An ultra-lightweight setup using lxde

Light as heck…? How does 112MiB RAM used at idle or 560MiB sound – Er yes; sound and video playing embedded in third tab of browser with AbiWord and GIMP loaded ready to rock plus printer window and Task Manager - 7% of 8G = 560


As you can see the embedded video is actually playing.
Also see…

cheers :astonished:

Trust some have noticed that at idle most DEs are using more resources than LXDE as above actually multitasking in the real world :face_with_monocle:

Er, Yes Midori Browser; you can see it pictured in action on my other post above and see the 74.7MiB memory used…! :wink:

Is not a mainstream browser. It’s not with its own set of issues. Also, the project is kind of dead.

“Title”. Is it some kind of competition? If your setup for your computer works does it even matter? It seems to me that some people are overly obsessed with statistics. If what you have built for your own preferred computer/DE/Distro/Apps etc then all of those “stats” are irrelevant. Just enjoy it! :slightly_smiling_face:

5 Likes

If you can only accept the top two that’s fine.
However if you want to be “lightweight” as this topic suggests, you can see the results in my picture above :sunglasses:

Wo! the top two browsers have many issues - do you need the full list…!
Or will slow, heavy and intrusive suffice for now.
Sorry for drifting off topic :frowning_face:

I still use XP-Pro for Solidworks. So glad I read the stats and was able to reuse my old laptop which died with the end of Win Vista.
Read the stats some more and wiped dual boot Win10-ubuntu for Trisquel and then wiped again for Manjaro - oops!
Read the stats over and gave Arch one last chance with Endeavour - could have been Zorin-16 or Ghost-BSD. :shushing_face:
We would still be living in caves like Fred if we all stuck with what’s safe! :bat:
Yaba-daba-Do :joy:
I tend to find dismissive posts are by folks with expensive hardware with heavyweight distros :face_with_hand_over_mouth:

I get your point about stats regarding what is suitable for hardware. The point I was making was about people who champion one Distro/DE above another like it was some kind of league table they can gloat about as if it were a sport. Of course looking at stats is important if you need to find a particular use case for it regarding hardware or whatever your productivity or hobby requires. :grinning:

3 Likes

Yes, agreed about stats of RAM usage as there are many people around the planet who cannot afford higher end computers. There are many parts of Europe, South America and Asia where they would appreciate 3MB RAM and an old spec chip. Here in UK I like to get it done with less rather than throwing money at it. Much greater satisfaction. Besides as an engineer I have spent a lifetime eradicating inefficiency.

We will have to agree to differ on competition :grimacing: Throughout the history of our planet competition is key even if you are not a Darwinist. Could I suggest that competition for the most efficient, lean distro is a healthy pursuit as it would encourage devs to keep efficiency at the forefront of their minds instead of – what rice bloat could we add to hook the icon-wallpaper aficionados? :shushing_face:

Endeavour is great as it starts with minimal apps as does Trisquel-mini LXDE. Alas there is no Endeavour LXDE yet we can if we choose keep it minimal and easily run with 3MiB RAM. :thinking:

How low do you want to go?

5 Likes

Hi @fbodymechanic So without a DE desktop or even a WM window manager and perhaps no apps you mange with tty to pull more resource than my previous LXDE distro with a fully functioning desktop, web browser, mail, picture editor, pro writer AbiWord et etc. :upside_down_face: Why…? :thinking:

Because that’s what a base Endeavour install consists of??

I don’t know or care what you’re previous distro is to be honest. If your goal is to use 100mb of ram. . . Go and use that distro then. If you want more minimal, use Arch and I’m sure you can go lower. If you don’t know how to use Arch then pick something else.

I’m not interested in getting into a pissing contest with other distros, nor do I care to dissect what someone else is doing package by package, especially if it’s not Arch based since we can’t really compare anyway. I’ve got 40 GB of RAM, I don’t even acknowledge 100mb of RAM to be honest.

1 Like

Many would argue LXDE isn’t a “fully functional desktop” :nerd_face:

On a more serious note, the vast majority of people aren’t focused on minimizing RAM utilization. They are focused on usability. What “usability” means will vary for each individual.

I would take a DE which matches my workflow and personal preferences and consumes more RAM over the opposite.

3 Likes

Most of occupied ram comes from cached data, so next time something is opened it should be faster. It’s more noticeable while running from HDD.
Honestly free ram in most cases is wasted ram. There is no point in having 3, 4, 5, 10 gb of free ram as OS should be managing it and reallocating according to demands. This applies to any relative modern machine. Anybody with 4gb ram and more shouldn’t even bother choosing DE because it’s more “lightweight”, but according to their needs.
Difference in RAM comes even smaller when accounted every applet added, extension etc to actually suit someones needs.

