Best linux for minimal ram?

[knottshawk]

I currently have Gutsy ubuntu on an old NB.... I'm going to be attempting to install Virtualbox on that NB and put XP pro on it. So, I know it will be dicey because of my specs.... so why I need is whatever linux flavor that will

A) Support VirtualBox
B) Use the least amount of ram possible because XP will need alot.

This is all an issue because my NB has the following hardware:
600mhz processor (intel)
320 MB ram
5 GB HDD (don't laugh)

Any advice is welcome.

[Dapper Dan]

DeLi Linux purports to be such a distro.

[IsaacKuo]

A) Support VirtualBox
B) Use the least amount of ram possible because XP will need alot.

This is all an issue because my NB has the following hardware:
600mhz processor (intel)
320 MB ram
5 GB HDD (don't laugh)

You have 320 megs of RAM? That is PLENTY of RAM. I don't know how much RAM VirtualBox will need, but I'd guess it isn't too much. Windows XP may consume less than a hundred megs of RAM. An out-of-box linux install with a heavyweight GNOME or KDE interface will eat up less than a hundred megs of RAM. That leaves you with plenty of RAM left over for applications; maybe 100-200megs.

If you use a basic window manager like IceWM or fluxbox, linux will maybe eat up only around twenty or thirty megs of RAM. Debian is one option for a "just works" distribution which is basic to set up and maintain, without lots of unnecessary extras.

[knottshawk]

What does "Just works" mean? Do those windows managers work on any flavor of linux? Sorry... I'm a real newbie.

My ram isn't the bottleneck as much as my processor. Even now, with ubuntu, the poor thing isn't very quick. If I do a virtualbox setup, the XP machine would be taxed a bit though. I do some malware testing for windows so the system gets worked a little.

[i92guboj]

I currently have Gutsy ubuntu on an old NB.... I'm going to be attempting to install Virtualbox on that NB and put XP pro on it. So, I know it will be dicey because of my specs....

Yep, but read below.

This is all an issue because my NB has the following hardware:
600mhz processor (intel)
320 MB ram
5 GB HDD (don't laugh)

With this, you can run almost any modern distro. You will just need to be careful with the programs you use everyday. I advise to use a lightweight wm, like fluxbox or fvwm, instead of a full desktop environment, like kde or gnome. If you still want to run a desktop, xfce is somewhat lighter than the two previous ones, though not that much as some people seem to think.

You have 320 megs of RAM? That is PLENTY of RAM. I don't know how much RAM VirtualBox will need, but I'd guess it isn't too much.

Not sure about Virtualbox itself. I guess it's nothing insane either.

Windows XP may consume less than a hundred megs of RAM.

As far as I can remember, XP takes more than 120 mb, and that's just booted. While you work with it, the amount of needed ram will grow. It will not perform ok (if at all) with less than 128 mb or ram. That means that, due to Virtualbox+XP you are going to have more than the half of the ram full. You still have the other half to run the rest of the applications. You can always buy more ram if your mother board supports it.

What does "Just works" mean? Do those windows managers work on any flavor of linux? Sorry... I'm a real newbie.

You can use any desktop or window manager under any distribution of your choice. A desktop, basically speaking, is a window manager + a lot of other things. So, a standalone window manager saves you the ram that the "other things" waste. These other thigns are taskbars, desktop icons, menus and the like.

If you want to see how a given desktop or window manager looks, just use google images. For example, you can google for "kde screenshots" or "fluxbox screenshots". Also, visit their home page to get a first impression.

My ram isn't the bottleneck as much as my processor. Even now, with ubuntu, the poor thing isn't very quick. If I do a virtualbox setup, the XP machine would be taxed a bit though. I do some malware testing for windows so the system gets worked a little.

Believe me: in linux, your ram will always be more a bottleneck than your cpu. Always. If you run out of ram, the system will start to swap to disk, and it will kill your cpu as well, due to the intensive disk input/output.

[Master of Puppets]

Maybe you should try Damn Small Linux (DSL)? It's said to be really lightweight. But I've never used it myself.

[darrelljon]

Deb-Ice is Debian 4 with IceWM.

[bigtomrodney]

Why skimp on Linux to make room for Windows? If running Windows is the primary goal it would make more sense to install a dedicated Windows PC. VM performance is never 100%, so go with whatever operating system will be providing the best experience for you. Perhaps consider running Linux in a VM?

[knottshawk]

Believe me: in linux, your ram will always be more a bottleneck than your cpu. Always. If you run out of ram, the system will start to swap to disk, and it will kill your cpu as well, due to the intensive disk input/output.

How is it with just ubuntu, and my HW that I'd be relatively slow then? I can only have 2 programs open at a time. Swapping between them is pretty slow... opening my administrative tools is slow. Isn't 320 MB of ram decent for Gutsy?

I've assumed my processor is the problem.

As for the question about why not do a dedicated windows build: I test malware on the windows platform. If it's not in a virtual environment then I have for format and reinstall windows every few hours. NOT COOL. Most virtual machine softwares, and I assume it's the same with virtualbox, let you revert your system to prior settings. Perfect for testing malware.

[IsaacKuo]

It depends on what you mean by "relatively slow". What you think of as slowness might be CPU related or GPU related.

What kind of video card are you using? Depending on the video card, Ubuntu might have installed using Compiz/Fusion out-of-box. You can turn this off by going into the Preferences->Appearance menu and turning off Desktop Effects. Desktop Effects can be impressive, but they suck up lots of resources.

However, I'm going to assume that your problem is NOT Desktop Effects. In that case, it probably is CPU speed which is the issue.

With a 600mhz processor, there will certainly be a noticeable difference in speed with anti-aliased fonts compared to non-anti-aliased fonts. Personally, I think the nice appearance of anti-aliased fonts is worth it, unless we're talking about less than 200mhz. However, it is noticeably slower than non-anti-aliased fonts (like Windows fonts) at 600mhz.

You can turn off font anti-aliasing in the same Preferences->Appearance menu. Unfortunately, I don't know if Ubuntu ships with any fonts that look good without anti-aliasing. I know Debian ships with a really nice looking non-anti-aliased font called "Clean", but I didn't see it in my out-of-box Ubuntu install. I'd try out Sans Serif or Deja Sans to start with.