Fastest booting Linux distro

[timtim86]

Hi,

Quick question - I'm looking for the fastest booting Linux distro to coexist with Windows XP on an old laptop. Doesn't need to do much, just for web browsing, email, music etc.

It's an old laptop - Pentium M 1.1, 512mb etc.

Any suggestions?

Thanks!

[chrestomanci]

Ubuntu claims to boot in about 30 seconds on their current Lucid release, though to achieve that you would to disable the login screen, and us a SSD. Realisticaly on a sensible setup you are looking at 45 seconds, plus however long it takes you to type your password.

Meego are aiming for a 10 second boot time, though to achieve that the it needs a fair bit of hardware specific costomisation, so chances are you won't see that unless you buy a netbook with Meego pre-installed, where the OEM has done the necessary tweeking. In any case, Meego will not be out for another 6 months, by which time Ubuntu Maveric will be avalable, and they are also aiming for a 10 second boot for that release.

One thing to be aware of when benchmarking, is that the system first boots while logging which files get accessed, and then on subsequent boots, it uses that log to pre-load the necessary files, so to measure fastest boot time you need to wait for the second or third boot without major changes to anything required for boot such as the kernel.

[peterb]

Probably something like puppy Linux, damn small Linux or one f the other or tiny distributions. You might find that the laptop is under-resourced for one of the main stream distros - especially if you want to run a GUI like Gnome or KDE.

Some links you may find useful

http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/

http://bengross.com/smallunix/

http://blog.taragana.com/index.php/a...linux-distros/

As for booting - a small distro may boot a bit faster, but all the distros will need to do the same basic tasks.

[CrazyMonkey]

I used to run Damn Small Linux on an old P3 machine, would boot in about 40 secs.. Worth a shout perhaps.

[shbris]

nlited xp boots on a P4 machine in under 35 seconds, which is incredible seeing as the hard drive is probably older than me

[spoon_]

That's not Linux is it?

@OP

Ubuntu + good 7.2k RPM hard drive will sort you out =]

[jim]

If he's only using it for web browsing/email so on, that would imply that he just wants a quick boot alternative to XP if he needs to use it in a hurry.

So an nLited XP might remove the need for him to install Linux altogether.

[chrestomanci]

Probably something like puppy Linux, damn small Linux or one f the other or tiny distributions.

I used to run Damn Small Linux on an old P3 machine, would boot in about 40 secs.. Worth a shout perhaps.

Every time someone asks about what Linux distro to use on old and under powered hardware we get people saying not to use a mainstream distro such as Ubuntu or Fedora, but instead to use a specially cut down one. Answers like that are wrong and show a fundamental mis-understanding about the modular nature of Linux.

Recent distros like Ubuntu Lucid have a minimum spec, but that is for running the desktop OS graphical environment with the eye candy turned on. If you turn off the eye candy, use a lighter window manager, or don't run a GUI at all then the system requirements go down, and because all distros are modular, you can make all those changes within the same distro. It does not matter how old your computer is (within reason, don't try a 386), you can install a modern distro on it, just leave out the features that will bog down a slower CPU.

Specialised distros such as Damn Small, are not realy intended for day to day use on low spec machines, they are much better used for things like system recovery, where it is useful if the whole thing is a small download, and fits on a business card CD. The problem with them is that unlike mainstream distros, they are rarely updated and so are stuck in the past. You won't get timely security updates, and you may find hardware support is lacking.

So, firstly consider how old your system realy is. If it is less than 5 years, then the latest Ubuntu or Fedora should work fine, just turn off the eye candy in the window manager. If it is older than that then I would go for the Xfce based variant of Ubutu, xubuntu. This is the same distro underneath, just with a different default window manager. You will get all the same updates as mainstream Ubuntu.

In any case, you should download a load of live CDs, and try them out to get an idea of what you like, and what is fast enough, but don't pay attention to the booting speed of the live CDs, as CD ROM drives are very slow.

[peterb]

Every time someone asks about what Linux distro to use on old and under powered hardware we get people saying not to use a mainstream distro such as Ubuntu or Fedora, but instead to use a specially cut down one. Answers like that are wrong and show a fundamental mis-understanding about the modular nature of Linux.

snip--->

I wouldn't disagree with that - (and I was going to add a paragraph to that effect in my original answer) - but given the nature of the question, my assumption (always dangerous ) was that the OP was new to Linux, and that cutting down an installation (or only installing the basics) might be a little daunting. A small distro does not require that level of understranding 'out of the box' but I fully accept your point about 'small' distros'.

The biggest limitation (IMO) for the OP is the spec of the target machine - especially if the default distro uses Gnome or KDE - and many new Linux users don't always understand that the GUI is 'just' another application/application layer sitting on the Kernel - especially users more used to the more monolothic nature of Windows.

