Is there a way to install antix on a first gen intel Mac mini

Forum Forums Official Releases antiX-17 “Heather Heyer” Is there a way to install antix on a first gen intel Mac mini

  • This topic has 23 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated Sep 30-6:15 pm by Noman01.
Viewing 9 posts - 16 through 24 (of 24 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #27489
    Member
    Avatarolsztyn

    Regarding experience of relative slowness I have a question to experienced members of this forum as I have just observations of my own and but have not done any timing measurements to substantiate:
    Does running antiX in Frugal mode on old machine give you perception of faster operation than running antiX actually installed?
    My subjective observation (again – I did no benchmarks) comes from running antiX on a few old laptops:
    – Core Duo Thinkpad 60 – 1.5G ram
    – Pentium III Thinkpad T23 – 768 M ram (much worse than Noman01’s machine both in CPU and RAM)
    On both machines my subjective experience was that running antiX in Frugal or Live mode was just fine in terms speed (well, maybe slightly on the slow side on Thinkpad T23, considering little RAM and very slow CPU…), and Frugal appeared much faster overall than actually installed. Running installed on T23 was too slow, while Frugal was quite usable.
    The reason for this difference in performance (Frugal vs. Installed) on the same machines I attributed to the biggest bottleneck on old machines, namely their slow hard drives. Memory is a bottleneck, of course but not at 1GB (Noman01’s case), as even after loading Chromium it is still well below 1Gb memory used…
    The explanation I had was that hard disk usage is high in writes when OS is actually installed while it is low in writes (but high in reads) when OS is Frugal and Frugal is way more compact. There is a big difference between write and read speeds for old hard disk drives.
    I am curious if someone can confirm or abolish this theory…

    #27490
    Member
    Avatarolsztyn

    Regarding experience of relative slowness I have a question to experienced members of this forum as I have just observations of my own and but have not done any timing measurements to substantiate:
    Does running antiX in Frugal mode on old machine give you experience of faster operation than running antiX actually installed?
    My subjective observation (again – I did no benchmarks) comes from running antiX on a few old laptops:
    – Core Duo Thinkpad 60 – 1.5G ram
    – Pentium III Thinkpad T23 – 768 M ram (much worse than Noman01’s machine both in CPU and RAM)
    On both machines my subjective experience was that running antiX in Frugal or Live mode was just fine in terms speed (well, maybe slightly on the slow side on Thinkpad T23, considering little RAM and very slow CPU…). Frugal appeared much faster overall than actually installed. Running Installed on T23 was too slow, while Frugal was quite usable.
    The reason for this difference in performance (Frugal vs. Installed) on the same machines I attributed to the biggest bottleneck on old machines, namely their slow hard drives. Memory is a bottleneck, of course but not at 1GB (Noman01’s case) as even after loading Chromium it is still well below 1Gb memory used…
    The explanation I had was that hard disk usage is high in writes when OS is actually installed while it is low in writes (but high in reads) when OS is Frugal and Frugal is way more compact. There is a big difference between write and read speeds for old hard disk drives.
    I am curious if someone can confirm or abolish this theory…

    #27502
    Member
    AvatarPPC

    . Frugal appeared much faster overall than actually installed

    My experience is that, on my very slow netbook, running from live USB had better performance than running from the installed version or frugal- Examples that I noticed: LibreOffice Writer opens up in about 3 seconds running form USB and in about 5 seconds running from Frugal (about the same as the older installed OS). Also noticeable delay running sm-tube- running from USB, the video opens up much faster (a 2 or 3 seconds faster- the video fires up almost instantly – in about 2 seconds when booting via USB). I have not noticed any more such differences. Probably firefox also starts a bit faster on USB, but I didn’t time it (it takes about 10 seconds to finish loading, a couple of seconds there isn’t very easy to notice). Usually I run ungoogled-chromium- on the Frugal I normally use, it takes some 5 seconds to load- I’ve not compared to running it from live USB…

    Maybe my hard drive is so crappy that my USB 2 port has faster input/output?

