Hi everyone!
I am just installing Antix 16.1 32bit on my ancient Thinkpad R40 with 512MB of ram and I am just wondering which window manager would be the lightest on resources , yet still usable.
Also when I decided which one I would use, how can I make it as the default one, so I dont need to choose it every single time I reboot my computer? I would be interested in your experiences and advices.
Thank you very much!
topic title: Lightest Antix16.1 window manager
-
Zoleeka88Posts: 7
- Joined: 11 Mar 2017
-
rokytnjiPosts: 4,164
- Joined: 20 Feb 2009
#2
Have fun finding out yourself which is most comfy cosy for you to use. I usually fly with fluxbox on 512 MB of ram and boot into Icewm also because they are close in ram usage.
Some like JWM instead.
Some are really are good at using AntiX on low spec systems
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://www.herbstluftwm.org/tutorial.html"
linktext was:"https://www.herbstluftwm.org/tutorial.html"
====================================
No need to install it. It is already there. Ready to use. __{{emoticon}}__
All of them fit that statement. Conky will tell you after bootup. The F1 key at slim login screen is your friend when when changing window managers as well as Menu>Desktop>Other Desktops.would be the lightest on resources , yet still usable.
Have fun finding out yourself which is most comfy cosy for you to use. I usually fly with fluxbox on 512 MB of ram and boot into Icewm also because they are close in ram usage.
Some like JWM instead.
Some are really are good at using AntiX on low spec systems
Lightest on full iso? =A Frugal Install lets you run antiX as a persistent live ISO on a hard drive. A Command Line Install boots directly to the command line and does not start X-windows. This can be useful to install on systems with very limited RAM.
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://www.herbstluftwm.org/tutorial.html"
linktext was:"https://www.herbstluftwm.org/tutorial.html"
====================================
No need to install it. It is already there. Ready to use. __{{emoticon}}__
-
dolphin_oraclePosts: 2,238
- Joined: 16 Dec 2007
#3
IIRC, icewm and jwm are neck and neck. and I think the rox-desktop options are lighter than the spacefm ones. personally, I find fluxbox the most responsive, but I've been using fluxbox for years and years.
If you want the change to be permanent, choose the new desktop from the"Other Desktops" menu. The antiX system will remember the change.
If you want the change to be permanent, choose the new desktop from the"Other Desktops" menu. The antiX system will remember the change.
-
anticapitalista
Posts: 5,955
- Site Admin
- Joined: 11 Sep 2007
#4
If you want the lightest, go for min-jwm. No icons on the desktop, no wallpaper image, but very fast and light. Hey icons and pictures = bloat __{{emoticon}}__
-
fatmacPosts: 850
- Joined: 26 Jul 2012
#5
I always use Fluxbox, straight, no add ons. __{{emoticon}}__
-
anticapitalista
Posts: 5,955
- Site Admin
- Joined: 11 Sep 2007
#6
I use herbstluftwm even though it uses more ram than IceWM, fluxbox and JWM (without rox or spacefm 'desktop').
Very responsive since I prefer tiling to stacking.
Fluxbox used to be my favourite for years.
Very responsive since I prefer tiling to stacking.
Fluxbox used to be my favourite for years.
-
Zoleeka88Posts: 7
- Joined: 11 Mar 2017
#7
I have ended up with Space-IceWm for now, though min-jwm was the lightest choice for real. It used only 68 Mb of RAM, compared to Space-IceWm's 89 MB, but in my opinion the spacefm is a better choice than roxfm, so I don't mind sacrificing that 20 MB of memory, because the system still runs very very well __{{emoticon}}__ AntiX 16.1 just saved this almost 14 years old Thinkpad from the grave and it is functioning perfectly again! Great job, great distro, everything worked out of the box and I just simply love it already! Thank you very much for the tips and advices guys! I would like to share the final result with you, I am so happy with it __{{emoticon}}__
-
anticapitalista
Posts: 5,955
- Site Admin
- Joined: 11 Sep 2007
#8
Nice! Now enjoy the lighter side of linux __{{emoticon}}__
BTW you could possibly reduce the ram usage even more by disabling or removing apps/services you do not need. For example, if you have no need for printing, disable cups and if you are happy with ceni to manage networks including wifi, remove or disable wicd.
