lightweight distributions

Forum Forums General Other Distros lightweight distributions

  • This topic has 12 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated Apr 25-2:47 am by fantasIA05.
Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #140251
    Member
    John Smith232

      And so what kind of lightweight distributions do you know? For as for me, well, I assume that Antix is not such a lightweight system as it is advertised here. And I myself am an Antix user, don’t think anything, just let’s be honest with you, dear moderators and ordinary users forum, antix is not what it used to be

      I have researched antix and am ready to write my system requirements

      For antix you need at least 1 GB of RAM, and for better performance 2 GB

      So, let’s get back to lightweight distributions. And so, dear users and moderators, write your opinion, which distribution in your opinion is suitable for old computers?

      #140253
      Member
      PPC

        Dear John – there’s already a very similar thread to this one available here in the forum.
        By the way. I consider that the minimum RAM for using a modern browser is 1GB – my laptop and netbook do have 1Gb of RAM. My work computer is a 8Gb RAM dual core- it shows the difference, but I’m writing this on my 32bits laptop, using the latest seamonkey browser- this machine is perfectly usable, for most tasks- only streaming video inside a browser is not as good as I would like, but using smtube does go around that problem…

        P.

        #140254
        Forum Admin
        rokytnji

          https://www.debugpoint.com/32-bit-linux-distributions/

          They compare pretty good.

          antix is not what it used to be

          Been using this since version 7. Whatddya saying willis? 🙂

          Sometimes I drive a crooked road to get my mind straight.
          I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute off it.
          Motorcycle racing is rocket science.

          Linux Registered User # 475019
          How to Search for AntiX solutions to your problems

          #140267
          Moderator
          BobC

            Almost all Linux distros are free, so I suggest you come up with a sequence of tests that you can repeat with any distro to judge its suitability for your use from a system requirements and performance standpoint. I’d suggest testing them all on the same target machine, all installed to the same drive (one at a time, reusing the same volume), unless you normally plan to run from flashdrive. Try to choose a few tests that take more than 10 seconds so its easy to time them, and at the end of the tests, check how much memory is being used and left using the same utility on all of them so you get an apples to apples comparison.

            Asking others to suggest for you, even if we knew what you’d use it for is kind of silly. You are the one that needs to live with your choice or try again.

            Been there, done that, landed here.

            Daily driver distro https://www.antixforum.com

            #140268
            Forum Admin
            anticapitalista

              Why don’t you tell us? Is it a secret?

              Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

              antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.

              #140272
              Member
              abc-nix

                Dear John – there’s already a very similar thread to this one available here in the forum.

                This one: Other distros for old computers?

                I would say that the real system requirements for any user are the Web Browser requirements for their daily use. The web browser is the biggest RAM “waster” nowadays.

                • This reply was modified 1 month ago by abc-nix.
                #140274
                Member
                Robin

                  So, let’s get back to lightweight distributions.

                  I don’t consider being lightwight as an end in itself. The fine art antiX knows to offer means for me to keep a well-considered balance between features, usability, and (low) consumption of resources.

                  For antix you need at least 1 GB of RAM, and for better performance 2 GB

                  If you are talking about antiX full, then: yes. And this is still to be considered lightwight these days. (Try running any other fully featured current OS on 1 GB RAM) But there are versions of recent antiX 23 you can run with 512 MB already. Have you tried base or setting up your minimalist antiX from core ISOs?

                  So dear John Smith232, please let us know what you actually mean by saying:

                  antix is not what it used to be

                  What are you missing?

                  which distribution in your opinion is suitable for old computers?

                  Well, maybe I’m a bit preoccupied, but antiX is what runs on my 20 years old single core 32 bit notebook best. Maybe it is not old enough, and you are talking about even older machines? With antiX it runs again like a young colt. OK, have to admit, it has got 2 GB RAM already… Still, it’s my daily driver for everyday tasks (office, web surfing, communication, email, TV, radio, drawing/sketching, even midi and music notation etc.) without missing anything. That would never work if antiX wouldn’t be that lightwight and well balanced as it is.

                  I can work also on a bare console, if I have to, but i don’t need that…

                  Windows is like a submarine. Open a window and serious problems will start.

                  #140284
                  Member
                  PPC

                    Dear John – there’s already a very similar thread to this one available here in the forum.

                    This one: Other distros for old computers?

                    I would say that the real system requirements for any user are the Web Browser requirements for their daily use. The web browser is the biggest RAM “waster” nowadays.

                    Yes – I was late, when I wrote my post, and I was too tired to look for the correct thread.

                    I agree with Robin – antiX is lightweight, but not the most lightweight Linux distribution available. I usually say something like “antiX is the lightest full fledged modern Linux Distribution” anyone can run. Tiny Core Linux is lighter, MX-Linux is a bit more user friendly, flatpak enabled, systemd compatible distro, but is heaver, even the lightest version of it MX Fluxbox uses a few dozen MB of RAM more than antiX. Bodhi Linux is great, Ubuntu based, so it should run snaps and everything that depends on systemd… but it’s heavier than antiX.

