Old Computer. Horrible Ubuntu 12.04 performance

[ibex333]

So someone gave me a Dell Dimension 3000 and I decided to use it to learn Linux.

Specs are Intel Celeron 2.4GHz, 2GB ram, 80Gb IDE hard drive, integrated video and sound.
Because I dont know anything bout Linux and how to use it, I just installed with everything on default.

From what I heard Ubuntu performs exceptionally well on ancient PCs. Clearly it is not so. The OS is crawling. Every application I launch takes about 5-10 seconds to load. Even just opening a single browser window. This is annoying as hell. I am not looking to use any heavy duty apps on this computer. I just want to use it to learn terminal commands, writing scripts, and use Linux GUI. But I am hoping for much better performance.

How can I achieve this? I did some research and I see people talking about disabling Unity 3d. Ok I did it. There's no difference. I see some folks suggesting Xubuntu...

/start of short rant

I installed Xubuntu Desktop, and performance seems to have greatly increased, although CPU load jumps to 100% when installing apps, and loading application center still takes like 12-15 sec. The system is overall responsive, and the general feel is much, much better than Ubuntu Desktop. It is so much more intuitive and EASY to use, unlike Ubuntu. Everything is where it's supposed to be, so it can be easily found, not where someone thought it should be. After trying Xubuntu, I cant imagine why anyone in their right mind might want to use Ubuntu Desktop, and why Xubuntu isn't the default desktop. I wish I knew all this in the past when I installed and uninstalled Linux many times because I hated its ridiculous interface, and overall feel compared to Windows.

/end of rant

Still I was hoping for Vanilla Ubuntu Desktop experience with no "modding" because I intend to purchase some Linux books on amazon to learn the OS. As far as I understand these books usually dont cover Xubuntu or anything like that. Is there anything that can be done to do what I need?


PS: No "Angry Birds" in Application Center? What gives?! I thought Android was based on Linux?

Thanks.

 

[lxskllr]

Stick with Xubuntu if that's what you like. If I used Ubuntu, that's the Ubuntu I'd use. If you get books, it would be better to get something more general than a specific Ubuntu book. GNU/Linux has many desktops, and Ubuntu's Unity is only a small part. The underlying concepts will all be the same. You can get a basic book on Ubuntu to get you started, but I'd suggest getting Debian books beyond the basics. Ubuntu is heavily based on Debian, so you'll learn more about the core system rather than Ubuntu specifics which won't be as good if you stop using Ubuntu.

Linux? Android is Linux without the GNU. That's why I always specify GNU/Linux when talking about the typical desktop distro. Linux is just a kernel. It might be in your router, your phone, or your desktop. The GNU is what gives you freedom and power, and is what started this whole mess in the first place. GNU was created, but didn't have a kernel. Linux came along, and was an acceptable kernel, so it was used to complete the GNU system. There's a lot of argument between the open source people who prefer the term "Linux, and the free software people who prefer the term "GNU/Linux". I prefer GNU/Linux, but I'd be willing to compromise, and just call the whole system GNU :^P

Point is, Angry Birds would have to be ported, Android uses the Linux kernel, but at the user level runs code not unlike Java, and gets translated at runtime to execute the program. GNU/Linux doesn't work the same way.

 

[fread2281]

If you want to learn the OS and/or speed, gentoo or arch is best.

 

[theevilsharpie]

So someone gave me a Dell Dimension 3000 and I decided to use it to learn Linux.

Specs are Intel Celeron 2.4GHz, 2GB ram, 80Gb IDE hard drive, integrated video and sound.
Because I dont know anything bout Linux and how to use it, I just installed with everything on default.

From what I heard Ubuntu performs exceptionally well on ancient PCs. Clearly it is not so. The OS is crawling. Every application I launch takes about 5-10 seconds to load. Even just opening a single browser window. This is annoying as hell. I am not looking to use any heavy duty apps on this computer. I just want to use it to learn terminal commands, writing scripts, and use Linux GUI. But I am hoping for much better performance.

Your expectations of your computer's capabilities are way too high.

It looks like your computer has a Celeron D 320. These CPUs are now eight years old, and I can assure you that they were incredibly slow even when they were new. Even entry-level Atom processors outperform it by a substantial margin.

