MX-14 Review

[Stevo]

It was a good review. I wish he had tried the metapackage-installer. He listed it in included apps, but he didn't try it, instead going for the "PPA" route, showing his ubuntu roots.

But that niddling. Good review really.

I was glad he didn't bork the install, since you use Ubuntu PPA's at your risk. Precompiled binaries like Skype are safer, though. He also didn't test the CR Wine, which IMO is one of the distinguishing features vs. the other distros, but that's OK. Overall a good and fair review, aesthetics aside, but he did mention that they could be easily changed.

[malspa]

Good review. Earlier, someone else mentioned to me that he was less than impressed with the design, aesthetics, whatever, but that sort of thing is a non-issue for me. Used to be a complaint about Mepis, too, as I recall. You can't please everyone.

I really liked this part:

In overall, I am very impressed with MX-14 and is using it right now as my main operating system. antiX has surely come up with a gem which is truly special. I recommend it to all Linux enthusiasts to try it out - just like me you may fall in love with it!

[chippy52]

I do miss my steam punk splash.

[dolphin_oracle]

The reviewer added info on the metapackage-installer.

[Jerry3904]

Thanks for adding a comment to his review that made him do it...

[Jerry3904]

<still on this>
One thing I totally don't get: how could the personal preference of where the Start icon is located be characterized as "a major issue"?

I have everything I need for economical production use grouped in the lower left corner, with as set of common applications on a small panel that auto-hides so I don't have to look at it until I need it. See attached image of lower left quadrant of screen.

[uncle mark]

That's why I don't put much stock in any sort of "review" of this sort. This guy blogs about Linux. Whooppee. When Susan Litton or Jessee Smith take a look at it, that's when people sit up and take notice. Those two (and others like them) can have a strong influence, good or bad. Hopefully they'll do it soon, before the *buntu tsunami hits.

[Adrian]

I liked the review, it was good enough that I managed to get around my pet peeve, reviewers who comment about wallpapers... In my opinion if the wallpaper is not a goatse or something similar doesn't have to be brought into discussion.

And I share his opinion about MX performance, I've been exclusively using MX-14 at work and home and it flies, before MX I had Arch with KDE and my computers were starting to run out of memory and thrash, the situation got so bad that I was thinking about replacing computers (my work computer for example cannot do more than 4GB). I still like KDE and I'm not sure if KDE was the main cause of my computers running out of memory but Xfce works perfectly for what I need and MX uses a sliver of memory compared to my previous OS.

[richb]

The memory usage was surprising to me. With Google Chrome running and 3 sites open, it manages to stay below 1 Gig. On my KDE install, with same sites it gets to about 3 Gig.

[BitJam]

I'll be Polly Anna here. I admit the start icon placement issue was a bit of a head scratcher but I think it was still a GREAT REVIEW. The review was extremely favorable. The images and the look of the review are great. The tables comparing boot times and RAM use were just awesome. AFAIK, the reviewer did more research into that than we did.

Just like no distro will ever be perfect, no review is going to be perfect. Nonetheless, even though it was not perfect, this review was one of the best I've seen. Honestly.

IMO it serves no useful purpose to publicly nit-pick an extremely favorable review. Reminds my of something about "buying ink in barrels".