LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Desktop
User Name
Password
Linux - Desktop This forum is for the discussion of all Linux Software used in a desktop context.

Notices



Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 06-03-2010, 04:04 PM   #1
Josh000
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2009
Distribution: Slackware 13 64bit
Posts: 534

Rep: Reputation: 35
XFCE slower than XP on old hardware


Hi,

I was looking into xubuntu on older hardware because I want to run linux on these machines, and want a familiar desktop environment(so the *boxes are out), and read that xfce is meant to be great on old hardware.

I have not found this to be the case....it seems a lot chuggier than XP was on the same machine.

Are there any suggestions for improving performance before I just go back to windows?
 
Old 06-03-2010, 04:12 PM   #2
acid_kewpie
Moderator
 
Registered: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Distribution: Gentoo, RHEL, Fedora, Centos
Posts: 43,415

Rep: Reputation: 1968Reputation: 1968Reputation: 1968Reputation: 1968Reputation: 1968Reputation: 1968Reputation: 1968Reputation: 1968Reputation: 1968Reputation: 1968Reputation: 1968
xfce is just a window manager, XP is a full operating system. There is a huge amount of other stuff running on a linux machine, not just Xfce.
 
Old 06-03-2010, 04:38 PM   #3
pixellany
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Annapolis, MD
Distribution: Arch/XFCE
Posts: 17,802

Rep: Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729
To take it a step farther, the only way to make the proper comparison is when both machines have same functionality.

When I boot into XP lately, one of the big annoyances is the antiquated connection management. Compared to---eg---WICD, the stock XP setup is conspicuously bad. With something like this going on, I'll never notice which OS is faster.
 
Old 06-03-2010, 04:49 PM   #4
craigevil
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: OZ
Distribution: Debian Sid
Posts: 4,734
Blog Entries: 12

Rep: Reputation: 457Reputation: 457Reputation: 457Reputation: 457Reputation: 457
Take a look at > Installing and Optimizing Xubuntu - http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ubuntu-805736/

*buntu isn't one of the faster distros or lightest.
 
Old 06-03-2010, 04:54 PM   #5
kschmitt
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2009
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Distribution: Crux, CentOS, RHEL, Ubuntu
Posts: 96

Rep: Reputation: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh000 View Post
Are there any suggestions for improving performance before I just go back to windows?
That's not a lot of info to work off of. Without knowing anything about your setup, it's hard to help.

Open up a console and run top for awhile. You'll see what's eating up all the CPU cycles. That should point you in the right direction.

For instance, if Xorg or compiz is hogging most of the CPU, maybe you need to configure your X driver, or turn down the visual effects?

At very least post the output of dmidecode so people have an idea of what hardware you're dealing with. Again, open a console, then type sudo dmidecode.

--Kyle
 
Old 06-03-2010, 05:11 PM   #6
Joe of Loath
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Bristol, UK
Distribution: Ubuntu, Debian, Arch.
Posts: 152

Rep: Reputation: 28
Xubuntu isn't very lightweight, it only uses a little less memory than ubuntu. I prefer LXDE for slower machines. Fedora 12 LXDE only used about 90mb of RAM on my machine.
 
Old 06-03-2010, 05:16 PM   #7
Josh000
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2009
Distribution: Slackware 13 64bit
Posts: 534

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 35
I'm aware xfce is just a DE and there is more stuff going on under the hood, and my X driver is the only one available for this hardware.

Nothing like compiz is running, and no unnecessary services, only as basic as can be.

Still, on the same hardware, XP is faster. Honestly, I attribute this to XP have KMS since day one.

Still, I'll have a look and see if I can optimize things a bit more.
 
Old 06-03-2010, 05:41 PM   #8
John VV
Guru
 
Registered: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,508

Rep: Reputation: 1804Reputation: 1804Reputation: 1804Reputation: 1804Reputation: 1804Reputation: 1804Reputation: 1804Reputation: 1804Reputation: 1804Reputation: 1804Reputation: 1804
on my 10 year old dell
xp installed 0n a small hdd
Arch and CentOS 5.5 on a large hdd

arch and cent boot faster, speed is about the same for common tasks ( except boot) on all 3

full Gnome and KDE installed on arch and cent
 
Old 06-08-2010, 12:35 PM   #9
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269
Try a different distro, I see you have slackware listed as your distro, why not try that on it ? No KDE tho, use fluxbox or icewm.

