Which is the best DE for a really old pc?

mariosangiorgio · 2010-07-10 08:26:58

Hi,
I am installing Archlinux on a really old PC (It runs on a Pentium2 and has 320MB of RAM).
So far I performed a net-install, but I'd like to have a graphical user interface.

I'd like to have something less spartan than fluxbox, I think that JWM is going to be a fair choice. Do you agree with me or do you have other suggestions?

Thanks,
Mario

graysky · 2010-07-10 08:29:08

lxde

mariosangiorgio · 2010-07-10 08:32:44

graysky wrote:

lxde

Thanks for your reply.
I'd like to know why you say that LXDE is better than JWM.

To be honest I was thinking at JWM because I know it is used in light distributions like PuppyLinux, but of course if you say that LXDE is better I'll give it a try.

flamelab · 2010-07-10 08:33:13

Xfce4 for me.

graysky · 2010-07-10 08:34:17

Right... lxde is lighter than Xfce4 but both are good ones.

mariosangiorgio · 2010-07-10 08:36:23

flamelab wrote:

Xfce4 for me.

Xfce4 seems too heavy for my hardware. I tried it with a Xubuntu and its performance were really poor.

Mzg · 2010-07-10 08:51:57

Xfce is maybe a bit heavy, yeah. I use it and it's nice, but lxde is probably a better choice for you. I also like Openbox, but since Fluxbox is too light for you it's probably not an option

Sertse · 2010-07-10 08:54:14

Xfce isn't bad, I use it. It's unfortunately people judge it based on Xubuntu.

That said, looking at your computer stats. Lxde works.

tjwoosta · 2010-07-10 08:59:47

Here are some other light float wm's that I like, although not as much as fluxbox and openbox.

icewm
pekwm
fvwm
twm (comes with xorg so you probably already have it)

cesura · 2010-07-10 09:07:40

Why don't you try a tiling window manager like dwm or awesome? (or catwm! )

mariosangiorgio · 2010-07-10 09:11:19

itsbrad212 wrote:

Why don't you try a tiling window manager like dwm or awesome? (or catwm! )

I never heard of them. The only requirement I have is that the DE should be as easy to use as possible since it will be used by my parents.

graysky · 2010-07-10 09:19:56

easy = lxde

mariosangiorgio · 2010-07-10 09:27:02

graysky wrote:

easy = lxde

Good, I'm going with that.
I have a little problem now. When I type

pacman -S lxde

it says

error: 'lxde': could not find or read package

Do I have to add any other repository?

Last edited by mariosangiorgio (2010-07-10 09:27:30)

flamelab · 2010-07-10 09:38:46

mariosangiorgio wrote:

flamelab wrote:
Xfce4 for me.
Xfce4 seems too heavy for my hardware. I tried it with a Xubuntu and its performance were really poor.

Xubuntu is not a way to test Xfce4. Arch+Xfce4, that is.

flamelab · 2010-07-10 09:39:18

mariosangiorgio wrote:

graysky wrote:
easy = lxde
Good, I'm going with that.
I have a little problem now. When I type
pacman -S lxde
it says
error: 'lxde': could not find or read package
Do I have to add any other repository?

pacman -Syu

pacman -S lxde

mariosangiorgio · 2010-07-10 09:43:31

flamelab wrote:

mariosangiorgio wrote:
graysky wrote:
easy = lxde
Good, I'm going with that.
I have a little problem now. When I type
pacman -S lxde
it says
error: 'lxde': could not find or read package
Do I have to add any other repository?
pacman -Syu
pacman -S lxde

Thanks it worked.
As soon as I finish to install xorg I'll let you know how is lxde working.

mariosangiorgio · 2010-07-10 12:42:33

I managed to get LXDE installed. It works smoothly but I have a little issue enabling the shutdown. I opened a new thread on this topic http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 05#p789405

Thanks to everybody helped me choose LXDE!

lordmetroid · 2010-07-10 13:14:48

I like my openbox and I am running it on a new computer with specs far exceeding yours. Do you really need a full desktop environment rather than simply a window manager?

