Re: Looking for distros suitable for low-memory/low processor situations.

In <Xns99A33C624CC69lostthreads@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, on Thu, 06 Sep 2007
04:56:06 -0500, -Lost, maventheextrawords@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

SLAX was a perfect example of this. I am not totally sure if it was due
to KDE or just X Window period, but it ran sooooo slowly that I gave up
using it. However, running FluxBox on SLAX resulted in a *super* fast
distribution with low overhead. KDE applications are still painfully
slow at times though, but still much faster than X Window running KDE.

All distributions run a kernel. This, by definition,
is what defines Linux.

On top of that, you probably want to run X. This is
the program that creates graphical ability... clicking
the mouse to get certain results. This is all you
need to run your basic stuff like firefox, OOo, etc.

On top of that, you have a Window Manager. This is
the bit that defines the behavior of windows. What
kinds of buttons they'll have, what a right-click vs.
a left-click will do, etc.

On top of that is the DE, Desktop Environment.
This is your REAL memory hog. KDE is most bloated,
Gnome is marginally slimmer, XFCE is another step
lighter, but they all run "auto" features that hog
lots of CPU cycles.

No matter what distribution you run, it will be the
DE that slows you down more than anything. Any distro
on which you run only X with a window manager will be
fairly comparable. Any distro you run KDE on will be
similar to any other running KDE, etc.
.

Quantcast