BTW you could possibly reduce the ram usage even more by disabling or removing apps/services you do not need. For example, if you have no need for printing, disable cups and if you are happy with ceni to manage networks including wifi, remove or disable wicd.
-
Zoleeka88Posts: 7
- Joined: 11 Mar 2017
#9
On my other two machines I am using MX-16 and love it too, but for this thinkpad Antix was the best choice I could possibly make in my opinion. I have never experienced such a light distro before in my life.
Im considering installing it on my quite old desktop PC too, and keep using MX-16 on my main machine as it is a quite powerful one. From the thinkpad I won't do any printing and it doesn't have any working wifi adapter, it's ethernet only since the wifi adapter died, so I will definitely try to disable those services then, thank you for the tip! @anticapitalista __{{emoticon}}__
Im considering installing it on my quite old desktop PC too, and keep using MX-16 on my main machine as it is a quite powerful one. From the thinkpad I won't do any printing and it doesn't have any working wifi adapter, it's ethernet only since the wifi adapter died, so I will definitely try to disable those services then, thank you for the tip! @anticapitalista __{{emoticon}}__
-
rokytnjiPosts: 4,164
- Joined: 20 Feb 2009
#10
zram-t6369.html
compressing-ram-with-zram-t3536.html
screw it. Shotgun approach
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://www.google.com/search?q=zram+site%3Aantix.freeforums.org&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8"
linktext was:"link"
====================================
Just add some omph to a slow machine.
compressing-ram-with-zram-t3536.html
screw it. Shotgun approach
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://www.google.com/search?q=zram+site%3Aantix.freeforums.org&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8"
linktext was:"link"
====================================
Just add some omph to a slow machine.
-
Zoleeka88Posts: 7
- Joined: 11 Mar 2017
#11
It seems to be quite a good stuff, is it hard to make it work on AntiX?
-
kozakiPosts: 32
- Joined: 15 Oct 2015
#12
zswap maximizes the use of fast RAM vs slow swap on low-memory machines.
1. zswap does make use of a swap partition (or file) so better check you have one before using it:
Look conky: if it does show some value after the « swap » line then you do have a swap.
2. Activate it"live" to see how it works for you
Zswap is part of the kernel since linux-3.11. So its activation is rather simple if your kernel supports it: Nothing to install.
Reboot and press"e" when GRUB boot loader shows up, look for the line that shows"linux /boot/vmlinuz-(...)", and add"zswap.enabled=1 zswap.max_pool_percent=25". E.g. full line:
Now test your box.
3. Activate it automatically
Open /boot/default/grub as root with your favorite editor;
Find the line that shows 'GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT="quiet"'
Add the following, e.g. full line:
Also you can use a slightly more efficient compression mode called 'lz4' by installing 'liblz4-1' package and adding the following to the same /etc/default/grub file
1. zswap does make use of a swap partition (or file) so better check you have one before using it:
Look conky: if it does show some value after the « swap » line then you do have a swap.
2. Activate it"live" to see how it works for you
Zswap is part of the kernel since linux-3.11. So its activation is rather simple if your kernel supports it: Nothing to install.
Reboot and press"e" when GRUB boot loader shows up, look for the line that shows"linux /boot/vmlinuz-(...)", and add"zswap.enabled=1 zswap.max_pool_percent=25". E.g. full line:
Code: Select all
linux /boot/vmlinuz-3.16.0-4-586 root=UUID=XXX ro zswap.enabled=1 zswap.max_pool_percent=25 vga=788 quiet3. Activate it automatically
Open /boot/default/grub as root with your favorite editor;
Find the line that shows 'GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT="quiet"'
Add the following, e.g. full line:
Code: Select all
GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT="zswap.enabled=1 zswap.max_pool_percent=25 vga=788 quiet"Code: Select all
sudo apt install liblz4-1
sudo vim (or your favorite editor) /etc/default/grub
GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT="zswap.enabled=1 zswap.max_pool_percent=25 zswap.compressor=lz4 vga=788 quiet"-
figosdevPosts: 148
- Joined: 29 Jun 2017
#13
half a gig of of ram?
icewm and jwm are suitable for a machine that has 20 percent as much. have fun.
icewm and jwm are suitable for a machine that has 20 percent as much. have fun.