Sarai · 2010-07-11 15:00:40

lordmetroid wrote:

I like my openbox and I am running it on a new computer with specs far exceeding yours. Do you really need a full desktop environment rather than simply a window manager?

QFT

I think the mistake a lot of newbies make (I was confused on this myself originally) is that the difference between a window manager and a desktop environment is really just additional software. A desktop environment comes with a suite of software (gui config tools, browser, word processor, etc) whereas with a window manager, it's a la carte and you pick and choose what you want.
That's why it seems sort of backwards to me to install LXDE over Openbox when the goal is minimalism... everyone here does remember that LXDE is Openbox, right? There are differences of course but trying both, I have to say I found LXDE's implimentation of Openbox to be really confounding. Openbox standalone takes a little longer to setup but imho it's a more cohesive and user friendly, and it's a LOT smaller.
That said, not using a DE has its downsides too. You have to install a lot of stuff by hand and you have to be prepared to install other stuff as you find you need it. In a situation that the end user might be uncomfortable using the command line to pacman their way to new software, I can see the appeal of having everything pre-installed- what I'm less clear on is why someone unfamiliar with the command line would be given Arch Linux in the first place. Isn't that what Ubuntu is for?
Anyway, YMMV etc etc. Just my humble two pennies.

Last edited by Sarai (2010-07-11 15:01:45)

mariosangiorgio · 2010-07-12 07:55:33

Sarai wrote:

lordmetroid wrote:
I like my openbox and I am running it on a new computer with specs far exceeding yours. Do you really need a full desktop environment rather than simply a window manager?
QFT
I think the mistake a lot of newbies make (I was confused on this myself originally) is that the difference between a window manager and a desktop environment is really just additional software. A desktop environment comes with a suite of software (gui config tools, browser, word processor, etc) whereas with a window manager, it's a la carte and you pick and choose what you want.
That's why it seems sort of backwards to me to install LXDE over Openbox when the goal is minimalism... everyone here does remember that LXDE is Openbox, right? There are differences of course but trying both, I have to say I found LXDE's implimentation of Openbox to be really confounding. Openbox standalone takes a little longer to setup but imho it's a more cohesive and user friendly, and it's a LOT smaller.
That said, not using a DE has its downsides too. You have to install a lot of stuff by hand and you have to be prepared to install other stuff as you find you need it. In a situation that the end user might be uncomfortable using the command line to pacman their way to new software, I can see the appeal of having everything pre-installed- what I'm less clear on is why someone unfamiliar with the command line would be given Arch Linux in the first place. Isn't that what Ubuntu is for?
Anyway, YMMV etc etc. Just my humble two pennies.

Let me try to clear your doubts.
In my case the ubuntu way was not viable due to the really limited performance of the computer. What I needed was a light system that was usable also by an unexperienced person.

This need led to the setup of an Archlinux system trying to keep it as easy to use as possible. So I faced the Arch way to setup the system in order to get exactly what I wanted from my linux box.
On the other hand I need a Desktop Environment to let my parents use the system in the most easy way. Of course I'll do the system mantainence and all the technical-related stuffs, but I wanted to give them the chance to be able to do as much as possible by their own.

stqn · 2010-07-12 14:15:35

It's too late but I wanted to say that 300 MB is about the max RAM usage I get under XFCE with all my usual software open (Pidgin, Transmission, aMule, Firefox with 12 tabs). Also as said previously, Xubuntu is slower than Arch+XFCE, though I don't know how it would perform on a Pentium 2.

Inxsible · 2010-07-12 14:19:24

I have a P3 256MB RAM. It doesn't run xfce at all.

I just use a minimal install of all i3 and musca. Very very few gui apps like chromium and gvim etc. But I try to use mostly CLI.