I've had the displeasure of using an HP desktop with this processor as my work PC about 6 years ago. The performance that you're seeing is typical, and it performed this way in Windows as well.

How can I achieve this? I did some research and I see people talking about disabling Unity 3d. Ok I did it. There's no difference. I see some folks suggesting Xubuntu...

/start of short rant

I installed Xubuntu Desktop, and performance seems to have greatly increased, although CPU load jumps to 100% when installing apps, and loading application center still takes like 12-15 sec. The system is overall responsive, and the general feel is much, much better than Ubuntu Desktop. It is so much more intuitive and EASY to use, unlike Ubuntu. Everything is where it's supposed to be, so it can be easily found, not where someone thought it should be. After trying Xubuntu, I cant imagine why anyone in their right mind might want to use Ubuntu Desktop, and why Xubuntu isn't the default desktop. I wish I knew all this in the past when I installed and uninstalled Linux many times because I hated its ridiculous interface, and overall feel compared to Windows.

/end of rant

Your primary bottleneck at this time is CPU performance. Other than overclocking, which is probably not possible with your Dell, the only way you're going to see improved responsiveness is by using less complex programs.

You've already seen that moving from Unity (one of the "heavier" Linux desktop environments) to XFCE (one of the lighter DE's) has improved performance. If you want to improve the performance of your applications, you'll need to finder lighter replacements.

Still I was hoping for Vanilla Ubuntu Desktop experience with no "modding" because I intend to purchase some Linux books on amazon to learn the OS. As far as I understand these books usually dont cover Xubuntu or anything like that. Is there anything that can be done to do what I need?

Regarding the Ubuntu Software Center, while your processor isn't helping matters much, USC is a slow application in general. It's not something I use every day, so I just deal with it. You can use the GUI-based Synaptic or the command-line based Aptitude if you want something faster, but these aren't direct equivalents of USC.

Regarding the OS itself, Xubuntu is a derivative of Ubuntu, which itself is a derivative of Debian. The graphical interface will be somewhat different, but the underlying operating system is the same. If you purchase a book to learn Ubuntu, the majority of the content will transfer over to Xubuntu.

PS: No "Angry Birds" in Application Center? What gives?! I thought Android was based on Linux?

Thanks.

Android uses the Linux kernel, but Android-specific applications and utilities make up the rest of the OS. Android hasn't (yet!) been ported to desktop Linux distributions, so you're not going to be able to run Android applications unless you actually run the Android OS.

That said, if you just want to play Angry Birds:
http://chrome.angrybirds.com/

 

[theevilsharpie]

If you want to learn the OS and/or speed, gentoo or arch is best.

No.

 

[MrColin]

I think you'll find that WinXP which came on that computer probably isn't very snappy either. You didn't mention what kind of graphics chip if any is on that laptop. If it's nVidia or ATI you'll need the appropriate driver. If its ATI you might be sol because the company obsoleted everything older than the HD3xxx on linux. Still, the graphics driver is where I would look first.

As far as learning linux, I'd reccomend not using any DE and go with the server edition (command line only), that's where the power is anyway. Also, you don't need to reinstall any of the *buntu's to change DE's. xfce and lxde will probably serve you the best on an old unit like that.

 

[MrColin]

Still I was hoping for Vanilla Ubuntu Desktop experience with no "modding" because I intend to purchase some Linux books on amazon to learn the OS. As far as I understand these books usually dont cover Xubuntu or anything like that. Is there anything that can be done to do what I need?

You really shouldn't need books to learn the GUI stuff, there are tons of free online docs for that and most people of low-average ability can just figure it out.

99% of everything you will need to know can probably be found on this site: http://www.cyberciti.biz/ and there are thousands of others like it.

 

[Cerb]

But I am hoping for much better performance.

How can I achieve this?

Take lots of downers, so that you will be groggy and slow to think whilst using the computer . Only in non-interactive programs was it ever faster than anything but VIA's CPUs. Worse yet, Intel's IGP from that era relied heavily on the CPU, making it doubly bad. My cousin had a similar system, and going to an Athlon XP laptop was a night as day improvement over it.

