Hi,
I feel comfortable with lubuntu and in general with ubuntu family. I have several scripts that allow me to maintain updated and upgraded my OS. On old computer with pentium 4, athlon 64 or atom single core or dual core with 512 MB or 1 GB of RAM, lubuntu is not so fast and especially with firefox is quite impossible to browse some websites.
I already tried qupzilla as browser and it is slightly better than firefox. I heard about antiX distribution that is Debian based and so it is very close to ubuntu family even if a lot of repository are not available. I tried it on virtual machine on my main computer and there is not great difference in term of speed.
I search on the web a comparison between lubuntu and antiX, but I did not find any complete comparative.
Can you suggest your experience? Can you give me any hint?

Thank in advance

antiX is a million times better than lubuntu IMO (But I would say that wouldn't I). Here are some antiX pluses

Faster
Lighter on RAM
Fits on a cd
Huge number of live options
Easy Persistence set up
Easy frugal install

Of course YMMV - use whtaver you feel works best for you and your hardware.

The best distro is the one you like the best and is the easiest for you. Ultimately, you're the one who is gonna be using it.

If you ask in a Lubuntu forum, the answer is Lubuntu, if you ask in an antiX forum the answer is antiX. Right?
But you have to have used BOTH so you can make your mind.

In my case, antiX is the winner! Why?
I hate the *buntus, they are bloated, I hate Canonical policies.
Weaned on Debian, now DEVUAN - NO SYSTEMD.
Simple, antiX - NO SYSTEMD
Installation? antiX is the winner, hands down.
Everything works, forum is helpful.
Remember *buntus are based on Debian (so is antiX)
Check antiX and compare so you can make a selection.

Good luck!

Remember , to give each distro a 2 to 3 week drive test,

antiX should be ligther on the resources, but you are pushing the limits for modern web browsers, not matter what the distro. and give up on flash altogether at that level I would think.

Right on, Dolphin.

I gave up on Flash and switched HTML5.

These are my Add-ons in Firefox:

Html5 video everywhere
Adblock
Https everywhere
Vimperator

I use light window managers: JWM and IceWM

Modern web browsers now struggle with less than 2GB of ram, I used to have several machines with just 1GB, but I've upgraded them to 2GB because of this fact.

Obviously, AntiX is the recommended distro. __{{emoticon}}__

Thank you at everyone for important comments.

anticapitalista wrote:antiX is a million times better than lubuntu IMO (But I would say that wouldn't I). Here are some antiX pluses

Faster
Lighter on RAM
Fits on a cd
Huge number of live options
Easy Persistence set up
Easy frugal install

Of course YMMV - use whtaver you feel works best for you and your hardware.

I'm testing both distro under virtualbox virtual machines on GNU/linux with kernel version 4.10.0-24 on high end mobile CPU and 8 GB RAM system.
Since I did not find any benchmark, I'm manually trying to change the amount of RAM and CPU cores assigned to each virtual machine.
Up to now, I discovered that with 512 MB of RAM and one core, there is not great differences between antiX and lubuntu except the fact that the former is slightly faster on boot. While in term of usage there are no real differences.
While with 1 GB of RAM and one core, there are no real differences.

macondo wrote:The best distro is the one you like the best and is the easiest for you. Ultimately, you're the one who is gonna be using it.

If you ask in a Lubuntu forum, the answer is Lubuntu, if you ask in an antiX forum the answer is antiX. Right?
But you have to have used BOTH so you can make your mind.

In my case, antiX is the winner! Why?
I hate the *buntus, they are bloated, I hate Canonical policies.
Weaned on Debian, now DEVUAN - NO SYSTEMD.
Simple, antiX - NO SYSTEMD
Installation? antiX is the winner, hands down.
Everything works, forum is helpful.
Remember *buntus are based on Debian (so is antiX)
Check antiX and compare so you can make a selection.

Good luck!

Why are *buntu bloated? For what I know only ubuntu is bloated while ubuntu mate, xubuntu and lubuntu are not...

I know that both antiX and lubuntu are based on debian, however I did not know about systemd. This is a quite important missing feature since all the GNU/linux ecosytem is moving in this direction.
What I found, that I like less on antiX with respect to lubuntu, is less updated software (especially firefox, libreoffice and kernel) and this is related to debian repositories that are less updated with respect to ubuntu ones.

macondo wrote:Right on, Dolphin.

I gave up on Flash and switched HTML5.

These are my Add-ons in Firefox:

Html5 video everywhere
Adblock
Https everywhere
Vimperator

I use light window managers: JWM and IceWM

I suggest ublock origin
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock"
linktext was:"https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock"
====================================
instead of adblock since it more efficient in terms of RAM and CPU.

fatmac wrote:Modern web browsers now struggle with less than 2GB of ram, I used to have several machines with just 1GB, but I've upgraded them to 2GB because of this fact.

Obviously, AntiX is the recommended distro. __{{emoticon}}__

I think you are right, unfortunately a lot of RAM is required from modern web sites.

What I found, that I like less on antiX with respect to lubuntu, is less updated software (especially firefox

Specific to firefox, I prefer to find that"stable" distros stick with the ESR version.
Doing so is an important consideration toward achieving a stable O/S.

/opinion