Linux Lite Forums

I have two Fuji Siemens laptops  ( see sig below), each with 2GB RAM and dual core Intel processors and built in wifi.  These have been running upgrades of LL since V1.6 32bit. They have been speedy  and had "new" life breathed into them. Not dual boot; full LL install only.

However since upgrading to LL3.0 - standard kernel, I have note that response times on both the machines etc have been slower.  My concern is, as LL develops,  it will be less compatible with older machines.  The latter still having considerable life left in them.

The question therefore is what, if anything, can be pruned from LL  to to overcome these potential problems. 
The laptops are used for business, browsing, emails, multimedia etc.  Not gaming.  So Office, browser, Thunderbird, SKYPE etc are needed.

As an aside, my Toshiba Sat Pro A10 with 1GB  RAM  had to be downgraded to Kernel 3.16 when I upgraded to LL3.0  32bit, and even now struggles. It appears that  LL2.8 was about the tipping point for that machine.

Thoughts welcomed. Thanks.  Happy to experiment but as still a newbie as far as linux ( under the bonnet) is concerned.

This is just something that baffles me & shows my complete lack of understanding about Linux. Why is Linux Lite 1.0.0 the fastest OS on the planet, but Linux Lite 3.0 is not? As you state in your post WHAT do you have to do to new versions of LL to make them run like old versions? The fact that LL 1.0.6 & 1.0.8 will be out of support next Spring (April 2017) does not sit well. To those that say series one of Linux Lite is 'old', my reply is - 'so is Windows XP'. Remember it? The OS that actually worked? How I wish I had the skill to modernize older versions of Linux Lite.

The difference is in how machines respond to the different boot processes.  LL 3.0 uses systemd.  LL 2.x uses upstart.  I don't know what LL 1.x uses.  You can see a little more about each boot process here:

https://linuxjourney.com/lesson/boot-process-init

To tune your PC to LL 3.0, you can query the forum for other entries on Systemd.

Software evolves, gets larger. Kernels drop driver support. There are many other reasons most of which we can't control.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

My comment was not focused upon start up/ boot times, it was on response time  once settled down and running standard included software.

<RANT> Therefore the question is, if Linux is more resistant to virus/malware attack, what are the risks of remaining on an older version of LL even when it is past its supported date?  The question also arises, as posted elsewhere in the forum, when 32 bit is no longer supported.  This is dictating the potential death of perfectly good enough pcs/laptops, many of which are more powerful than the cheap tablets currently being sold.  i.e forced obsollesence again.

When you look at the potential ex Windows users migrating from XP Vista, etc  there must be thousands upon thousands of perfectly functional machines that will be needlessly scrapped to landfill as a result of supposed progress. Is this not against the original philosophy of linux / open source??  IF machines breaks down and can not be repaired fine, but otherwise??</RANT>

Been running AntiX on single core machines and 1 gig of ram for years. Salix and Slackel on Single core Atom netbooks for a long time also. Neither use systemd.

There are choices if you are flexible enough. One must be flexible if insisting on keeping older gear.

You might see if Q4OS is your cup of tea or BunsenLab Linux. Bunsenlab Linux comes without systemd.
If Ubuntu is all you want. Look into http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/...175541118/

Review is here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5sFZTFqmvM


Or. Try installing a Window Manager in Linux Lite like Openbox or JWM and log into that and compare speed of
system vs XFCE.