Which linux distro will roughly match desktop performance of xp

bledd · 13 Nov 2007 at 19:04

Every distro I've ever tried has seemed sluggish on the desktop compared to xp

This is with low and high spec machines, I'd like to get to use it a bit, but hate the sluggishness, and firefox browser speeds etc..

swinnie · 13 Nov 2007 at 19:16

What distros have you tried?

Rich43 · 13 Nov 2007 at 19:18

Try a more lightweight window manager like xfce, make sure you have graphics drivers properly installed (Like nvidia binary drivers?), try it with 3d desktop on and off?

Also, There is a linux version of opera, ive heard reports of that being fast.

More ram usually speeds Linux up a lot.

eXor · 13 Nov 2007 at 19:27

Arch Linux base install + fluxbox + firefox.

Not the prettiest, but it performs.

Rich43 · 13 Nov 2007 at 19:49

I got another idea, he could try 64bit Linux.

Edit: One way to speed up firefox is to type about:config in addressbar and look for network.http.pipelining and enable that.
Edit2: Tried that myself, webpages load much faster

bledd · 13 Nov 2007 at 19:51

i've tried the main ones i've read about...

ubuntu/kubuntu (many versions)
fedora (many versions)

they just all feel sluggish, like macos

whitecrook · 13 Nov 2007 at 21:57

Nvidia binary drivers should perform 99% identically between both windows and linux.

I do know what the OP means, sometimes a distro can just feel sluggish.

Gnome is much slower than KDE even on my C2D 1gb i can see the gnome rightclick menu being drawn to screen. KDE is very fast - e.g right click menus just appear. And K menu feels really responsive.

Flux and Windowmaker are very fast.

Oddly though I installed Ubuntu on a celeron 400 with 256 and it really ran quite faster than expected.

Just remembered. Fastest distro I tried was Yoper, on my XP1900+ 1GB. Very fast. Faster than XP

<edit for http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=yoper

bledd · 14 Nov 2007 at 12:49

thank, i'll give yoper a try

Dj_Jestar · 14 Nov 2007 at 12:53

My Gentoo box with any DE beats the "performance" of XP on the same machine

bledd · 14 Nov 2007 at 15:02

i'll give that a go too

i'm not saying xp doesn't have it's problems, but it's super snappy in explorer

The Mad Rapper · 14 Nov 2007 at 16:56

I use Ubuntu and that flies TBH. It certainly seems as responsive as XP, but even if it's a fraction of a second slower it's not as though you could do anything with that time anyway

saffyre · 14 Nov 2007 at 23:32

Gentoo + XFCE is pretty nippy.

Chaos · 14 Nov 2007 at 23:43

Arch and Gentoo seem to get recommended for speed.

memyselfandi · 15 Nov 2007 at 00:00

My XP2500+/1GB system with a AGP 6800GS seems to run Ubuntu 7.04 with no apparent sluggishness ... as does my OpenSUSE 10.3 system on a C2D2180/2GB system (PCIE 7300GT).

You want sluggish, try using a Piii600/512mb system running OpenSUSE 10.3 via a VNC desktop over a SSH tunnel across the internet when there's someone else also running a desktop on it locally ... that gave new meaning to the term sluggish ...

DRZ · 15 Nov 2007 at 02:24

Gentoo + XFCE if you want lightweight and superfast (although you pay for that speed in compile time). If you want a "full fat" window manager KDE is pretty nippy, I have always found it faster than Gnome once it has loaded.

Word of warning though: Gentoo is NOT for a beginner, there is no installer and it takes forever to install anything. Truly understanding all the use flags for compiling applications properly takes a while too, until then you will be building bloated apps for bloated kernels.

SiriusB · 15 Nov 2007 at 13:33

Have you tried the latest version of Ubuntu? 7.10 is very, very quick, even with the 3D desktop [Compiz] enabled. Though of course I wouldn't recommend 3D desktop on a low-end machine.

Dj_Jestar · 15 Nov 2007 at 13:36

DRZ said:
Gentoo + XFCE if you want lightweight and superfast (although you pay for that speed in compile time).

I'd say in the short term, yes, but in the long term you'll not be wasting any time because the extra performance will more than make up for it after even as little as a fortnight

DRZ said:
Word of warning though: Gentoo is NOT for a beginner, there is no installer and it takes forever to install anything. Truly understanding all the use flags for compiling applications properly takes a while too, until then you will be building bloated apps for bloated kernels.

^^ but I would add that if you are wanting to learn more about computers, irrespective of OS, this is a fantastic way to learn. The Deep End.

SiriusB · 15 Nov 2007 at 14:48

You neglected to mention that the Linux Deep End has sharks. And crocodiles.

Smeg4Brains · 15 Nov 2007 at 15:26

SiriusB said:
Have you tried the latest version of Ubuntu? 7.10 is very, very quick, even with the 3D desktop [Compiz] enabled. Though of course I wouldn't recommend 3D desktop on a low-end machine.

Not on my quad core it wasnt.

It was certainly faster than the last release, but still nowhere near on par with XP.

You really need gentoo if you want a fast distro, gentoo+kde4 = the shiznit

DRZ · 15 Nov 2007 at 15:57

I found 7.04 to be a fair bit slower than 6.10 generally, although both 7.04 and 6.10 are massively faster than 6.04 and previous, especially booting. On my main rig, 6.10 is faster than XP.

Even with a kernel I compiled myself for 7.04 I wasn't happy with the performance, and I haven't got around to trying 7.10 yet

I am probably going to put Gentoo on my main rig sometime soon - at the moment its just on my servers