What's the best OS for performance? trying to revive a pentium 4 with 2gb of ram kek

What's the best OS for performance? trying to revive a pentium 4 with 2gb of ram kek.

Here's what i found: gentoo linux with a wm only or openBSD with a wm only, i also heard about freeBSD but idk, goal is to watch 720p vids and browse Jow Forums

Attached: asd.jpg (210x230, 8K)

Other urls found in this thread:

cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/9.9.0 nonfree/amd64/iso-cd/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

720p video is going to be rough if you mean streaming it from youtube. reminder google deliberately slows playback down and decreases quality for browsers that aren't chrome

oh right, i was just thinking about a light browser but that killed me right there.

what about programs that makes you view YT vids on different media players? i remember using a terminal program to play YT videos, is this also affected by google?

That's why you use mpv with youtube-dl

What kind of pentium 4?

Consider either Debian (easy) or OpenBSD (harder)

Lubuntu + lowlatency linux 5.2 (grab the .debs from ubuntu kernel mainline) + mitigations=off in kernel command line. Really recommend you get another 2gb from ebay or something and install lubuntu without a swap partition

I'm gonna try this later, looks really good

ngl i didn't even realise there's different types of pentium 4s lol, i'm gonna check later but i think it had 3.0ghz, i think i can try both. what about gentoo? can i get extra performance by playing with the kernel or compiling?

Thanks! Lubuntu seems good, i might give it a try because i haven't used lxde before, but i still think openbox is probably better for performance

In terms of raw hardware exploitation, anything with the Linux kernel is going to work well. Ideally something with a lightweight DE like xfce or lxqt.
The BSDs are great but their kernels are less optimized.

Galpon Minino Linux

Performance? Have you seen a 50mhz 486 run graphical windows 3 without problem?
Then, it is so that the pentium 4 will run lubuntu perfectly as it can run compton compositor, very lightweight. You want a usable computer of course, so stick do modern DEs. You can also install unity which can use compiz or better yet compton aswell. Very lightweight and fast.
Remember, get *all.deb and the 2/3 lowlatency .debs.
sudo dpkg -i *.deb; sudo update-grub2
should work fine.
Just reboot, make sure you are on the newest kernel with neofetch and remove the older linux so you don't boot into it accidentally.
sudo apt remove *linux*5.1*; sudo update-grub2
for instance, if the old linux was 5.1

Lubuntu right now is the lowest effort you can do
If you want to have something more up to date you can try Manjaro xfce, but beware that it'll use a lot more of your internet and storage

Debian xfce is also good but you''l won't have an ootb experience like on above

BSD are meme OSes for trannies stay out of it

>The BSDs are great but their kernels are less optimized
looks like i have been memed

Looks like Linux for kids, looks really lightweighted

that's some good shit right there, Thanks!
is unity that lightweighted btw? i installed ubuntu a couple of years ago and the performance was windows like, is it just the shitty ubuntu optimizations?

i like xfce, but i thought i could go for something lighter like lxde/lxqt or just openbox
BSDs really look like hipster shit but i can't really say something as i haven't tried them before

Ubuntu moved on to gnome, which handles window bounding boxes crudely and slowly. Just wiggling a terminal window over the taskbar makes it jittery, trying to figure out where to snap itself. Ugh.
Install compton and don't worry about settings too much. Maybe use opengl rendering and such, but don't go into vsynch, it's a rabbit hole.

Use OpenBSD.

OpenBSD all the way user.

OpenBSD's I/O performance and schedulers are dogshit. It's a great OS with a very simple code base, but the tradeoff is that it performs like shit which isn't ideal for OP's use case.

my desktop is a pentium4 with 1.7gb ram and 2gb swap. it's shit. your pc wont be able the play 720p and over. it will play 480p youtube but not in full screen. it will choke on most livestreams with retarded bitrates. use chromium. firefox chokes on 160p on twitch, while chromium runs fine at 360p.

i have a minimal archlinux32 install. overall it just werks, tho

Debian minimal with LXQT or XFCE. Lubuntu or Xubuntu would probably be good, but I'm biased towards manually installing things myself so I don't get stuck with extra bloat.

how minimal is Debian minimal compared to arch Linux? tfw i fell for the arch M I N I M A L I S T I C meme and desu i like the minimal distro idea but i really don't want to tinker with fonts/wifi/mirrors and shit again if i can

I can't make a direct comparison because I never fell for the Arch meme. All I know is that my Debian minimal install with LXQT uses 150mb of RAM when it idles.

I used the debian net-install ISO with non-free firmware: cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/9.9.0 nonfree/amd64/iso-cd/

thanks for the link! i may be retarded but i always found the debian site to be "hard' or clunky to use or navigatie

Debian is pretty minimal if you don't ask for a DE during installation. If you do install a DE it won't give you the DE and nothing else like Arch will, it'll give you the DE and some things it assumes you'd probably like set up for you, like fonts, a display-manager login thing, and some common applications (LibreOffice, GIMP...)

of course if you were planning on not installing a DE so you could do your own thing with Openbox or i3 or whatever, then this won't be a problem for you.

>If you do install a DE it won't give you the DE and nothing else like Arch will, it'll give you the DE and some things it assumes you'd probably like set up for you, like fonts, a display-manager login thing, and some common applications (LibreOffice, GIMP...)
that's actually amazing, i'm currently running arch on my main machine, the "first" thing i installed is bspwm so i had to do the rest of the stuff, i want to use a more "professional" distro because arch is just a distro for ricing imo so this is perfect.

That's correct. I opted not to install a DE, then I manually installed LXQT based on guides I found on the information superhighway.

Windows 98se lul

Tiny Core Linux will run on a Pentium 1 with 64 meg RAM.

>The BSDs are great but their kernels are less optimized.
on the other hand, they're not hard to optimize: for example, for audio, instead of compiling and fine-tuning a new preempt-rt patched kernel a la Linux, you have to set parameters like hw.snd.latency, because many useful things in BSD are implemented in an oldschool way, in kernel.

Win XP

yes but things like the filesystem, disk queues, and process scheduler are much less easy to optimize and can greatly affect performance for many workloads, especially on shit-tier hardware.
whereas on Linux you've had corporations pushing micro-optimizations for all of these things for the past 10+ years.

Lxqt is heavier on cpu than lxde on my pentium M processor. I don't remember the difference in ram because I haven't booted that laptop in a while.

antiX Linux can run on Pentium 3s with 256mb of RAM.

>things like the filesystem, disk queues, and process scheduler are much less easy to optimize
ZFS is pretty easy to optimize on BSD, even on smaller desktops. Again, because of kernel integration.

maybe for FreeBSD, but OpenBSD notoriously lacks support for any decent filesystem, unfortunately

openbsd wanted to include ZFS but realized that ZFS license was weak copyleft and backed out

This is a decent distro - I've tried it.

damn small linux obviously.

>Use OpenBSD.

OpenBSD is nice, but it's the worst possible OS for performance.

Also, check em