Find the answer to your Linux question:

View Poll Results: What distro would you most recommend for low spec or older hardware?

16. You may not vote on this poll
  • antix

    3 18.75%
  • arch

    2 12.50%
  • crunchbang

    1 6.25%
  • crux

    1 6.25%
  • debian

    4 25.00%
  • puppy

    1 6.25%
  • slackware

    0 0%
  • slax

    0 0%
  • slitaz

    0 0%
  • other (please specify)

    4 25.00%
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2004
    arch linux

    Recommended Distro For Lower Spec Hardware (2012)

    Which distribution would you most recommend to others for lower spec or older/weaker computer hardware?

    Note that the poll from last year has been locked, but it can be found here:

  2. #2
    AntiX, puppy linux or mint xfce.
    Linux User #489667

  3. #3
    AntiX because it has the most feature rich configuration tools out there.
    I refuse to let fear and fear of others rule my life. It puts my humanity at risk.
    Accepting Death is the only way to stay alive.

  4. $spacer_open
  5. #4
    Administrator jayd512's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    I have a mixed answer, so I voted other.
    Puppy and antiX are both great choices. But there is also Debian and Slack to consider.
    CRUX, as well, but if a machine is really low power, the compile times could be a detriment.

    New users, read this first.
    New Member FAQ
    Registered Linux User #463940
    I do not respond to private messages asking for Linux help. Please keep it on the public boards.

  6. #5
    Penguin of trust elija's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Either at home or at work or down the pub
    Crunchbang. It requires an amazingly small amount of memory.
    Should you be sitting wondering,
    Which Batman is the best,
    There's only one true answer my friend,
    It's Adam Bloody West!

    The Fifth Continent

  7. #6
    SuperMod (Back again) devils casper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Chandigarh, India
    AntiX. It works fine on my older machines.
    It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.
    New Users: Read This First

  8. #7
    I'm totally fine with using a base Fedora install (< 200 packages and < 500MB disk usage) and then layering it with just the light-weight apps/DE that are suitable for it. In the rare case where I need a sub-500MB install, then yeah, Puppy or some Debian-derivative is good. Or I just customize my own busybox-based OS and run it in memory.

  9. #8
    Linux Engineer MASONTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Mason Texas
    I like Antix, Crunchbang, and Lubuntu on older machines, with AntiX running on the lowest spec machines.
    Registered Linux user #526930

  10. #9
    Trusted Penguin Dapper Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    The Sovereign State of South Carolina
    I chose CRUX only because it has breathed new life in older slower boxes for me but it's not for users uncomfortable with the command line. A minimal install of straight Debian with a light window manager like IceWM or OpenBox will work wonders on older hardware too.
    Linux Mint + IceWM Registered: #371367 New Members: click here

  11. #10
    Does Crux have a i486 kernel? I know AntiX does.

    At the moment antiX-M11 comes as a full distro (c680MB), a base distro (c360MB) and a new core distro (c115MB) all for 486 (PI and K5/K6 AMD) and 686 kernels. For those who wish to have total control over the install, use antiX-core and build u
    I refuse to let fear and fear of others rule my life. It puts my humanity at risk.
    Accepting Death is the only way to stay alive.

Posting Permissions

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