-
Colonel PanicPosts: 45
- Joined: 14 Mar 2010
#14
I'm using Fluxbox at the moment, but I'm also keen to learn something about tiling managers such as dwm and herbstluftwm (I used Ratpoison a while back).
I believe I'm also one of the few people left who still uses twm (when I'm in Slackware).
I believe I'm also one of the few people left who still uses twm (when I'm in Slackware).
-
Posts: 1,139
masinick - Joined: 26 Apr 2008
#15
Quite a few years ago now, when antiX was smaller and lighter than it is now, I did a few memory usage studies and I compared how much total system memory was consumed immediately after login, with only minimal services enabled.
If I remember correctly, the Fluxbox and IceWM implementations were extremely close in memory utilization, but back then, BOTH of them came in under 60M total memory consumption; I believe the best I recorded may have been @ 58MB each. I vaguely recall trying OpenBox and a few others, which may or may not have included JWM at that time, and probably not min-JWM. That, if I included it in the tests, wasn't far off either.
In fact, even throwing in Xfce with its default window manager, though 20-30 MB more at the time, was still a viable option on aging hardware, and I eventually built my own antiX Core using Xfce and it was one of my favorite distributions for several years.
Interestingly, when our project came out with MX Linux, it was VERY similar to what I had done with antiX Core, and close enough that I just used MX.
If you're super tight on memory, then MX might not be right for you, but a real positive about MX is that it uses only nominally more resources than antiX and it's just a little more conservative when it comes to early technology, so if you want a stable platform, MX, based on antiX is a nice option to consider.
For me, I find that antiX, with the various variations, Full, Base, and Core, give me the flexibility to build what I want, like, and use. But when I don't have the time or energy to fiddle around, MX provides some added value. It's easier to create, install, and configure than most systems, comes ready to go, and for day to day use on an aging device that still has ample capacity, MX is perfect.
If MX ends up being a bit too heavy, then antiX with just a window manager and only the apps that you are actively using active, you will be surprised at how much useful work you can accomplish with a minimal set of tools and applications that are well-chosen. You can add more, and take others away relatively easily, something that Debian-based systems have in common. The one limitation to both MX and antiX systems is that they are based on processors in the Intel and AMD families only - fortunately most of the equipment commonly used in commodity hardware comes from Intel and AMD, so MX and antiX run on the hardware that the vast majority of us use.
If I remember correctly, the Fluxbox and IceWM implementations were extremely close in memory utilization, but back then, BOTH of them came in under 60M total memory consumption; I believe the best I recorded may have been @ 58MB each. I vaguely recall trying OpenBox and a few others, which may or may not have included JWM at that time, and probably not min-JWM. That, if I included it in the tests, wasn't far off either.
In fact, even throwing in Xfce with its default window manager, though 20-30 MB more at the time, was still a viable option on aging hardware, and I eventually built my own antiX Core using Xfce and it was one of my favorite distributions for several years.
Interestingly, when our project came out with MX Linux, it was VERY similar to what I had done with antiX Core, and close enough that I just used MX.
If you're super tight on memory, then MX might not be right for you, but a real positive about MX is that it uses only nominally more resources than antiX and it's just a little more conservative when it comes to early technology, so if you want a stable platform, MX, based on antiX is a nice option to consider.
For me, I find that antiX, with the various variations, Full, Base, and Core, give me the flexibility to build what I want, like, and use. But when I don't have the time or energy to fiddle around, MX provides some added value. It's easier to create, install, and configure than most systems, comes ready to go, and for day to day use on an aging device that still has ample capacity, MX is perfect.
If MX ends up being a bit too heavy, then antiX with just a window manager and only the apps that you are actively using active, you will be surprised at how much useful work you can accomplish with a minimal set of tools and applications that are well-chosen. You can add more, and take others away relatively easily, something that Debian-based systems have in common. The one limitation to both MX and antiX systems is that they are based on processors in the Intel and AMD families only - fortunately most of the equipment commonly used in commodity hardware comes from Intel and AMD, so MX and antiX run on the hardware that the vast majority of us use.