Can "Ubuntu-MATE" become faster in the future?

[Arashir]

Before standing on Ubuntu MATE 22.10 I installed and tried Debian, Ubuntu 22.04, Ubuntu 22.10, Lubuntu 22.04/10, Xubuntu 22.04, Ubuntu MATE 20 and Clear Linux.

Even though Lubuntu is faster and more lightweight, and Clear Linux seems to perform smoother on my laptop, but Ubuntu MATE is already much faster than Ubuntu and Debian themselves and is as lightweight as Xfce or even lighter - but much more beautiful.

There are some things - like flavours and also functionalities - in Ubuntu MATE that bring you to the point of decision.
It's exactly As lightweight and functional and beautiful As I would need it and recommend it to my local friends.

I eventually learnt that you can even make it faster by removing snap completely and disabling animations in MATE Tweaks. (Inform me if there are any more ways to make it lighter but not reducing much of the functionality.)
Those actually are not necessary because I'm not going to see the performance impact - You wouldn't feel much of the speed change if you already have enough resources. - But I'm going to install Ubuntu MATE on my dad's old PC so I needed to find any possibility to make Ubuntu MATE faster.

Now at the end of my story, a question pop up! Will it or can it become faster and less resource consuming in the future?

P.S. I even tried Crunchbang++ and you really can't say it's faster than Ubuntu MATE. and Lubuntu was much lighter than Crunchbang++

[tkn]

I have an old netbook with an old AMD C60 processor and 768MB RAM (700MB actually, because of zswap) and it is amazing to see that is runs Ubuntu-MATE 22.04 quite reasonable.

See this post:

How does Ubuntu-Mate perform on 2gb of ram?

Hi @gordon , So, you might want to give 64-bit a chance. Maybe it'll perform miserably. But you might just lend a new life to your netbook. It turned out you are absolutely right I tried it, and .... .... I now run Ubuntu-MATE 22.04 (64bit) on a netbook with 768 MB This is the hardware: lsmem Memory block size: 128M Total online memory: 768M Total offline memory: 0B inxi -CGMm Machine: Type: Laptop System: ASUSTeK product: 1015BX v: x.x Mobo: ASUSTeK model…

Lubuntu is not much lighter than Ubuntu-MATE and you need to go lightweight (low RAM usage) on a computer with less than 1GB.
For any 64-bit computer with less than 1GB RAM I would advice Bodhi-Linux
(that is the the E17 based Moksha desktop on top of an ubuntu base)
For any 32-bit computer with even lower specs: Antix

@Arashir

Now at the end of my story, a question pop up! Will it or can it become faster and less resource consuming in the future?

No.

If you want faster and smaller than this, you should switch to debian.

And if you find that too bloated or too slow, try Arch-linux or even Gentoo: These distro's are more lightweight and give you much more control over the install ( especially Gentoo will give you the opportunity to make it as small and fast as you demand ) but it demands some more courage an willingness to learn than the average linux user is prepared to do.

[Arashir]

Lubuntu is not much lighter than Ubuntu-MATE and you need to go lightweight (low RAM usage) on a computer with less than 1GB.

Last version of Lubuntu was taking less than 500 MB of my system RAM. While it's always about more than 800MB on my MATE - right after installation.
Also Lubuntu startup after shutdown was way faster.
My current system for journey on and adventure with linux is a Lenovo G500 laptop - Intel Core i3 4 cores, 4 GB RAM, 500 HDD, 2GB AMD Radeon Graphic and etc...

For any 64-bit computer with less than 1GB RAM I would advice Bodhi-Linux

Didn't know about Bodhi-Linux!!

For any 32-bit computer with even lower specs: Antix

I read that Antix is as lightweight & resource friendly as being suitable installing it on and running it from small external storages like SD cards and removable flash memories!
I heard about the same about Puppy linux which seems not something as independent as Antix.

If you want faster and smaller than this, you should switch to debian.

I didn't find Debian lighter than Ubuntu MATE on my computer neither - talking about CPU and RAM consumage. Of course the storage itself is not the matter of my topic.

And if you find that too bloated or too slow, try Arch-linux or even Gentoo: These distro's are more lightweight and give you much more control over the install ( especially Gentoo will give you the opportunity to make it as small and fast as you demand ) but it demands some more courage an willingness to learn than the average linux user is prepared to do.

Indeed.

[tkn]

@Arashir

I didn't find Debian lighter than Ubuntu MATE on my computer neither - talking about CPU and RAM consumage. Of course the storage itself is not the matter of my topic.

It depends on what you install as a desktop.
The base system of debian (i.e. commandline only) is consuming less RAM than Ubuntu because it loads less services/daemons by default.
When installing a desktop/GUI , it all depends on the efficiency/bloat of the desktop and its dependencies.

Antix is based on debian and uses JWM or ICEwm as windowmanager and SpaceFM as filemanager. This is, ofcourse, ultralight

I absolutely love Puppylinux (I always will) especially because the very smart and non-nonsense design of all the parts of it, but for this special case I prefer Antix because it is designed to be installed whereas Puppy is designed to be run live from a pendrive.

The narrowcasting hardware/software, that I build (in 2003) for the theater I work for, runs on an old low power VIA EDEN processor (500MHz) with 128MB RAM. I installed a debian base system (for i586) and xserver-xorg + Qupzilla (later: Falcon) as layout engine.
I wrote a very tiny, very restricted http server in bash so the setup could be controlled remotely from a (platform independent) web-browser.

Yes, 128MB is still sufficient

I will have to change the install from debian to slackware because debian stopped supporting the i586 CPU