Operating system for a Netbook

Message

mikey pizano · #1 Post by **mikey pizano** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:57 pm

I know that this probably is not the best place to ask about this but I figure I would post this question on a few forums. Here goes.

I have an Averatec 1020, which is technically a subnotebook but has similar specs to the Asus Eee and other "netbooks".

The computer has a 10.6" screen at 1280x768 (technically WXGA). The graphics card is an Intel Extreme mobile card with 32MB of memory. This worked when tested with Compiz Fusion on Ubuntu.

The processor is 1GHZ Celeron M 373 ULV, 100MHZ faster then then Eee PC (353 ULV). There is 512MB of DDR RAM, which I can technically upgrade to 1GB but would require me to take the entire computer apart. So keep that in mind. It has a 60GB hard drive but that is not very important.

So here is the question I want answered:

I have it running Ubuntu 8.04 right now, and it is not running so great to me. I want to know what operating system I should run on it. Here are the requirements I need:

Fast boot and resume, Ubuntu takes forever for me on this computer.
Good power options, Sleep on lid close, hibernate after 5 minutes of sleep.
Touchpad drivers that will have scrolling (Windows XP has an issue with that, when I get the drivers from Twinhead, the laptop is a rebrand)
Touchpad can be set to automatically disable while typing, or similar so I don't bump it when I am trying to type.

I am leaning towards Windows XP, but I would like to see what everyone else thinks before I reinstall.

aaa · #2 Post by **aaa** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:30 pm

Xubuntu will save on ram, from what I remember it uses half as much (instead of needing 512 to barely work well it needs only 256). Hopefully that would solve slow bootup issues. You may not have to reinstall to use it: link

As for resume speed, I have not payed much attention to it (it seems to be longer than usual...). Standby resume time has little to do with resource usage (hibernate does though).

The power options you mentioned should all be there already I think. Not sure about the sleep first then hibernate thing though.

Also, see this: Temporarily Disable Touchpad While Typing

mikey pizano · #3 Post by **mikey pizano** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 6:39 pm

Yeah, I guess I can try KUbuntu but would SuSE with KDE be just as good? I already have that on CD but I tried to install it and my screen flickers. I will keep KUbuntu in mind, since I will not be doing anything YET.

qviri · #4 Post by **qviri** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:22 pm

Xubuntu uses Xfce, which requires less resources than both KDE and Gnome.

mikey pizano · #5 Post by **mikey pizano** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:17 pm

Ya know, I am not a very big fan of XFCE really. I think I may just toss XP on it can call it a day!

bobbarker · #6 Post by **bobbarker** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:44 am

If you go XP you'd be better off with regular Ubuntu. It's a bit lighter than XP as far as ram use and doesn't tend to bloat up with time. If you're not liking ubuntu you'll really not like XP.

...of course this is coming from the idiot using XP with 256MB RAM...

You might want to try Fedora. It has Gnome and is based off Red Hat (I think) and is a pretty well made and mature distro.

j-dawg · #7 Post by **j-dawg** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:04 am

I played with a command-line-only installation of Ubuntu, installing each component manually, which ensured absolutely no "bloat" and made for quite a speedy system. Unfortunately it had very little functionality and I wasn't interested in figuring out what packages to install to get a proper usable system. But with a little effort, I can see that being a good way to do it.

mikey pizano · #8 Post by **mikey pizano** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:12 am

It came preloaded with XP! I may get nLite installed on my newer computer and tweak it to remove some stuff though I don't think I would save much.

beGi · #9 Post by **beGi** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 3:45 pm

mikey pizano wrote:....get nLite installed on my newer computer and tweak it to remove some stuff though I don't think I would save much.

I thought to recommend you just that. XP can get really small, depends what you really need...

mikey pizano · #10 Post by **mikey pizano** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:44 am

I got it down to about 300MB

pikaia · #11 Post by **pikaia** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:42 am

I run a slim XP install on a couple 600Es (366-288RAM) and they run fine. The trouble with these is the Video card. You get a bit of bottlenecking happening, but other than that, it actually runs smoother than the minimal install + xfce ubuntu I had on there.

I think Ubuntu isn't the best for lower specs, even xubuntu. I've tried small ubuntu variants, like xfce-Linux Mint and it runs MUCH smoother and faster than ubuntu does, so I'd give that a look too. As well as PCLinuxOS, I've had it running very smoothly and quickly on a 500Mhz, 256RAM old Dell and I was really happy with it. Just turn some stuff off in the 'Services', and you should be golden.

Good Luck.

mikey pizano · #12 Post by **mikey pizano** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:43 pm

Why is it that XP, is so insulted and considered crap by a lot of people, yet works the best on everything I have tried it on compared to Linux.

pikaia · #13 Post by **pikaia** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:53 pm

There are security issues associated with XP that you don't have with Linux. And Linux is much more customizable. You also have to realize you aren't running the full version of XP. A full install will dog the system as much as a modern Linux distro. Where as a trimmed Linux install with a small Window manager (fluxbox, openbox, iceWM, JWM) would all run faster. But as soon as you get into Xfce, GNOME and KDE, you're back up to where full XP was.

Have you used Linux much? If you aren't as familiar, this would also explain why it runs less effectively than XP (which I assume you're more comfortable with). I had the same experience. I'm more adept at cleaning up and slimming down XP and so it was easier for me to get it running smoother on old hardware.

I don't mind XP. Its a good functional OS, and now that I can hack it a bit, its much more appealing than it used to be. But you will always have those who have had some VERY bad experiences and will trash all MS products (not that some don't deserve it).

What Linux Distros did you try?

mikey pizano · #14 Post by **mikey pizano** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:15 pm

I have used SuSE and Ubuntu off an on. My biggest flaw with Linux is the long boot and resume times. For me, XP just works better I guess. I would like to use Ubuntu since GNOME is a different experience then XP.

bobbarker · #15 Post by **bobbarker** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:09 pm

There are a few good tutorials out there to 'slim down' the boot times. The reason they suck so bad normally is it's a very general distro (Ubuntu...SUSE...), picking good hardware support over boot time (like loading bluetooth support on a computer that doesn't have it).

fuscob · #16 Post by **fuscob** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:25 pm

What about Windows 2000? Most of the functionality and stability of XP, but without the bloat and "eye candy." I think the minimum requirements for 2000 are something like a P133 and 64MB of RAM.

mikey pizano · #17 Post by **mikey pizano** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 6:29 pm

XP is fine

It came with XP after all!

Operating system for a Netbook

Operating system for a Netbook

Who is online