    ( As always my advice is- if using a very old machine, unless you need a Firefox specific “function”, go for a lighter browser. In the extreme, try Surf browser, from the MX repo, you can’t get any lighter than that- unfortunately also not more barebones- its just a window that displays webpages, no address bar, nothing more- the best way to start it is something like “surf http://www.duckduckgo.com” or “surf http://www.google.com” and navigate your way around from there- I used it specifically like this: “surf http://www.gmail.com”- it acted like a mail “web-app” that takes only about 160Mb of RAM. Palemoon and several other browsers available from the Control Centre can be faster to start than FF!)

    P.

    #27505
    Member
    Avatarolsztyn

    I just noticed my post got duplicated, no idea why except error I was getting the first time on Submit… Apologize for that and I am not sure how to delete one occurrence to clean it up…
    @PPC:
    Thank you for your observations and timing of Frugal vs. Live USB. On Live USB I have the same experience that it seems the fastest and I am also running mostly on USB 2.0. Only on Thinkpad T23 Frugal and even installed was faster because USB on T23 is 1.1, so extremely slow, hardly possible to boot.The solution was to start booting from CD and flip to Frugal. On other my laptops ranging from slow processor CoreDuo T60 to fast i7 Live USB seemed quite fast (on USB 2.0), certainly faster than installed, although I did not measure exact timings of Live vs. Frugal – that is where your numbers are interesting…
    Actually with such great performance from Live USB I did not see a point of installing any longer, particularly considering such tremendous flexibility of booting on any hardware at hand…
    Just want to add that such fast performance on Live USB seems only occurring in very fast and light distros such as antiX. I do not expect this high performance to happen on heavy distros as they would incur massive I/O operations on USB, which would take time to perform for anything you do…

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by olsztyn.
    #27574
    Member
    Avatarseaken64

    “Real work”, or work, or productivity – all are relative. The computer allows you to do real work if you are accomplishing your task in the time allotted. The age of the box and the OS are irrelevant.

    Some “new” computers CANNOT run the software or OS that make you productive and allow you to get your work done!

    All I hear from the anonymous commenter is arrogance.

    I applaud you if your goal is to see if you can save your old computer form the trash. Old computers can still be useful, even for real work. It all depends on the work. To suggest you are wasting your time because you can’t send it with your son or daughter to use in their college courses or at their job in the hospital is to discount your own use case. Not everyone uses computers the same way. Putting your old Mac Mini to use with antiX makes perfect sense to me. I have much older equipment doing useful work.

    Seaken64

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by seaken64.
    #27590
    Member
    AvatarNoman01

    Thanks seaken64, that was the goal and thanks to the antiX os and some help from people in this forum I was able to get it to work and am using the computer right now to thank everyone that helped for their help.

    #27591
    Member
    Avatarseaken64

    I put Debian on an G4 Mac (Power PC). That was a lot harder than it had to be. I think it may be easier for the Intel Macs. I’m glad you’re up and running. And with a Duo core and 1 GB of ram it should be a pretty nice system even now. I use several similar machines every day. That rig may also run MX okay. Also Q4OS is pretty light.

    Have fun,
    Seaken64

    #27606
    Member
    AvatarNoman01

    Yes it is working very nicely, I thought about MX but I antiX several years back when SimplyMepis was still active and had good luck with it then. So I thought I’d give it a shot. I have two macbooks both are g4’s thought about it but haven’t given a real shot yet.

    #27607
    Member
    AvatarNoman01

    Just got done trying out MX linux on the mac mini and it is a nice os, but I just didn’t care for it. Compared to antiX it is bloated uses more resources and is slow. Also when using antiX right from the start I was able to just get around the system with little issues. The MX system was not as easy and just didn’t feel as comfortable to use. And I am a relative beginner and linux.

Viewing 9 posts - 16 through 24 (of 24 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.