                    I agree with one thing in the OP: “antiX is not what is used to be“- it’s the same, but better – better looking, easier to use, more streamlined, with a better alternative audio server, for those that need it (the rest can still toggle Pipewire off and use pure Alsa sound), it’s IceWM Window Manager is easier to configure than ever, it’s Package Manager offers more software than ever, it offer apps that allow users to access on-line services, like streaming video, tv, audio, searching the web, chatting with an AI, all without requiring the use of heavy web browsers. If you don’t require all those features, don’t use them- they do not use system resources when they are not running.
                    Well, I’m even finishing off the latest version of FT10 transformation package, that can make antiX look like it’s running something like a KDE Desktop, or make it similar to Windows 10 or even Windows 11, almost at no cost of system resources.

                    You want a lighter Linux distro? Sure – use Tiny Core Linux, for example- try to set it up for real every day use and then let us know how it went!

                    EDIT: I forgot to mention another light OS – the venerable Damn Small Linux was revived – oh, wait! It’s now based in antiX, so I guess it’s not for you…

                    P.

                    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by PPC.
                    #140303
                    Member
                    sybok

                      Dear John, could you please share more information about your RAM requirements?

                      For antix you need at least 1 GB of RAM, and for better performance 2 GB

                      Doing what exactly?

                      Personally, I believe that antiX does not run many background processes (when compared to my past experience with *buntu based distributions) and I find its default DEs really light-weight.
                      Thus I suspect – and I admit that I may be wrong – that the RAM issue you describe is due to using resource hungry programs (such as browser) OR e.g. having too many (background?) processes started up (installation from a test|development-ISO?).
                      I do not expect that things will get better in the former case, especially when using the same programs in other distributions (without local compilation of packages to optimise the performance).

                      You can run ‘top’ (or ‘htop’) in a terminal and explore what’s using most of the resources (hint: you can sort the processes according to the resource of interest).

                      BTW, notice that some data related to previously opened programs may remain “cached” in RAM, therefore effectively increasing RAM usage.
                      Such an history should be kept in mind if you decide to do the tests suggested by @BobC.

                      @PPC: I did not know that DSL is based on Debian+antiX.

                      #140327
                      Member
                      blur13

                        Like abc-nix said it depends on what programs you want to run, so you need to check the min requirements of Firefox or Chrome etc. antiX runs like a charm on 750 MiB RAM 32-bit netbook, idles at about 200 MiB, leaving plenty of room for browsing the web using Links2 while playing music in CMUS. And if you switch the HDD for a SSD the swap partition will function sort of like an extended RAM allowing you to run modern browsers (but it lags a bit).

                        #140335
                        Forum Admin
                        anticapitalista

                          @all – I’m convinced the poster is a troll.
                          They have not interacted at all in any of their threads – they simply post and disappear and start another thread.

                          Prove me wrong John …

                          Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

                          antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.

                          #140339
                          Member
                          wildstar84

                            Since the OP is vague, one has to guess. My hunch as to antix “not being what it used to be” would be: 1) We USED to use 32bit vsns more “back in the day” and 32bit systems do use less memory. 2) Most ram usage these days is by the applications the user chooses to install, and we all know that “feature creep” is widespread among even the best apps, particularly web browsers, and particularly the webpages themselves! Therefore I believe antiX itself has not lost any of it’s mojo (if anything, it’s gotten BETTER), but more likely these reasons I mentioned are causing the OP, and perhaps others to perceive that “antiX” (their system of kernel + apps) may seem less snappy than they remember in the past. I highly suspect that antiX itself (their choice of default apps and the way they are packaged) is more efficient than ever before. 😉

                            I would still like to know what applications the OP runs and what OTHER distro he/she perceives of being better!

                            #140340
                            Member
                            fantasIA05

                              I’ve only used antix 23 and now 23.1. Since I started a few months ago, I have only seen improvements every day and I like that. Some videos I saw of antix22 I think it didn’t have a trash can, its zzzfm is not like what it is now, now there are more tools so that newbies can make the configurations, etc. Those who have actually used antix from older versions will be able to say more improvements. I agree with what they said above: antix is ​​no longer what it used to be, now it is better and from what I have noticed, it seeks to be better every day.
                              If you are not a troll and you are having problems with the ram. You can try to use the “minimal icewm” desktop this will disable pipewire, the sound icon and some other functions which will allow you to save more ram. You could also try, only if necessary, with a kernel change.
                              Some data based on my experience with browsers, which is what consumes the most on a PC:
                              – full chromium-based browsers are lighter than those based on firefox, both in ram and cpu
                              – good semi-complete browsers: falkon and seamonkey, I like the latter since the ublock ad blocker can be installed
                              – terminal or minimal browsers: there are some but I don’t know about them
                              To watch YouTube videos here, the type of browser does not matter, it will still consume a lot, so the best option is to use invidious, it is a website similar to YouTube where you can watch the videos and by default I think it is in h264 (avc1 video codec for pc old) or you make the adjustments, or you use the tools that come with antix: smtube and ytfzf. Or try others like minitube, freetube, etc.
                              Those would be my suggestions, I won’t name another distro because I don’t know anything that meets all these requirements: just as light antix, based on Debian 12, that is complete and updated.

                            Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
                            • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.