[GLLUG] Interesting fact about Debian Vs. Ubuntu

[Adam McDougall]

On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 10:58:34AM -0500, eduardo cesconetto wrote:

  I been playing around with a Pentium II 300Mhz laptop w/ 96MB of RAM,  
  I tried the following distros(in order I tried them):
  
  -Ubuntu 6.10.1 (Installation took 2 hours, System very very slugish)
  -Kubuntu 6.10.1(Installation took 1 1/2 hours, System very slugish)
  -Xubuntu 6.10.1(Installation took 1 hour, System very slugish)
  -Ubuntu 6.10.1Alternative Install. CD (Installation took 2 hours,  
  System very very slugish)
  -DSL 3.1 (Installation took 20mins, System somewhat fast)
  -Puppy Linux (Installation took 20mins, System fast, but very poor/ 
  buggy package management tool)
  -DesktopBSD (Installation took 30mins, System somewhat fast)
  
  After all of this tries and some poking the net, I decided to give  
  Debian 3.1 a try, and here is the result: but-kicking fast old  
  laptop, rock solid OS, very fast boot, perfect package management and  
  total hardware support.
  
  I'd like to hear some opinions on this, since most of the time I hear  
  (and do) users recommending Ubuntu/K/X even for older hardware.
  
  []'s
  Eduardo
  
I've heard good things about PC-BSD from a friend but I have not tried
it myself since I am satisfied with FreeBSD for my uses.  Its based on
FreeBSD and supposedly has a friendly install and packaging system.
No idea how it would feel speed wise, I know it comes with KDE 3.5 though.
I would think any version of KDE would put a load on an older laptop :)

Did you check KDE's setting for eye candy/performance tradeoff in each
install?  I wonder if that was a difference.  I don't remember what it 
is called, I just remember being presented with it on fresh installs
in the past.