Which Linux to use?

[sul4bh]

Dear all:

I have got a Pentium IV computer (@1.5 Ghz) with 512 MB of RAM. I have tried to run Ubuntu, Fedora, and Slackware on my system. But none was able to give be as good performance as my current installation of Windows XP. I want to switch to Linux but this overhead of performance is acting as a big resisting factor.

I do not want to use any LiveCD based or stripped down Linux versions like DSL or Knoppix. Can you suggest me a good distro that can give good performance on my system?

[ynilesh]

as per my opinion ubuntu desktop version quite faster compare to other unix os. Its all depend on interest of individuals and platform you are interested in.

[techieMoe]

I'm quite surprised you're getting good performance in XP with only 512MB of RAM, however there are more factors to overall performance than just that.

First, what sort of "performance issues" are you experiencing with the distributions above? What kind of video hardware do you have, and did you install the proper Linux drivers for it? What kind of network connection do you have? What versions of the above distributions were you attempting to use?

[elija]

Also, if you are running from the live cd, it will be a lot slower. You can only compare performance in any meaningful way after Ubuntu or Fedora has been installed.

The live CD is for initial testing of compatibility as well as emergencies...

[sul4bh]

The performance issue is about the time to load a program, maximize-minimize time lag, and other user experience issues. I do not have that good internet connection but i have no complains with that. And, i have tested hard disk installation of Ubuntu, Fedora and Slackware.

Usually after i open big programs like Firefox, other program show a large response time. I was having good time with xfce on Slackware but later it turned out to be indifferent. Btw, i use XP with a lot of tweaks to make it feel fast.

I do not have any video accelerator. I have an Intel 845 board.

Actually, i want Gnome to be less CPU and memory intense. Might you help me? Gnome alternative or Gnome tweaks? Or anything that can be used to improve my performance?

[techieMoe]

The performance issue is about the time to load a program, maximize-minimize time lag, and other user experience issues. I do not have that good internet connection but i have no complains with that. And, i have tested hard disk installation of Ubuntu, Fedora and Slackware.

512 MB of RAM should be sufficient for Gnome and KDE, however the lag you experience when maximizing/minimizing makes me wonder if your video hardware is properly configured. If for instance the distribution is trying to use the generic VESA driver rather than the proper Intel one you could experience slowdown.

Actually, i want Gnome to be less CPU and memory intense. Might you help me? Gnome alternative or Gnome tweaks? Or anything that can be used to improve my performance?

The first tweak I would suggest is turning off any services you don't need. If your computer doesn't have Bluetooth for instance, that service can be turned off. The same goes for things like cups (printing), evolution (if you don't use Evolution as your email client), etc. These things can be turned off by looking at your "Sessions" options in the System menu, if I'm not mistaken.

As far as Gnome alternatives, you've already tried XFce and mentioned not being satisfied. There's also IceWM, FVWM, and LXDE to look at. If you want serious minimalism you might consider Fluxbox. It uses about 1MB of RAM but it's definitely an acquired taste.

[sul4bh]

Thanks a lot.
I have been searching for some light weight Desktop Manager solutions and i found a very good resrource at Ubuntu help

'will try switching to Linux once again

[elija]

I see I have been beaten to recommending icewm

[jayd512]

You should be able to run pretty much any distro on those specs. My computer's got 512 MB RAM with a 1 gig processor, it runs Fedora without a hitch with IceWM on it.

[kopete]

I wouldn't use Fedora. I find it to the be the most counter-intuitive distro out there.

You cannot easily use the 'lsusb' command. 'bash: lsusb: command not found' is returned. Printers aren't detected and there is no area or utility program for installing them.