Lubuntu vs antiX: what is the best lightweight distribution?

[Btoenek]

Hi,
I feel comfortable with lubuntu and in general with ubuntu family. I have several scripts that allow me to maintain updated and upgraded my OS. On old computer with pentium 4, athlon 64 or atom single core or dual core with 512 MB or 1 GB of RAM, lubuntu is not so fast and especially with firefox is quite impossible to browse some websites.
I already tried qupzilla as browser and it is slightly better than firefox. I heard about antiX distribution that is Debian based and so it is very close to ubuntu family even if a lot of repository are not available. I tried it on virtual machine on my main computer and there is not great difference in term of speed.
I search on the web a comparison between lubuntu and antiX, but I did not find any complete comparative.
Can you suggest your experience? Can you give me any hint?
Thank in advance

[manyroads]

It's all about personal preference. As for finding a comparison, the two distros you want to compare each address different audiences. Lubuntu is for light touch users... antiX is for the more geekie crowd.

[dolphin_oracle]

your main issue is web browsers. If the rule of thumb is how well a distribution runs firefox, then they are about the same, although the lighter environment on antiX will allow you some more room for overhead, the fact is that modern web browsers use a lot of ram. which is good when you got it, bad when you don't. You are probably going into swap with firefox on 512 MB or ram right at startup, and very likely after a couple of open tabs on 1GB of ram.

[Justinian]

Pentium M 1.6 GHz, 2x512mb DDR2-533, dead drive.

Would have been scrapped if not for AntiX-17 32-bit Base on USB2 flash. Palemoon is good up to four tabs only. Apache Open Office is just fine. Native media also good enough. Specs higher than this point to the latest MX.

[rs55]

On my old thinkpad X40 with 1.5 GB of ram, antiX 32 bit ( right after boot) was taking 75 MB of ram !! MX 32 bit takes 175 MB of ram. I guess the difference is mainly due to the XFCE desktop in MX versus fluxbox window manager in antiX.
In any event, both distributions are impressively lightweight compared to most mainstream ubuntu based systems which will probably run at 500-700 MB ram when standing still.
For me , I decided to keep the MX 32 bit, because I just like XFCE and am willing to pay 100MB ram for the convenience.
The browsrs are hogs . But I found Chromium runs rather smoothly on this old machine - youtube videos work, but they seem to not sync the voice and video very well. But honestly, I would'nt watch videos on this machine. Libreoffice runs great, Maxima runs great and I can read books and check things on the web etc . So, still a useful machine with MX on it.

[rs55]

On my old thinkpad X40 with 1.5 GB of ram, antiX 32 bit ( right after boot) was taking 75 MB of ram !! MX 32 bit takes 175 MB of ram. I guess the difference is mainly due to the XFCE desktop in MX versus fluxbox window manager in antiX.
In any event, both distributions are impressively lightweight compared to most mainstream ubuntu based systems which will probably run at 500-700 MB ram when standing still.
For me , I decided to keep the MX 32 bit, because I just like XFCE and am willing to pay 100MB ram for the convenience.
The browsrs are hogs . But I found Chromium runs rather smoothly on this old machine - youtube videos work, but they seem to not sync the voice and video very well. But honestly, I would'nt watch videos on this machine. Libreoffice runs great, Maxima runs great and I can read books and check things on the web etc . So, still a useful machine with MX on it.

Oh - also music works great with DeadBeef.
I uninstalled pulseaudio on all my machines - that seems to take up 50MB ram - and does'nt do anything for me that alsa does not.
I also disable all starup apps except the very few critical ones. No bluetooth etc.

[Justinian]

I have just downloaded MX-15 Core-32 for trial on the Pentium M-Dothan and to test another machine. 15 was the system before the now rare EIDE drive gave up and when I shifted to 16-USB it crawled/froze. AntiX-17 Base-32 solved that. I suspect MX-16 signified the jump from the lightweight division to middleweight. MXrepo is to be commended for offering the appropriate versions for old and new machines. I suggest a guide be added.