• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

good krnl 2.0.x WM??

M

Mike Chambers

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
2,621
i put debian 1.3.1 "bo" on my 386 recently, and i'm trying to find a good X11 window manager. i am using FVWM, but i don't like it. anything better and just as lightweight?? :eek:
 
Not sure what else would be that light weight. I used to use afterstep just because it was the most powerful but without the complete clutter kde and gnome have but I'm not sure it'd run well on a 386 either.

Unfortunately it's been long enough I don't recall what kernel I was on. It took me long enough finding a distribution that would still run on something lower than Pentium though (long story but I ended up with TurboLinux at the time on my 486).
 
thanks for the suggestions, guys. tried them both out. both look very nice. that 386 gets painful to use with either of them though. even fvwm is slow really.

maybe a machine like that is destined for console-use only. :eek:
 
I don't really know why you are complaining about fvwm. Just fire up a terminal window and load everything by hand! That's what I always seem to do with fvwm2. Most of the prefab icons are all obsolete these days.

Here, repeat after me:

/usr/local/bin/firefox/firefox.sh&

konqueror&

gnome-terminal&

nautilus&
 
chuckcmagee said:
I don't really know why you are complaining about fvwm. Just fire up a terminal window and load everything by hand! That's what I always seem to do with fvwm2. Most of the prefab icons are all obsolete these days.

Here, repeat after me:

/usr/local/bin/firefox/firefox.sh&

konqueror&

gnome-terminal&

nautilus&
Click to expand...

hehe. that's basically how i have been using fvwm. the machine it's on only has 4 MB of RAM, so it's already getting into swap space a little before i even start X. is it even possible to get firefox on that thing using that old kernel? it'd be unbearable, but would be interesting.
 
Ack, I am clueless on the firefox question! Spaced out the fact that this is on a 386 with 4MB. Amazing actually. I am hard pressed to get modern distros to run well in 512MB. 768MB seems to work much better. I did try 256MB in a virtual machine once, I can't remember if linux even came up properly or not now.
 
try openbox or fluxbox. They are very lightweight and fluxbox supports window tabbing (very useful on small displays!) :)
 
chuckcmagee said:
Ack, I am clueless on the firefox question! Spaced out the fact that this is on a 386 with 4MB. Amazing actually. I am hard pressed to get modern distros to run well in 512MB. 768MB seems to work much better. I did try 256MB in a virtual machine once, I can't remember if linux even came up properly or not now.
Click to expand...

yep it's getting to the point where modern linux distros are as resource hungry as vista. look at debian lenny or the latest fedora.
 
TNC said:
try openbox or fluxbox. They are very lightweight and fluxbox supports window tabbing (very useful on small displays!) :)
Click to expand...

i wonder if fluxbox will work on a machine that old. i do like fluxbox a lot.
 
Why not? Fluxbox is pretty lightweight and I had it running on a 386dx-25 +387 with 20 MB ram and it worked perfectly. :)
 
Chuckle, I didn't look to see how much ram was in a old Solo 2150 laptop I have. "Hey, let's try booting the linux livecd on here." Major LOL, it ran out of RAM trying to setup the initial ramdisk. I didn't even get close to getting it going.

Are you sure about the 4MB figure, as in, only has 4MB of ram. I am finding it hard to believe you could find much of anything that would run in 4MB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top