It's great you got a free laptop in good shape, and you should definitely use it, but don't let the GHz fool you into thinking that it should be speedy. It's not Ubuntu's fault that a Prescott or later P4 Celeron can't even keep up with an Atom .

After trying Xubuntu, I cant imagine why anyone in their right mind might want to use Ubuntu Desktop, and why Xubuntu isn't the default desktop. I wish I knew all this in the past when I installed and uninstalled Linux many times because I hated its ridiculous interface, and overall feel compared to Windows.

One thing to learn about Linux: you have many options.

Linux' interface is an exposed C API. Everything else can be changed. For a usable x86 desktop interface, there are, today, quite a few WM/DEs to choose from*.

XFCE: what Xubuntu is using. Honestly, today, it's good enough that I haven't felt like trying the new cool ones out.

KDE4: big, bad, and fully-featured.
Trinity: bringing back KDE3.

Gnome 3: I don't like it.
Gnome 2/Cinnamon: I never liked Gnome 2, either.

E17: Enlightenment is...it's own thing. Good for low-end systems, though, so it might be worth trying.

LXDE: modeled after earlier Windows GUIs (Win9x/NT), and was made to be minimal, but it is now close to XFCE in functionality. Another good choice for your CPU.

Openbox: the WM used by LXDE can be used all by its lonseome!

...and that is just scratching the surface! Do note that you can install these and others at the same time, and then choose which one to log in with (the login manager should have a session type button).

Still I was hoping for Vanilla Ubuntu Desktop experience with no "modding" because I intend to purchase some Linux books on amazon to learn the OS. As far as I understand these books usually dont cover Xubuntu or anything like that. Is there anything that can be done to do what I need?

There are some decent books on effectively using common command-line tools for useful tasks, which are going to be distro-independent. For most everything else, there are good enough online resources. FI, Google for, "introduction to Linux" (without quotes).

The whole philosophy is different, here.

While there is certainly ricing, like in Gentoo, modding as it might be known from Windows basically doesn't exist, because almost everything is, "modded." Ubuntu is a modded Debian, FI, and Xubuntu is a modded Ubuntu. Ubuntu even has sub sub distros.

Vanilla Ubuntu is practically a contradiction. Ubuntu itself is far from vanilla.

Linux exists in a largely horizontally integrated environment. You are used to a mostly-vertical environment, from the likes of MS and/or Apple. That needs to be one of your first goals: to get your head around a system that works by people modularly making and improving what they want and need in that system.

Also, Linux is designed to be poked around in. There isn't nearly the kind of barrier to get into the guts as with Windows. Core services can/must be reconfigured by using a plain old text editor, and you can change exposed kernel options from a terminal.

Books to get you into Linux will be mostly wasted money, IMO.

PS: No "Angry Birds" in Application Center? What gives?! I thought Android was based on Linux?

Just like Windows, you need to get it through the browser. You can access and use Google's web store with Chromium, FI.

* GNU core utilities, and Xorg server, are not things you change much from, usually.

 

[ibex333]

A little update:

I am already getting much more comfortable using Linux, and I was able to find replacements or Linux versions for just about all everyday software I am using.

Sadly, even in Xubuntu there is still quite some noticeable lag, and it tends to pop up in the strangest instances. For example, launching Chrome can be as fast as 1-2 seconds, but trying to open the Home folder from the desktop by simply clicking on it can bring the whole system to a crawl, and turn the OS completely unresponsive, and then the folder will just casually open up like 20 seconds later. Luckily, other things work quite well and launch fast. Videos open up and play fast and smooth. PDFs open fast and generally do not lag. Even big ones.


When viewing system processes, I noticed there's quite a lot of them. Is there an equivalent of a Windows "Startup" tab after running "msconfig" to disable processes from running at start in Linux?

What do you guys think about Puppy Linux and Damn Small Linux? I think I'll try these from USB drive and see if they offer better performance.

There is something so humbling and pleasantly interesting about running Linux on an ancient PC in the corner of the room when there is a beast of a computer on the other end of the same room with Windows 7 and some of the latest components available today... ; )

Oh and by the way, the PC in question is a Desktop, not a Laptop.