If you're determined to go back to Window$, please do so. However, know that not only can you install a lighter distro, but also configure a distro to be lighter.

Also if it ends in *buntu, it's probably not gonna be light or fast.

Last edited by H_TeXMeX_H; 06-08-2010 at 12:38 PM.
 
Old 06-09-2010, 12:44 AM   #10
catkin
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Dec 2008
Location: Tamil Nadu, India
Distribution: Servers: Debian Squeeze and Wheezy. Desktop: Slackware64 14.0. Netbook: Slackware 13.37
Posts: 8,563
Blog Entries: 29

Rep: Reputation: 1179Reputation: 1179Reputation: 1179Reputation: 1179Reputation: 1179Reputation: 1179Reputation: 1179Reputation: 1179Reputation: 1179
Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
Try a different distro, I see you have slackware listed as your distro, why not try that on it ? No KDE tho, use fluxbox or icewm.
Or Xfce
 
Old 06-09-2010, 04:59 AM   #11
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269
XFCE, contrary to popular belief is NOT light.
 
Old 06-09-2010, 07:44 AM   #12
eveningsky339
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2010
Location: Western Maine
Distribution: PCLinuxOS (LXDE)
Posts: 466

Rep: Reputation: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
XFCE, contrary to popular belief is NOT light.
Lighter than KDE or Gnome for sure, though.
 
Old 06-09-2010, 08:59 AM   #13
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269
Quote:
Originally Posted by eveningsky339 View Post
Lighter than KDE or Gnome for sure, though.
yeah, but not by much, maybe 50 % lighter, and that's not enough many times.
 
Old 06-09-2010, 11:47 AM   #14
snowpine
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,921

Rep: Reputation: 1050Reputation: 1050Reputation: 1050Reputation: 1050Reputation: 1050Reputation: 1050Reputation: 1050Reputation: 1050
Hi Josh, posting your hardware specs would be helpful for us to give you advice.

I assume you have read the Xubuntu hardware requirements and that your computer meets (or preferably exceeds) them?

Quote:
Minimum system requirements for Xubuntu would fall roughly between Ubuntu Server and Desktop:

* 256 MiB of system memory (RAM)
* 2 GB of disk space
* Graphics card and monitor capable of 800x600 resolution

Regarding processors, a recent thread on the Ubuntu Forums describes a 500 MHz Xubuntu machine as being "too slow" and discusses alternatives: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1267443
You might also find this article enlightening, it recommends Debian Xfce as an alternative to Xubuntu: http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?is...090427#feature
 
Old 06-10-2010, 07:43 AM   #15
eveningsky339
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2010
Location: Western Maine
Distribution: PCLinuxOS (LXDE)
Posts: 466

Rep: Reputation: 51
You may also want to try LXDE. It is (supposedly) lighter than XFCE, but alas, functionality is greatly reduced. For example, you have to manage your wireless connections via the command line.

EDIT: Just did a little comparison between the two on Ubuntu 10.04 (I have both desktop environments installed on this machine.) While both are faster than Gnome, LXDE did strike me as the fastest of the two. And the layout was fairly intuitive. But again, no GUI for managing wireless connections...

Last edited by eveningsky339; 06-10-2010 at 07:48 AM.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FC6 gets slower and slower and slower... jonrpick Linux - Software 19 11-12-2007 04:02 PM
Slower after hardware upgrade fredmon Red Hat 1 01-19-2005 08:23 AM
Why is Mandrake/KDE getting slower and slower? KWTm Mandriva 12 09-28-2004 10:43 PM
Internet connection becomes slower and slower. caesius_01 Linux - General 1 03-14-2004 03:59 PM
Surfing gets slower and slower knotty Linux - Newbie 3 07-09-2003 09:23 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:56 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration