Why are even "lite" Linux distros incapable of competing with windows xp in terms of performance and resource use...

Why are even "lite" Linux distros incapable of competing with windows xp in terms of performance and resource use? What is it about Linux developers that makes them so inept?

Other urls found in this thread:

lowendmac.com/2014/xp-vs-lxle-a-side-by-side-comparison/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

The same that makes Windows and macOS devs inept.
They have very very high end machines and assume everyone else does, too.
XP was tested on a bunch of really shitty machines (by today's standards).
I'm sure you can put two and two together.

they're just dumb user

???

Are you retarded or underage?

Your post literally makes no fucking sense. If Linux devs are too inept to match a windows OS in terms of performance given similar amount of resource use, what makes them equal to the windows devs?

One of the stupidest posts Ive ever read in my life

>mfw people just told me to be myself
>mfw I'm being myself and this is the reaction

The surface area between all those 9000 libs and modules as well as lack of coordination in their desingn

Lets see Windows XP run on 22MiB of memory

windows is a slow pile of shit in comparison to Linux

Use Linux and the command line and its lightning fast on fucking anything, even Pentium laptops from 2005.

use Windows with Visual Studio etc and wow,, its slow as fuck, and you cant even use Vim or GVim because configuration is beyond fucked to manage on Windows.

t. reluctant Windows user

>Use Linux and the command line
Hey bro use real time memory and CPU register editing it's even faster *tips fedora*

>too dumb to give the computer instructions without having a bunch of shiny buttons presented to him

You ever seen that movie, Wall-E?

>XP
>performance

Don't worry bro your post is not stupid, in fact I'd say it's pretty fucking close to being the exact reason Windows and Mac are bloated and slow these days. Microsoft and Apple don't give a fuck if you have a slow machine: The project managers at those companies are all sucking someone's cock, and if they can look good by stuffing some more shitty software into the next release of the OS, why would they not?

Whereas with Linux you have a bunch of autistic, unpaid distro developers and kernel devs that tend to despise corporate culture and care more about the tech, so we get to have many clean and simple distros to choose from. And anyone that ships with bloat gets ripped apart on basically any forum.

So don't worry about those people, about 50% of the posters on Sup Forums are retards that are convinced they have divine intellect, you just happened to have two of them reply to you in quick succession.

Good question.

talk about shiny buttons faggot. You literally need to point and click to work your text editor. Lets get in the same room together with two identical Windows machines with no mouses, you'd be fucking crippled.

>You literally need to point and click to work your text editor.

Come again?

Distro?

You had one job.

Only because the recent iterations of windows doesn't need to give a shit about resource use anymore. Don't move the goalpost and name me a single distro that offers similar performance and usability on the minimum hardware xp can run on.

What are you even trying to say here? XP blows Linux distros out of the water in terms of resource use and performance.

Yeah sure. I like fast boots too.

Why can't asshurt Linuxfags learn to not be so transparent in their attempts to hide the fact they have zero arguments in their shitposts? Sm.h tb.h fa.m

>Don't move the goalpost and name me a single distro that offers similar performance and usability on the minimum hardware xp can run on.

I'm not sure if you realize this but you can run Linux on pretty much any hardware including what Windows XP min hardware. You want a single distro? Try Void with musl and Openbox

Lets see your faggot os actuslly running on 22mb of ram. I'll wait.

So OP is a "linuxfag" too? Zero argument as well. I hope that XP server works well.

I'm guessing you don't know what the word "usability" means.

No. Why would I be? I don't reply with green text and reaction memes to mask my lack of argument, unlike you.

lowendmac.com/2014/xp-vs-lxle-a-side-by-side-comparison/
It was easy.

what do you mean? he literally posted a screenshot of him running it on 22mb use on top with firefox

It's pretty much the same level of usability. Name something your minimum requirement XP can do that you can't do on Linux with Openbox

>memes
That's fun. Where is your numbers?

Is this the new kot cat thread?

Not mine, but it's pretty Damon close.
Look into Damn small linux.

are you dumb?

>Absolute Minimum Requirement for an 'OK' online experience.
>Pentium 3 processor with at least 512 mb of ram and 8 GB of hard drive space.

>Recommended system requirements for an 'adequate' experience.
>Pentium 4 processor with 1gb or more of ram and 8 GB of hard drive space..

