Message-ID: <62ac6c5c@news.ausics.net> From: Computer Nerd Kev Subject: Re: What's the best low-end supported Linux to use in a very old? 2008 MacBook Pro? Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup References: <20220615190552@news.eternal-september.org> <_5qdnd_HFe138jf_nZ2dnUU7-RnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <20220615225108@news.eternal-september.org> <87edzoic84.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> User-Agent: tin/2.0.1-20111224 ("Achenvoir") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.31 (i686)) NNTP-Posting-Host: news.ausics.net Date: 17 Jun 2022 21:58:20 +1000 Organization: Ausics - https://www.ausics.net Lines: 27 X-Complaints: abuse@ausics.net Path: csiph.com!news.bbs.nz!news.ausics.net!not-for-mail Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.hardware:3544 comp.os.linux.misc:34821 comp.os.linux.setup:4783 In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 16/06/2022 21:29, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >> >> For convenience, choose a distribution which has it as default. But I >> suppose any up to date distribution will run fine, as long a the >> desktop manager was chosen wisely. > > It is utterly pointless to get a 'lightweight' distro when any browser > invocation will immediately grab more than half the RAM. Firefox seems to always expand to half or more of the available RAM, but it doesn't seem to actually ruin performance to run it with only 2 or 3GB so I guess it's just some sort of caching. > If you want to run modern software at all, you need really >3GB RAM OR > an SSD swap disk. Or both, > > IRRESPECTIVE OF DISTRO. Not true, I do everything with neither. Fancy desktop environments chew up a stupid amount of system resources making everything seem slow. Compare default Fedora with AntiX or Star on a slow machine and you'll see for yourself. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#