Maneesh Godbole wrote:
I was under the impression Linux, like Tim mentioned, was not a resource hogger.
First, Linux is
way more flexible than the Windows platform when it comes to configuration. It has a variety of window managers available, from the bare-bones like FVWM to KDE and Gnome, which are platforms in their own right. You also have the option to run without Xwindows (or many other services). THAT is the Linux advantage. It
can be configured to be light. The default install of Ubuntu (and Fedora and Suse and so on) comes with everything turned on because most users prefer pretty to performance.
Second, Eye candy is expensive, processor and memory wise. I think it's crazy to expect a latest-generation operating system to run with all the bells and whistles on hardware that is ten years old.
As I mentioned above, I have a machine which is a dog when running X, but without it, it hums along. One could use it for development. VI and Emacs have been used for development for ages. I wouldn't expect to run an
IDE or expect the compiler to be quick.
My advice would be to try
Fluxbuntu or
Puppy Linux (they both have Live CD's, so you can "try before you buy"). Both distributions are targeted to lower-power systems.
I've also built up a custom low-power install starting with
Ubuntu Server and installing X and a light window manager. There's an out-of-date
How-To available.
As you work with Linux on your old desktop, keep in mind that you aren't really getting a good experience because your hardware is holding it back. If you really want to experience what Linux has to offer, install it on modern hardware.
