Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Ubuntu vs xubuntu vs kubuntu

Last response: in Linux/Free BSD
Share
July 28, 2010 10:17:29 PM

I have a pentium 4 2.4ghz 1gb ddr and a 16gb ssd
I understand xubuntu is good for old pc's and ubuntu is for middle class and kubuntu for higher performance. What would be better for my comp.
it runs really fast but not very aesthetically pleasing on xubuntu. pretty good looking and decent performance on gnome haven't tried kubuntu what do you think is best?

and thanks in advance

More about : ubuntu xubuntu kubuntu

July 28, 2010 10:18:47 PM

the ssd is kind of crappy though so don't think it's real high speed or anything
July 28, 2010 10:50:56 PM

Ubuntu - Gnome Desktop Environment. Most resource-heavy version of the *buntu's. Lots of desktop effects.

Kubuntu - KDE Desktop Environment. Middle-range version. Has some snazzy features, but will use less RAM than Gnome.

Xubuntu - XFCE Desktop Environment. Very little RAM usage, meant mostly for older systems lacking resources.

With your particular system, you should be able to run Ubuntu just fine, just take it easy on the desktop effects. In my Ubuntu VM (Only have my laptop right now, in the midst of a move), it only uses around 200MB of RAM with no desktop effects, and a couple programs running. My desktop running all of the effects uses just under 1GB with some programs running.
July 28, 2010 10:54:18 PM

Also, Lubuntu is similar in requirements to Xubuntu, but uses LXDE rather than XFCE for the Desktop Environment. Worth checking out.
July 29, 2010 1:32:17 PM

I thout Ubuntu was middle range and kubuntu was heaviest am I wrong?
July 29, 2010 1:40:05 PM

They're all pretty heavy. *buntu throws in everything and the kitchen sink and even the cheap wine. Lubuntu is the only exception (about 90MB RAM idle usage) but that's probably because it hasn't been endorsed by Canonical yet :lol: 
July 29, 2010 1:43:59 PM

what's your pick randomizer?
July 29, 2010 1:58:59 PM

in other words I want the most graphically pleasing one that will offer decent speed on my machine
July 29, 2010 2:13:42 PM

Lubuntu will fly but LXDE is designed for speed not eye candy. Xubuntu should run great too. The others will both run fine but if you can dig up some more RAM it would be beneficial. You could always download them all and try them. You can install each of them in around 15-20 minutes on a reasonably slow machine.

Remember that for all of them (except perhaps Lubuntu, I don't know what LXDE can do) you can turn up the eye candy with added themes and with the addition of proprietary video drivers you can enable fancy compositing effects as well.
July 29, 2010 2:24:39 PM

I tried lubuntu and xubuntu but my wifi wouldn't work
ubuntu is nice and wifi worked I haven't tried kubuntu yet
Do you think kubuntu would run well?
July 29, 2010 6:07:52 PM

kubuntu was horrid it messed up my whole system and I had to reinstall ubntu
so my only choice is ubuntu
July 30, 2010 1:11:19 AM

Kubuntu never gets much praise. If you really want an KDE Ubuntu-based system, look at Linux Mint 9 KDE. It's generally more polished, plus it comes with most of the proprietary things like media codecs installed out of the box.
July 30, 2010 6:25:04 PM

I think the thing to remember with *buntu is that the main development efforts go into the Gnome version. You will always get your toys first and find the best support on the forums for the main focus of the organisation.

Also don't forget that you can install KDE in addition to Gnome on a default Ubuntu install, then it's just a case of switching window manager at logon, best of both worlds in my eyes.

The netbook remix version is interesting but not without issues as soon as you install non standard packages.
July 31, 2010 1:13:12 AM

The netbook remix works fine for me. I don't care for the bugs and half-baked features in Ubuntu and the buck-passing of the developers who work on it but I really don't want to mess around with a distro to make it work on my laptop. So far I haven't had to, with the exception of Wireless. After 3 hours of trying I couldn't connect to my University's WPA-Enterprise network. WPA-PSK is fine but trying to get multiple public key certificates to work with the NetworkManager was painful. I ended up screwing directly with wpa_supplicant.conf but still couldn't get it connected :( 
August 17, 2010 10:27:08 PM

Give Jolicloud or Lubuntu a try. Xubuntu seems to always be a little behind, the other 2 supported distros will probably be tough on your computer as is
August 21, 2010 4:13:53 PM

I've been using ubuntu and it doesn't use that much memory I'm only at around 750mb of ram out of 2gb. I'm doing a little multi-tasking I have rhythmbox,firefox,chat and broadcast running.
xubuntu is twice faster than kubuntu if you ask me.
from all the distros I've tried kde ones are just slow and take up alot of resources.
one thing i just noticed is rhythmbox is using 173mb thats over 2x more than my firefox is using!