As for the specs of the machine - many new users to Linux assume that Linux will run on a low spec machine better than a Windows operating system will. While that is true if you are using a CLI, a graphical interface will require additional resources - the advantage of Linusx is that there are a variety of GUIs to choose from, and some (like Xfce) use less than others (like Gnome or KDE).

[TheAnimus]

Also I thought DSL were designed to run from flash, because of linux's lack of the enhanced flash driver embedded NT had, they were understandably very worried about wear.

As such don't they all copy EVERYTHING to RAM and then go from there? Mightn't that be a bit slower, used to take ages on this via 533mhz thing.

Then again all that is like 7 years ago now, things might have changed a bit........

[chrestomanci]

As such don't they all copy EVERYTHING to RAM and then go from there? Mightn't that be a bit slower, used to take ages on this via 533mhz thing.

Live CD images like Knoppix often have toram boot flag that copies the entire CD to RAM and then boots and runs the system from there. The copy process typically takes 2-3 minutes, and then after that the whole system is super speedy. If you have more than 1 Gb, and you expect to use the system for more than a few minutes, then it is a useful feature.

Without a toram option, you will find that Live CDs will slow down every time you start a program, as the system reads and decompresses it from the slow CDROM drive.

Normal distros don't use toram, as it is quite wastefull, and linux has better methods of caching data from the HD if you are running for any length of time.

[lodore]

why not try lubuntu or xubuntu?

I dont know what your linux knowledge is like but you may want to try debian netiso and choose a different desktop environment such as XFCE or LXDE. you simply use the advanced option on the first page and use the desktop environment section and then choose one.

[watercooled]

If it's just for browsing and that what about something like xPud? You can install it from within Windows and it just adds itself to the Windows boot menu. Another distro worth mentioning is TinyCore, which is a very minimalistic but I wouldn't recommend it for Linux beginners. It comes as a 10MB iso which you install then add apps to it.

[chrestomanci]

I dont know what your linux knowledge is like but you may want to try debian netiso and choose a different desktop environment such as XFCE or LXDE.

Unless the OP is a linux expert, (in which case he would not have asked the question), I would not advise Debian for desktop use because few things get setup by default. I find that with Ubunutu, when you install a package, it gets setup automatically, with defaults that will suit 80% of users, but when you install the same package in Debian, it is not setup, so you have to spend an hour on google figuring out how to set it up. That means that for servers Debian is ideal, as you only install a small number of services, and you are able to fine tune how they are setup, but for desktops, where you install lots of stuff, Debian takes a very long time.

[timtim86]

Wow! I didn't realise so many people had responded - sorry everyone. I thought I had instant notifications on but apparently I did not.

This is exactly what I was going for:

If he's only using it for web browsing/email so on, that would imply that he just wants a quick boot alternative to XP if he needs to use it in a hurry.

So an nLited XP might remove the need for him to install Linux altogether.

...basically something that I can boot up quickly into when I just need to check email/use the internet for a few minutes. Good spot there snootyjim. So it would seem that an nLited XP is the way to go (not that I know what that is )?

Peterb, you were absolutely correct in your assumption that I am new to Linux - I only recently started playing around with Ubuntu and found it interesting, so had the idea of putting it on this laptop at the same time as XP. I really don't understand much about it, but thanks for your input (and you chrestomanci) as now I do feel slightly more knowledgeable on the subject. It's cleared up some questions about boot times anyway!

After reading your posts, it would seem that the choice is between nLited XP and xubuntu. Would I be right in saying that?

Thanks everyone!

[jim]

Not completely and utterly, but I would say yeah, that's roughly where we're at.

If you cut down XP with nLite (a tool freely available on the net) then you can reduce the time it takes to load.

My gut reaction is:

Linux won't load that much faster than XP. It *can* be lighter, and load very quickly, but that'll be because the distro in question has nothing included. You need a convenient, easy-to-use Linux distro, which will come with all the features you need - and so by that point it's not really sleek and quick.

nLiting XP makes it faster by removing all unnecessary components. So if you're going to clutter up the XP install with heavy anti-virus systems, games, software, and other junk, then forget nLite - however it starts off, it'll wind up being very slow.

If you're going to clutter the XP install, but still want a fast-booting alternative OS, then you have two choices with regard to the second OS. One, install Xubuntu. Not amazingly fast, but by the time you've cluttered XP, it will be much faster to load. Two, install a second copy of XP which is nLited (assuming you have a second product-key). It'll be nice and quick, and if you never install any applications on it (beyond a web browser and email client) it'll always load quickly.