>linux distros nowadays unironically call themselves lightweight and viable on old machines while recommending at least 1gb of ram and requiring at least half

>Damn small linux
Good luck using that as a desktop OS.

Debian on my machine works better and smoother than Windows

This.

Stop trying to make him feel better. His post is inane garbage.

Not what I asked. Why has every single fucking linuxfag avoided the actual question in the OP holy shit. Why not just admit it?

...

If you want a do equivilant desktop then just get debian wheezy or jessie you baiting faggot.
How far stretched is your anal cavity from BILL gates raping it all day?

So you think all linux distros have the same system requirements
>Good luck using that as a desktop OS.
Nice goalpost.

I mean i am running arch on a dell latitude d500 with a pentium m and 376 mb ram SRB2 , emulators ,zdoom and age of empires on wine run just fine.

When a distro says"i need a pentium 4" it's because they have dropped non-PAE support.
Debian , arch(Kinda),gentoo,devuan,void and i believe even some ubuntu distros still support non-PAE computers.

Aaaaaaaand here we go again. >hurr durr I posted a b8 image! That'll surely get everyone to this he's the stupid one and I'm winning the argument!

The minimum amount of ram needed for xp is 64mb. Debian can't even run a desktop environment at 128mb. Thanks for proving me right you fucking mouthbreather.

I think that a distro, at least one comparable to xp in terms of usability and features, which can even function at the hardware xp can does not fucking exist.
Nice strawman.

>Debian can't even run a desktop environment at 128mb.
Did you tried netinstall? You will be surprised.
>xp in terms of usability and features
Like what? Running space cadet or what?
Ridiculous.

I wish desktop had this
the mainline kernel nowadays is over 90MB compressed

No. Like having a full-fledged desktop environment and being able to run productivity applications out of the box.

lol

Like latest browsers? XP failed.

what do you mean?
openbox / tint2 is just as lightweight as XP

how the fuck is gnome running at 22mib of ram?

>ssh into your rpi
>neofetch
>take a screenshot
hard

Install fucking ~15 years old distro and it will be lite. Or just compile your kernel for your spec.
Why do you compare recent kernel to ~15 years old kernel. Linux has so many drivers and modules now that it of course is kind of bloated after so many years. Compare Windows 7/8/10 to Windows XP. It is what you do right now. It's retarded af.

I've been wondering about this for a while too. Even Lubuntu is way slower than Windows XP on my shitty hp laptop.

Usually when people say productivity applications they mean word processors and image manipulation apps and what not. But of course I shouldn't expect I nail-biting gen Z to understand that. Oh, an over a decade old OS doesn't come with a browser that supports the most recent web technology? Holy shit you sure enlightened me to the genius programming prowess of the linux distros' creators!

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

Goalpost again+ad hominem.

>it's your fault for expecting distros which advertise themselves as "lite", "for old machines" or "an XP replacement" to be able to run on the same tier hardware as XP!
Fuck off and kill yourself faggot. I'm serious.

Projecting much?

So desperated. Still posted anything that backed your "arguments".

...

fake has fuck, gnome only 22MB, nah

You can't back your argument.
Oh and see Pity.

I wrote both of the posts you quoted jej. Please continue to make a complete fool of yourself.

Is it hard to understand your own bullshit? kek

Not 22 MB, but pretty close. This was on my old EeePC 704. E17 is very easy to use, and surprisingly light.

Hmm I sense some damage control.
>kek
Pic related is you right now.


Whenever you feel like getting back onto topic, feel free to start by explaining how exactly did I move the goalposts simply for explaining to someone who was too retarded to know what the phrase productivity apps mean. Protip: you can't.

From infinity

You're braindead or baiting.

xp is slow because it doesn't support newer instruction sets

Linux uses RAM differently than how Windows allocates it.

IIRC Windows clears ram when it's not being used, while Linux just leaves it until it needs to be cleared

try installing "lite" linux distro from windows xp era.

Original question Why are even "lite" Linux distros incapable of competing with windows xp in terms of >performance and resource use

>bringing productivity applications into this when all you said was performance (startup, restart, browser and resource use like ram

I'm not the guy you've been arguing with, but it's funny how you miss your own original question