AntiX On New (Fast) Hardware - Opinions?

4evrplan · posted: 2013-09-27 20:17

Hello beautiful AntiX community! I've been away for so long. I switched to Windows because I didn't want to live without Netflix, but a new era has dawned, more and more Windows software is available on Linux every day, and I've decided it's time to really dig in and learn the nuts and bolts of it. So... I'm back!

I'll be installing a VM on my work computer to learn on, a core i5 machine running Win 7 64 with 4GB of RAM. My work is such that I have considerable in-between time for"personal development"/"continued education"/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, and since I'm a computer technician and a programmer, learning Linux fits in nicely. I'll be trying to mirror as much as possible, the functionality in my Windows install and see if it's possible to do my job completely from within the VM. If I hit a wall, I'll simply minimize the VM and quickly do what I need to do from Windows. I figure this will be a great way to learn.

Okay, enough talk, and now to my question. By all accounts AntiX shines on older hardware, and I've experienced this myself. What I want to know is if there's any real benefit of using such a slim distribution on newer hardware versus Ubuntu? What, if any, feature/functionality would I be giving up? Would the improved performance be noticeable, or would the faster hardware make it completely irrelevant?

rokytnji · posted: 2013-09-27 23:15

I've blown away my Ubuntu installs for 64bit AntiX 13.1.

But as always. Personal preference comes into play so
like recommending what kind of girl or man you should
date is up to you.

I guess the only thing kinda lacking is all the
personal Ubuntu PPA roaming the net. I prefer
straight Debian myself though. I miss no functionality
myself converting media, but I am no gamer either.

rust collector · posted: 2013-09-28 00:28

well, this is mine, not quite new, but kinda modern, 4 core intel core i5, 4 gigs of ram...
It works... and it is pretty quick.
I don't think I notice the difference between antix, and a" big" distro as much on this machine, as I do on the little netbook, but it is noticeable.
But as roky says, it depends on you, maybe more than anything else. Antix is just what I am used to, so it is what I keep using.

Code: Select all

System:    Host: desktop Kernel: 3.7.10-antix.4-amd64-smp x86_64 (64 bit, gcc: 4.7.2) 
           Desktop: Fluxbox 1.3.2 dm: slim Distro: antiX-13.1_x64-base Luddite 19 June 2013
Machine:   System: Hewlett-Packard product: HP Compaq 8200 Elite SFF PC Chassis: type: 6
           Mobo: Hewlett-Packard model: 1495 Bios: Hewlett-Packard version: J01 v02.06 date: 06/09/2011
CPU:       Quad core Intel Core i5-2400 CPU (-MCP-) cache: 6144 KB flags: (lm nx sse sse2 sse3 sse4_1 sse4_2 ssse3 vmx) bmips: 24740.8 
           Clock Speeds: 1: 1600.00 MHz 2: 1600.00 MHz 3: 1600.00 MHz 4: 1600.00 MHz
Graphics:  Card: Intel 2nd Generation Core Processor Family Integrated Graphics Controller bus-ID: 00:02.0 chip-ID: 8086:0102 
           X.Org: 1.12.4 drivers: intel (unloaded: fbdev,vesa) Resolution: 1280x1024@60.0hz 
           GLX Renderer: Mesa DRI Intel Sandybridge Desktop GLX Version: 3.0 Mesa 8.0.5 Direct Rendering: Yes
Audio:     Card: Intel 6 Series/C200 Series Family High Definition Audio Controller 
           driver: snd_hda_intel bus-ID: 00:1b.0 chip-ID: 8086:1c20 
           Sound: Advanced Linux Sound Architecture ver: k3.7.10-antix.4-amd64-smp
Network:   Card: Intel 82579LM Gigabit Network Connection 
           driver: e1000e ver: 2.1.4-k port: f080 bus-ID: 00:19.0 chip-ID: 8086:1502
           IF: eth0 state: down mac: 2c:41:38:9e:c8:14
Drives:    HDD Total Size: 250.1GB (-)
           1: id: /dev/sda model: Hitachi_HDS72102 size: 250.1GB serial: JP0272J21LGKZM 
Partition: ID: / size: 228G used: 15G (7%) fs: ext4 ID: swap-1 size: 2.17GB used: 0.01GB (1%) fs: swap 
Sensors:   System Temperatures: cpu: 18.0C mobo: N/A 
           Fan Speeds (in rpm): cpu: N/A 
Info:      Processes: 129 Uptime: 5 days Memory: 460.4/3846.7MB Runlevel: 5 Gcc sys: N/A 
           Client: Shell (bash 4.2.37 running in roxterm) inxi: 1.9.14

