A lighter Kubuntu?

[Oceanwatcher]

I am going to install Linux on a friends computer and would love to install Kubuntu. However, the computer is not the latest model and I need to make things a bit lighter. This computer only has 512MB RAM and I think this is the most limiting factor at the moment. I might be able to get them to install more later, but for now, it is what they have.

Sometimes I wish Kubuntu came with a switch that said "Make everything lighter" - turning all the fancy stuff off, leaving only the design.

I am thinking of using Kubuntu 9.04 with KDE 3.5 and find a Oxygen theme for it so it looks as close as possible. I know it will not be the same, but it is good not to have it too different.

This is one more in the quest for turning everyone around me into Kubuntu users :-)

[dibl]

Re: A lighter Kubuntu?

I don't think I'd complicate matters by trying to put KDE 3.5 on 9.04 -- you've got the new X.org trying to run the old KDM -- sounds like trouble looking for a place to happen. Besides which, I'm not convinced that there is a noticeable difference in speed, to the typical user, between KDE 3.5 and 4.2.

Xubuntu is supposedly lighter than KDE or Gnome -- I can't prove it, personally. I guess I'd try that first.

If Xubuntu isn't the answer, then I think you're looking for one of the minimalist distros. If you want to go all the way, I guess Slax would be the answer (plus, you get KDE 3.5!).

[Oceanwatcher]

Re: A lighter Kubuntu?

I am already downloading the Kubuntu 9.04 - KDE3.5 CD. Will test and get back with info.

The point of sticking with KDE and Kubuntu is to minimize the number of variations introduced around me here. My friend already have Kubuntu 9.04 on his main computer with KDE 4.2.3, this one is for the kids, and I do not want to make too much confusion for him by introducing a totally different distro or desktop. So it is all about weighing the options...

I know about Xubuntu and have tried it a couple of times. But hoping to stick with KDE for now...

[dibl]

Re: A lighter Kubuntu?

Cool.

I'll be interested to hear how it works -- hopefully smoothly!

[jglen490]

Re: A lighter Kubuntu?

You will have to make your own decision of course, but here's a factual install plus a little personal opinion.

My laptop, that I'm using as we speak, is pretty old. It's an IBM T20 (PIII 700mhz/512MB/60GB). I just loaded 9.04 complete with KDE 4.2.2 and the standard stuff that comes with a Version Upgrade from 8.04. KDE 4 takes a bit of getting used to, the widgets approach is different, but it's beginning to make sense. I have a couple of minor issues to work out, but all in all from Akonadi to Xorg, it works.

That's where it stands. As for performance, I can only use the "butt dynamometer" to give an opinion. Start up is fairly quick, no less so than with 8.04. KDE 4 probably takes a bit more than 3.5.10 (which I really loved) to make its entire self known. Once up and running, firing up an app may be a twitch slower, but then again Firefox, Kontact, et al may be a bit heavier. At no time does the system seem to strain. Just like me, it a little bit slower.

Running "free"results in"

john@john-laptop:/usr/share/zoneinfo$ free
       total    used    free   shared  buffers   cached
Mem:    509444   494204   15240     0   17248   189460
-/+ buffers/cache:   287496   221948
Swap:    747012   94652   652360

Which, in my mind, is fairly typical of what was happening under 8.04.

You can find all kinds of lighter distros such as Slax, DSL, Puppy, Xubuntu, etc. Each has its merits and its penalties. I would suggest trying Kubuntu first. If that's not satisfactory, try Xubuntu, then Slax, DSL, Puppy, or the hoards of others that will probably be recommended.

[pansz]

Re: A lighter Kubuntu?

I don't think I'd complicate matters by trying to put KDE 3.5 on 9.04 -- you've got the new X.org trying to run the old KDM -- sounds like trouble looking for a place to happen. Besides which, I'm not convinced that there is a noticeable difference in speed, to the typical user, between KDE 3.5 and 4.2.
Xubuntu is supposedly lighter than KDE or Gnome -- I can't prove it, personally. I guess I'd try that first.

For the OP, the most limiting factor of KDE 4 is not the memory, it is the CPU.

KDE 3.5 and KDE 4.2 has *great* performance differences in my two computers, that is my experiment and I'm quite sure it is a fair compare.

Many KDE 4.2 applications are eating up 100% of CPU just to do some animation or SVG rendering. that is the case for KDE4 so KDE4 much sluggish than KDE3, this cannot be cured even if you have 4G memory. —— You must have a decent CPU and decent graphic card with a decent driver to run KDE4 well, you have been warned. Memory is not the most limiting factor.

Xubuntu is in most case *not* an option, since you're using a completely different set of applications, if you like KDE with kde applications you won't want to switch all your applications into gtk ones just to save memory. ——Anyway, my experiences is that Xubuntu isn't noticeably faster than Kubuntu with KDE 3.5. No, no noticeable differences.

[vinnywright]

Re: A lighter Kubuntu?

my box
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vinny@Kubuntu:~$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 8
model name : Celeron (Coppermine)
stepping : 3
cpu MHz : 697.819
cache size : 128 KB
fdiv_bug : no
hlt_bug : no
f00f_bug : no
coma_bug : no
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 2
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 mmx fxsr sse up
bogomips : 1395.63

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vinny@Kubuntu:~$ free
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 379016 371088 7928 0 11224 159352
-/+ buffers/cache: 200512 178504
Swap: 650624 113824 536800
vinny@Kubuntu:~$

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vinny@Kubuntu:~$ lspci
00:00.0 Host bridge: Intel Corporation 82810 GMCH (Graphics Memory ControllerHub) (rev 03)
00:01.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation 82810 (CGC) Chipset Graphics Controller (rev 03)
00:1e.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801AA PCI Bridge (rev 02)
00:1f.0 ISA bridge: Intel Corporation 82801AA ISA Bridge (LPC) (rev 02)
00:1f.1 IDE interface: Intel Corporation 82801AA IDE Controller (rev 02)
00:1f.2 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801AA USB Controller (rev 02)
00:1f.3 SMBus: Intel Corporation 82801AA SMBus Controller (rev 02)
00:1f.5 Multimedia audio controller: Intel Corporation 82801AA AC'97 Audio Controller (rev 02)
01:0b.0 Ethernet controller: ADMtek NC100 Network Everywhere Fast Ethernet 10/100 (rev 11)
01:0d.0 Network controller: Atheros Communications Inc. AR5008 Wireless Network Adapter (rev 01)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and it works fine with 9.04............but it was a bit better with 8.04 as far as load average (cpu % used) but if your CPU is better than 700MHz you should be good........LOL

VINNY

[aged hippy]

Re: A lighter Kubuntu?

You can find all kinds of lighter distros such as Slax, DSL, Puppy, Xubuntu, etc. Each has its merits and its penalties. I would suggest trying Kubuntu first. If that's not satisfactory, try Xubuntu, then Slax, DSL, Puppy, or the hoards of others that will probably be recommended.

I've stuck with Hardy (8.04.2) but will probably install 9.04 sometime, i also run Mepis 8, which seems to me to be slightly faster than Kubuntu - but that's not a great deciding factor, i like KDE 3.5 and find KDE 4.x to be too CPU-intensive - at least, on this machine.

To each their own. 8)