PS: Thanks everyone for lots of great info. Cerb, that was very insightful and interesting!

 

[lxskllr]

Puppy and DSL are good for what they are. Imo, your computer is too good to use such limited distros, but it depends on what you want. You may want to try Bodhi for something light, but with full repos.

Don't worry about the number of processes. They don't make much of a difference on Windows or GNU/Linux. You can disable some things from starting if you don't use them. It'll free a tiny bit of memory, and speed startup by a tiny amount. It's not a huge deal, so I wouldn't recommend disabling a bunch of stuff, but for things you definitely won't use, it can't hurt. Goto Settings-Settings manager-Session and Startup to enable/disable stuff.

After starting, my first launch of Thunar(file manager) takes a bit of time. I think the reason is ue to mounting drives. I never looked into it because subsequent launches are fast. Maybe that's your reason too?

As the others said, your computer is good, but getting old now. GNU/Linux will generally outperform Windows on old hardware when you take features into account, but it won't be like an I3 or anything. If you want to spend some money, an SSD will boost performance, and you can use it in other machines if you don't keep this one.

 

[Cerb]

Sadly, even in Xubuntu there is still quite some noticeable lag, and it tends to pop up in the strangest instances. For example, launching Chrome can be as fast as 1-2 seconds, but trying to open the Home folder from the desktop by simply clicking on it can bring the whole system to a crawl, and turn the OS completely unresponsive, and then the folder will just casually open up like 20 seconds later.

Like desktop environments, there are plenty of file managers, too. Rox, Thunar, and PCManFM are the common choice for low-end systems (and people that don't want bells and whistles attached ).

When viewing system processes, I noticed there's quite a lot of them. Is there an equivalent of a Windows "Startup" tab after running "msconfig" to disable processes from running at start in Linux?

There's nothing quite that simple. However, many processes is normal, and generally acceptable. I could probably spend pages talking about it, but suffice to say, it's a fundamental Unix thing.

What do you guys think about Puppy Linux and Damn Small Linux? I think I'll try these from USB drive and see if they offer better performance.

Too minimal. Honestly, stick with Ubuntu for the time being, and try out different DEs/WMs, and other programs you aren't used to being able to change, like file managers. I'm not a big Ubuntu fan, but Ubuntu has a huge package base to draw from. Start Meyon, or however you spell it, configure sources, enable non-default repos, and then let your jaw drop all the software out there.

You may want to try Bodhi for something light, but with full repos.

Note: Bodhi is an Ubuntu sub-distro (or would that be super-distro?) that is centered around the Enlightenment DE. It is unique from the likes of Xubuntu or Kubuntu in that it has its own software repositories and configurations, while using the main Ubuntu software as a base to build that on. To put it another way, lxskllr's suggestion of trying Bodhi is in concert with my suggestion to stay with Ubuntu for now .

P.S.

Oh and by the way, the PC in question is a Desktop, not a Laptop.

I've been up for about 20 hours, now (edit: checking the time, more like almost 22), and misread it as Inspiron . I should really get off the interwebs and sleep, now .

 

[Demo24]

I would probably switch back to gnome 2d on that laptop, but my guess is that HD is probably creating a lot of the slowdown there. Personally I'd probably just install the server edition on that, no GUI would help a lot but then it all depends on what you're using it for.

 

[wchouser3]

here's the thing...I have an almost identical hardware setup. My favorite distro is Linux Mint, which is a Ubuntu derivative. The advantage is that Mint has all the codecs right out of the box. Currently they offer three DEs; Mate, and Cinnamon, which are both Gnome forks, and XFCE. I've tried all three and have found xfce out performs the other two dramatically with the hardware I have. if you want even more speed, simply install LXDE, log out, log back into the LXDE de. be careful when doing this because there are potential risks when using a de which was not part of the development process. XFCE will in most cases run quite well on older equipment. As far as the issue with thunar loading slow the first time, it's important to make sure all of the drives, and partitions you want to use are mounted at the system startup. This can be done by Using the app "disks" which is pre-installed on Mint, find the "edit mount options" and set up the path to the directory, partition, or drive you want to mount automaticallly. Thunar will function far better, and you won't have to mess around with mounting the drives manually. LXDE is slightly faster than XFCE because of the minimalist functionality, but you may not notice. Now, the absolute fastest distro you can get that is a Ubuntu derivative is Lubuntu, which comes with the LXDE de. The only disadvantage to using this is that the multimedia repositories, and codecs are not installed with the os, which is also the case with Xubuntu, and Ubuntu. This is easily fixed however, by going to the "medibuntu" website, and follow the instructions for adding the repositories, and codecs. As I said though, you would have to do this with any Ubuntu based distro, with the exception of Linux Mint. My advice is to install "Virtualbox" and install the distros, play around with them until you find one you like. An alternative is to run a live cd, or usb. this will allow you to test a distro, while utilizing all of your hardware resources.

