Results 11 to 15 of 15
Originally Posted by user-f11 Actually this question is inavlid to the forum, for it cannot be solved as you imagine. The only way to solve this problem is by means ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
- 08-05-2013 #11
Instead... "Best Distro for this purpose"
Folks can weigh in with thoughts and ideas on this one.
BTW... Ubuntu is fine... but if you have a dedicated machine for it, then go with Ubuntu Server Edition.
Server services built-in, GUI options available at need.
(But try to avoid the GUI... it will only help you in the long run )
- 08-05-2013 #12
RE: This is appropriate. It wasn't "Best Distro to use for me"
Instead... "Best Distro for this purpose"
Not exactly. The question is: What will be the best distro on Intel Core Duo E8600 (CPU Mark 1.212 @ 1.86 GHz), RAM 2 GB, Nvidia GeForce 2 GB to play Minecraft.
The first step to the 'best ditro' is to move the jumpers on the motherboard and to make the processor working at 3.33 GHz (CPU Benchmark 2.424).
The next step is to replace the HDD with SSD.
Then there is no way for you to know that Ubuntu Server Edition will be the best distro, just so, without any trials and any measurements ... and assessments. Do you have the times and the performance (of Ubuntu Server on his processor ... at 1.86 GHz) - I guess not. What about the Java Runtime Environment? How did you come to know that OpenJDK will have the best performance on this hardware and with this OS?
In the very same way I may claim that Portable Ubuntu Remix or LXDE Fedora Remix will be much better ... if the httpd service is activated there. This can't be serious.
1. The distro should be eligible (be able to install the nvidia driver for that card, and the audio surround - to play the game at 'max')
2. The distro should be accessible - providing fastest access to the environment (hard-wired keyboard and mouse, no wi-fi performances)
3. The distro should be flexible - minimize the times for loading the OS and opening Apps. I honestly doubt that Ubuntu server edition is the fastest loading OS in town ... for it should comply with other requirements as a server.
4. Choosing the distro is one, and choosing the Desktop Graphics (Gnome 2, Gnome 3, LXDE, XFCE) is very much different. Anyway.
Last edited by user-f11; 08-05-2013 at 05:40 AM. Reason: adding comment
- 08-05-2013 #13
All I see in way too many topics is you posting incorrect information about how bench marks and app load times are the next best things second to the word of God.
If all computers are is measurements, bench marks, etc., and there is truly no UX as you definitely imply with your posts, than you are not needed at any level in this forum.
A forum is a place to ask questions and discuss things as a community. If the answer one is seeking is on Tom's hardware comparison forums of bench marks (or whatever other useless specs happen to be posted), then there's literally no need for you to respond to it. In that case they can look up the benchmarks or load times themselves and simply compare the two numbers as you claim is necessary.
I'll try to explain it once again, but as in the past, it will probably fall upon deaf ears in your case:
The method you use is not accurate. Aside from the other reasons I've listed in other posts in other threads (which you've read, as you've responded directly to them) you can literally have different HDD read scheduling which affects the load time of a program, and then different rules for keeping program images resident. Yes the program may take 2.1s to load instead of 1.9 but if it runs 40% smoother due to a complete lack of paging than nobody gives a crap about those 2 tenths which were lost. Your measurements are not only inefficient, they're properly inconclusive, inaccurate, and misleading.
Go outside or something..
Your specs are kind of lacking by today's standards, IMO, so I would advise against the latest Fedora and Ubuntu builds as some (such the guy whose post I replied to) have mentioned, but would rather suggest going with something like an LTS or older fedora build. Something like Xubuntu 12.04 would probably be very nice for your specs. I'd suggest giving it a shot. The specs aren't "bad" IMO to the point where you need a super lightweight system, though you're still lacking a bit. I figure the above would give you a nice balance. May also want to try regular vanilla Ubuntu 12.04 either with Gnome classic graphics or with Unity 3D effects disabled.
Best of luck to ya!
- 08-05-2013 #14
RE: 'All I see in way too many topics is you posting incorrect information about how bench marks and app load times are the next best things second to the word of God.'
These data are from the OEM web sites. If you have any problems with the data you may ask directly the OEM (why the measurements are such).
If you develop philosophy thesis on the Net, I work with data analysis. If you have omissions about some data this is not my fault.
Here is a question to you: If the SSD has a speed of 500 MB/s & average boot time of 22 sec vs. HDD that has 120 MB/s and 40 secs boot time ... which one is bettter (in terms of the philosophy interpretation)?
- 08-05-2013 #15
- Join Date
- May 2011
if you continue to have issues installing Linux on your PC, go ahead and start a new thread, so the OP doesn't get shuffled to the side. Feel free to link to this one, if you'd like (you'll need to omit/substitute the "http://" portion to get around the forum's abuse rules).