Sarai · 2010-07-12 15:47:30

mariosangiorgio wrote:

Let me try to clear your doubts.
In my case the ubuntu way was not viable due to the really limited performance of the computer. What I needed was a light system that was usable also by an unexperienced person.
This need led to the setup of an Archlinux system trying to keep it as easy to use as possible. So I faced the Arch way to setup the system in order to get exactly what I wanted from my linux box.
On the other hand I need a Desktop Environment to let my parents use the system in the most easy way. Of course I'll do the system mantainence and all the technical-related stuffs, but I wanted to give them the chance to be able to do as much as possible by their own.

Well, it's probably a bit on the late side now, but some sort of Ubuntu minimal, maybe Crunchbang Lite would probably have served your needs better. But really, it's not necessary to try to clear my doubts, as you say. The best way is what works for you, without sitting there at your computer I can't necessarily know what that is. That's the arch way!

DSpider · 2010-07-12 20:27:03

I always saw LXDE as being very ugly. Don't know why. I'm sure with a little imagination you can work wonders with it too. However, I'm more partial to Openbox myself. On the other hand, it may seem harder to learn but you can make magic with it. Check it: http://box-look.org

Also, for such old hardware, you may think about compiling from source. I've been told it gives you the maximum speed (performance-wise not compiling time-wise). A source-based distribution is Gentoo Linux.

xamaco · 2010-07-12 21:44:30

DSpiderAlso, for such old hardware, you may think about compiling from source. wrote:

I've been told it gives you the maximum speed (performance-wise not compiling time-wise). A source-based distribution is Gentoo Linux.

It's quite easy to make of Arch a source based distribution... My main PC is a desktop machine, but sometimes I need to use a laptop : It's an old Toshiba with 256 Mo of RAM and it roars like a lion (OK, granted, an old one :-) ) with Arch... No DE, Openbox and some cherry-picked applications. The wiki of Arch on Openbox is a very good starting point to get a customized Openbox config.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-07-10 08:26:58

Which is the best DE for a really old pc?

#2 2010-07-10 08:29:08

Re: Which is the best DE for a really old pc?

#3 2010-07-10 08:32:44

Re: Which is the best DE for a really old pc?

#4 2010-07-10 08:33:13

Re: Which is the best DE for a really old pc?

#5 2010-07-10 08:34:17

Re: Which is the best DE for a really old pc?

#6 2010-07-10 08:36:23

Re: Which is the best DE for a really old pc?

#7 2010-07-10 08:51:57

Re: Which is the best DE for a really old pc?

#8 2010-07-10 08:54:14

Re: Which is the best DE for a really old pc?

#9 2010-07-10 08:59:47

Re: Which is the best DE for a really old pc?

#10 2010-07-10 09:07:40

Re: Which is the best DE for a really old pc?

#11 2010-07-10 09:11:19

Re: Which is the best DE for a really old pc?

#12 2010-07-10 09:19:56

Re: Which is the best DE for a really old pc?

#13 2010-07-10 09:27:02

Re: Which is the best DE for a really old pc?

#14 2010-07-10 09:38:46

Re: Which is the best DE for a really old pc?

#15 2010-07-10 09:39:18

Re: Which is the best DE for a really old pc?

#16 2010-07-10 09:43:31

Re: Which is the best DE for a really old pc?

#17 2010-07-10 12:42:33

Re: Which is the best DE for a really old pc?

#18 2010-07-10 13:14:48

Re: Which is the best DE for a really old pc?

#19 2010-07-11 15:00:40

Re: Which is the best DE for a really old pc?

#20 2010-07-12 07:55:33

Re: Which is the best DE for a really old pc?

#21 2010-07-12 14:15:35

Re: Which is the best DE for a really old pc?

#22 2010-07-12 14:19:24

Re: Which is the best DE for a really old pc?

#23 2010-07-12 15:47:30

Re: Which is the best DE for a really old pc?

#24 2010-07-12 20:27:03

Re: Which is the best DE for a really old pc?

#25 2010-07-12 21:44:30

Re: Which is the best DE for a really old pc?

Board footer