August 24, 2010 2:11:14 PM

rocky_1 said:
I have a pentium 4 2.4ghz 1gb ddr and a 16gb ssd
I understand xubuntu is good for old pc's and ubuntu is for middle class and kubuntu for higher performance. What would be better for my comp.
it runs really fast but not very aesthetically pleasing on xubuntu. pretty good looking and decent performance on gnome haven't tried kubuntu what do you think is best?

and thanks in advance


Can't you install Ubuntu, then install KDE and other desktop managers and choose between them on log in?
I have decent machine, but I prefer gnome on all my distro's, its simple and easy to use. KDE is confusing and looks way to souped up like windows 7 with the transparent themes and all that crap. I use linux for the simplicity and performance, if I want eye candy, I just use my windows 7...And whoever said that gnome uses more ram then KDE?...i never knew that, I always thought KDE would suck more resources. In my virtual machines, gnome has much better performance then KDE for some reason.
August 27, 2010 9:47:59 PM

You should ask yourself why the wifi didn't work... it could be a minor fix.

Ubuntu probably sticks more packages and repositories that are available. If you need non-free firmware for the wifi chip, maybe the Ubuntu you chose has those repos already available while you have to add them for the other distros? It sounds strange that the other *buntu families would have a different setup or configuration.

I personally recommend Mint 9 LXDE to try first before the Ubuntus and even better, Debian Squeeze with LXDE or XFCE. You would probably have to manually configure the wifi part anyway but that shouldn't be a deal breaker.
November 28, 2010 2:24:04 PM

my wifi had a driver cd with a tar.gz file that doesn't work in lubuntu or kubuntu for some strange reason
November 28, 2010 5:01:21 PM

What wifi brand is it? My son's wifi stick quit working with the last kernel update and I couldn't get the ath9k_htc driver to reinstall. I had his pc running xubuntu.
I had to reinstall XP so he could play his Club Penguin game online. Which was a adventure in itself. The OEM reinstall starts out at sp1 and no task bar. Which is the easy fix with a script I found online. It was getting to sp3 that is the trick.
November 28, 2010 10:06:07 PM

some people said above that ubuntu uses more resources that kubuntu, at the otherway around :)  in fact KDE runs close to how poor the windows x system is (no offence)
November 28, 2010 10:06:42 PM

ALSO... try linux mint as its prob the best for wifi :)  happy linux..ing lol
November 29, 2010 12:09:43 AM

rocky_1 said:
my wifi had a driver cd with a tar.gz file that doesn't work in lubuntu or kubuntu for some strange reason

Wow the manufacturer was so lazy that they couldn't even provide you with a binary package?!
November 29, 2010 1:06:54 AM

randomizer said:
Wow the manufacturer was so lazy that they couldn't even provide you with a binary package?!


That's pretty damn lazy.
February 20, 2013 3:51:46 PM

Download Win XP it is better than all linux and mac beacause it support many programs than linux or mac and very easy to use fast stable and it have many features it is very similar in the world and linux , mac is not iam running it after linux it is best i have 512 mb ram 2.50 ghz processor :wahoo: 
February 20, 2013 4:45:33 PM

Ubuntu consumes 635MiB at idle for me. Simple browsing will sometimes push my i3 ivy to peak at 10%. Might you consider Bodhi linux? I use that on the computers in my home that don't get used for work. It's pretty small and fast and you can get just the stuff you want on it as it comes pretty bare. It has a repository big enough to take care of most needs. I'd like to use it on my work systems, but it has given me persistent segmentation faults under certain work related conditions. I'm a big fan of Enlightenment and hope that it continues to improve.
February 20, 2013 7:49:12 PM

People this question was asked in 2010. I think the OP got his answer a while back. Redit - I know what ya mean. The good old "Enlightenment has SEGV'D! This is really bad..." message? E17 has a lot going for it, but I finally gave up on it due to all the bugs and instability. I think development on it has been dead for a while. Bodhi is definitely the best implementation / attempt to make E17 usable that I've seen, but it's not quite there.
!