dolphin_oracle · posted: 2013-09-28 01:03

well, if you've got the hardware, there is nothing wrong with the big boys. but antix is pretty damn fast on my core i5. and as a famous engineer once said"The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."

There is a down side. its so fast on my newer hardware that it makes using my older hardware painful, even though they all run better on antix than windows xp (the other systems can't run win7). __{{emoticon}}__

I also lingered on windows for a long time due to netflix, but netflix can run on linux with a little wine magic (and a ubuntu ppa) here's a video.

4evrplan · posted: 2013-09-28 15:36

Great stuff dolphin_oracle! Thank you, I'll be wanting that soon.

posted: 2013-09-28 17:00

There are 2 main schools of Linux, Debian & RedHat, they are used by most sys admins, (& sometimes SuSE is also used).

So to increase your portfolio, I'd pick one of the 2; personally I go for Debian based systems.

4evrplan · posted: 2013-09-28 21:22

Oh, that's been decided. It's either AntiX or Ubuntu, and I'm going to try AntiX first.

rust collector · posted: 2013-09-28 21:27

hehe, so debian... lol

4evrplan · posted: 2013-09-30 16:46

@dolphin_oracle

I followed your instructions to get Netflix working, not that I'll be watching it at work, but I wanted to test it out. Unfortunately, because it's running in a VM, it's extremely slow, and I can't get a realistic feeling for performance. Would you say the video/audio playback is as buttery smooth as a Windows installation, or at least comparable? I'd like to know, because I may eventually migrate my home machine to Linux.

rokytnji · posted: 2013-09-30 18:45

4evrplan wrote:@dolphin_oracle

I followed your instructions to get Netflix working, not that I'll be watching it at work, but I wanted to test it out. Unfortunately, because it's running in a VM, it's extremely slow, and I can't get a realistic feeling for performance. Would you say the video/audio playback is as buttery smooth as a Windows installation, or at least comparable? I'd like to know, because I may eventually migrate my home machine to Linux.

Code: Select all

Inxi -G

Example

Code: Select all

$ inxi -G
Graphics:  Card: Intel Mobile 915GM/GMS/910GML Express Graphics Controller 
           X.Org: 1.12.4 drivers: intel (unloaded: fbdev,vesa) Resolution: 800x480@60.0hz 
           GLX Renderer: Mesa DRI Intel 915GM x86/MMX/SSE2 GLX Version: 1.4 Mesa 8.0.5

in VM is needed to answer your questions. Choppy playback may be a generic driver issue in Windows 7 VM. I am no Windows or VM expert though.

4evrplan · posted: 2013-09-30 19:40

When I tried to run it as a limited user, it just hung there indefinitely (I hit Ctrl-C), but as SU:

inxi -G
Graphics: Card: InnoTek Systemberatung VirtualBox Graphics Adapter
X.org: 1.12.4 drivers: ati,vboxvideo (unloaded: fbdev,vesa) tty size: 80x28 Advanced Data: N/A for root

dolphin_oracle · posted: 2013-09-30 23:42

depends on your hardware of course. I have two netflix on antix setups. one is on my eeepc (1.6 ghz atom, intel graphics , 2gb ram) and the other is a core i5 with Intel HD grahpics.

it takes a little while to load on both systems, and hd is no-no on the netbook (even full screen is a challenge), but once netflix loads up its pretty smooth. the core-i5 machine handles HD video and everything.

To get a realistic feel for how it will run, run netflix in mozilla firefox on your windows install. it will feel similar, but load slightly slower.