1 Like

It’s basically open box with a taskbar. . .

It’s fantastic.

1 Like

I don’t know or care where you went for your iso image; I went here….

I got Endeavour XFCE accepting all defaults and chose LibreOffice.

You seem to proclaim that you are are expert in what I want and need. How presumptuous of you, not to mention being rude.
You are way off mark – I am confirming that indeed as per topic heading XFCE lost lightweight crown if it ever had such a title. It never came close to LXDE, Moksha or even MATE. Statements are pointless without quantifying them: Trisquel-mini LXDE 112MiB Endeavour XFCE 450Mib with less apps: With the gap widening ever further when given a task.

Then why provide numbers and a graphic for the pissing contest and then lose? :thinking:

I am not interested in gross inefficiency… :woozy_face: nor are vast swathes of the planet. :seedling:

Okay, as we can see there was a botched attempt to make something of no use to me with no substance look lightweight – it failed miserably. So what would be the next distraction or diversionary tactic? Perhaps besmirch or belittle LXDE itself without providing any justification or evidence whatsoever? :yawning_face:

I’m definitely not an expert. Intermediate user here at best.

I’m way to nihilistic at this point. The planet will be just fine after getting rid of the parasite that is humans. I’ve given up caring at this point. I’m like the guy enjoying the top shelf booze in the dance hall on the Titanic.

2 Likes

Well, don’t why there’s a back and forth between XFCE and LXDE. If anyone wants to use LXDE enos they can do that just install it and use it. No one here has a problem with XFCE or LXDE. It’s all user preference.

@fbodymechanic might have been trying to show even without a DE enos use a bit more ram than some other lightweight distros out there. We’re light but not that light because there are some small amount of configs that do go into enos than vanilla Arch. Don’t think he was trying being to be rood but I think he was just being straight.

XFCE uses more ram than it used to so what? most users have enough RAM in their systems. Unless it’s an old unit with 4 Gb or less. And if some users have an issue with high ram use then it’s their problem not a problem of the distro or any other software developer.

I have never heard of this being rolled out before – seems pretty desperate to me :crazy_face:

Where did you get that from or better still could you list anything that XFCE desktop can help you with your workload – workflow that LXDE can’t…? :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

To make it easier for you please ignore the fact that LXDE is just so blazingly fast and snappy. :face_with_hand_over_mouth:

Obviously depends on how much RAM you have and how deep your pockets are. :astonished:

I hear what you say in what serves your personal taste and cost of hardware. There are vast swathes of our planet – parts of Europe, Africa, South America, Asia where the exact opposite of your choice criteria prevails.
There is great satisfaction from getting the job done with less - Colin Chapman: Lotus :racing_car: :checkered_flag: :1st_place_medal:

Perhaps Endeavour does not wish to attract people from these areas of our world or less affluent people in general…? :zipper_mouth_face:

A desktop environment is not the absolutely “lightest” way to consume resources. The absolute lightest way is to not use any form of graphical user interface; use only commands and a console, and eliminate most, if not all “daemon” processes; use only what you ABSOLUTELY need. Most people, even those from regions where “new hardware” is prohibitive, don’t have to go to quite those extremes. Most can probably use an Xfce or LXDE based desktop; for those who can’t, using a simple window manager and invoke only lightweight commands, that will do it, and Endeavour OS CAN be configured in that way. For those who want something straight from an image that do this, antiX is one such alternative, but as I believe, Endeavour OS is also capable of operating VERY efficiently. Those who feel otherwise, of course are free to look around elsewhere.

Wow this thread has some very negative vibe going for it. It might need some cool-off period if things don’t get mellowy soon.

Just to leave my two cents on the topic here:
EOS has never intended to be the slimmest of them all. Anorexia usually comes with huge unhealthy drawbacks, not to mention that the result looks pretty unimpressive. Meaning at some point you sacrifice convenience to shave off more RAM. Sure that makes sense in a RAM shaving contest for the fun of it, but for a daily driver, a few megs here and there are not really noteworthy if the result is a stable, not really bloated system. For now EOS is not in such a contest, and the very few things carefully selected to be part of the install can be deselected piece-meal at install time should you desire so. I would argue, you would be closer to your goal if you were to deselect everything at install time and start from there in tailoring your system to your very specific needs.

If your resources are extremely low, you might indeed be better off with some niche OS which caters to exactly this need.