 

[ibex333]

thanks very much for the advice. I played with that computer for around a week and then it was just sitting there taking up the already very limited space I have in my room. Eventually I built a new Core2Duo Mini ITX PC for ridiculously cheap and threw out the old box keeping the ram and hard drive. I'll use that instead for various flavors of Linux.

 

[lakedude]

What do you guys think about Puppy Linux and Damn Small Linux? I think I'll try these from USB drive and see if they offer better performance.

DSL is small but very limited, last time I checked anyhow.

Puppy on the other hand is small, fast and not really limited at all. In fact I really don't see why anybody uses any other bigger distro. Not sure what all that bloat is being used for.

Puppy is easy to try straight from a CD or DVD so it is completely painless to check it out.

Puppy loads completely to RAM so it is fast.

Puppy includes lots of stuff and it has a package manager to easily install more apps.

 

[daveybrat]

Puppy and DSL are good for what they are. Imo, your computer is too good to use such limited distros, but it depends on what you want. You may want to try Bodhi for something light, but with full repos.

Don't worry about the number of processes. They don't make much of a difference on Windows or GNU/Linux. You can disable some things from starting if you don't use them. It'll free a tiny bit of memory, and speed startup by a tiny amount. It's not a huge deal, so I wouldn't recommend disabling a bunch of stuff, but for things you definitely won't use, it can't hurt. Goto Settings-Settings manager-Session and Startup to enable/disable stuff.

After starting, my first launch of Thunar(file manager) takes a bit of time. I think the reason is ue to mounting drives. I never looked into it because subsequent launches are fast. Maybe that's your reason too?

As the others said, your computer is good, but getting old now. GNU/Linux will generally outperform Windows on old hardware when you take features into account, but it won't be like an I3 or anything. If you want to spend some money, an SSD will boost performance, and you can use it in other machines if you don't keep this one.

You sir are a Linux God....your post count is insane and your knowledge of Linux is phenomenal. Always enjoy reading your posts!

 

[lxskllr]

You sir are a Linux God....your post count is insane and your knowledge of Linux is phenomenal. Always enjoy reading your posts!

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I'm just an enthusiastic dummy :^D

I try to help where I can, but it's at the low end. If I had a real problem, my bet would be on Nothinman fixing it :^)

Btw, a lot of my post count comes from spewing nonsense in the OT forum. I started going there when I got laid off due to not having enough technical stuff to read, and those bastards trapped me. I spend entirely too much time there :^D

 

[tuxberg]

Puppy on the other hand is small, fast and not really limited at all. In fact I really don't see why anybody uses any other bigger distro. Not sure what all that bloat is being used for.

Puppy is easy to try straight from a CD or DVD so it is completely painless to check it out.

Puppy loads completely to RAM so it is fast.

Puppy includes lots of stuff and it has a package manager to easily install more apps.

Agreed. Once you try puppy, everything else seems slow.

 

[exloser]

I was going to recommend Lubuntu because that's what I use (did a "find" for it on this page, someone already did )

 

[calden]

I have tried almost every Linux distro listed on http://distrowatch.com, it's something of a hobby. With your hardware configuration I would recommend Zenwalk(Slackware), SalineOS(Debian) and when you feel comfortable enough then move on to one of the Bangs, ArchBang(Arch) or CrunchBang(Debian). The first two listed are perfect for learning and are very quick on older hardware.