tier general purpose system.
As I mentioned, I use both antiX and MX on my Inspiron laptop and they work well.
--
Brian MasinickRegarding antiX on more modern hardware, the low requirements definitely save energy and make processing intensive tasks
slightly faster.More modern for me is an I5K mostly set to max @3700 GHz, (very safe speed cooling wise) and a decent
NVidia card.
Developing a batch of Nikon Raw images is one example where I notice the difference, antiX is snappier, a full memory card
set is a lot of data. I have two 32 or 64 GB cards in the camera depending on what I am trying to acheive or where I travel.
Editing and exporting high resolution images to a lower resolution or conversion to jpeg in Gimp is another case where antiX
shines. I have not done it often but transforming a full resolution video from my nikon down to a much lower resolution finishes
faster on same machine. Same for some action cam video work.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
