Its up to you to decide how bloated you want it.

Eric, I would like to give my sincere thanks.

I am a Linux Lover (still relativley new to the scene but hey, I can tell I really like Linux.), but when you can't access the internet it makes it really hard to get each other component working. Even just the wireless or just the Ethernet would've kept me on track. But when absolutely nothing works it makes it really hard to press onward. I'm sure had I'd been an expert I would have got it up and going, but I'm still intermediate...

And that's why I'm here again. Thanks to all posters.

Eric,
On my computer, in the BIOS, I have an Atheros Network Boot Agent option in the Boot Order, and I do have a broadband connection and of course a cord. Will that be enough to allow Debian to connect to the internet? ~ I'd much rather do that than a full (potentially bloated) install.

Oh! You're right, it did that to me too. But I reloaded the page and it came on all right. :-)

Anyways, I am satisfied with default install of Ubuntu 9.04. It did not install many packages to begin with. I uninstalled those I did not want. Booting time is about 30 secs. on my Acer Aspire 5738z laptop with 3GB RAM. Applications start really fast.

But Slackware is faster. (I'm really sorry it didn't work out for you)

I would also have suggested Slackware, But do to your requirements. Have you tried Xubuntu 9.04 it is much
faster and less bloated and has gnome support with XFCE GUI, I use it on a Dell Precision M20 notebook along
with Windows XPP/SP3. The only issue is volume controls no go as have to left click speaker icon to have sound.

The network boot agent means that you can boot across the network if you have that possibility. That's not what you need to install Debian using the NETINST CD.

If you download the NETINST CD for Debian and boot from that, with the cable connected you should be able to perform the basic install and at the end select Desktop to install the graphical environment.

You can take a look at the screenshots of a Debian text install from the NETINST at this site so you know what to expect when booting from the CD.

Kind regards,

Eric

You can download and burn Live/Install disk and give a test. Keep
in mind Optical drive will not be as fast as Hard drive install

http://www.xubuntu.org/ main page
http://xubuntu.org/get download miorrors

I wrote a guide about netinst install maybe it could help. I am not aware of any "official" netinst guide so I created one, if anyone has an official netinst install guide for debian please share that. Remember this guide is to get Debian sid and not the stable Lenny. All you have to do is read it and don't change your repos to sidux repos and debian sid repos as I suggested there but instead select Lenny repos.

Regards

Thanks for the guides! Very helpful and I'm feeling a bit more confident on Debian. Although, it would be nice to have a working printer (:

I have an errand to run but after that (about 20 minutes), I will probably pull out a good old fashioned pen and paper and write down that important info. I'm hoping everything will work out right.

Thanks shylock for your guide and help.


Thanks guys!

Before you give Debian a go - try Sidux. It is basically Debian Unstable with quite some security / stability patches and a few scripts to increase ease of use (like automatically installing nvidia drivers etc.). So you'll always be bleeding edge, much unlike Debian Stable or sometimes even Testing, but still have a usable system, unlike native Debian Unstable

The above list of positive facts about Debian applies just as well, of course.

I was writing my guide for Debian install instructions (no printer) and I don't know what top put instead of .

What do I put there so it installs GNOME?

If you want to install Gnome after the base install of Debian then you could run:
which will install the X environment, the window manager and the desktop environment. But I think you'll end up with the same 'bloated' version of Gnome as is used in Ubuntu, maybe some software less.

Kind regards,

Eric

should pull in everything. Here's a list of gnome packages.

leopard,
Partly to blame this are the hardware makers hesitant to open up their codes. Yet, since you have known already the drivers through Ubuntu it would be easy now to hunt them down in the internet, Slackware install of modules (hardware drivers) is just easy terminal commands: it will give much thrill and satisfaction succeeding against that challenge.

Quote:

If Debian boots just 10-15 seconds faster, and has 20 less programs,

You have the choice upon installation of Debian. However, comparatively, with Slackware you have equally or better clinch over all boot up script: you can even boot it up with only kernel and shell, that if you don't need the X. Moreover, at the X you can choose a very slim window manager that only offers configuration menus and office suite.
Here fits Slackware completely, assuming that you have the time to learn and progress.

However, the need for gigantic repository to back you up, only Debian can offer you that. On the contrary, under Slackware with or without an equally big repo (Slackware has many though with very choosey taste) you are not afraid: you have the weapon to compile anything from source: the three step MAKE commands.

Debian is very good. But it seems your desire to control SPEED and rock solid stability will ultimately lead you to the doors of Slackware.

Hope this helps.

Good luck.

I expect most of the boot up time (and maybe a significant part of other times the system is slow) is reading from the hard disk.

A netbook hard disk is likely lower power and lower performance than other hard disks (I looked for specific stats, but couldn't find them).

I assume you put Windows physically first on the hard drive.

A typical hard drive has about twice as good performance for a partition at the physical beginning of the drive as for one at the physical end.

With plenty of ram for caching, and a pretty fast hard drive, and caring more about speed while using the system (rather than while booting), most of us don't really notice the performance loss from putting Linux toward the physical end of the disk in typical dual boot.

But in your case, it seems more likely that the physical locations of the partitions is a factor in the observed performance.