Why do you choose MX Linux but not other distro?

[j2ee]

I am choosing between MX Linux and linux mint lmde 3 for my around 13 years old notebook T60 Thinkpad with just 2gb ram and the cpu only supports 32 bits, which one should I choose and why?

[genericmeatsack]

I put MX19 on my netbook (2gig ram, Intel N280 Atom chip.) It chugs along just fine. But if I was more interested in speed, I would go for Antix.

[mxer]

MX will run in 2GB OK, if a bit slow, but I too would recommend AntiX, as it is a lighter distro, with lots of similarities.

[Justinian]

I run MX-15 from a fully-installed flash stick on a Centrino Pentium M 1.6 Ghz laptop (no more HDD) with only a GB of DDR2-533. Anything higher than Debian Jessie chokes it.

[JayM]

What ↑they↑ said.

Mint is Ubuntu-based and Ubuntu will soon be dropping support for 32-but systems, so there won't be many more updates. MX and antiX will continue to support those systems for the foreseeable future. Of those two, I would say that MX will run slower but be easier to use especially for Linux newbies, while antiX will run faster and smoother but unlike MX doesn't have as many GUI tools so you have to edit text config files and use the command line in terminals more often.

The best thing is that all three distros are free downloads so it's easy to try them out and make up your own mind.

[j2ee]

What ↑they↑ said.

Mint is Ubuntu-based and Ubuntu will soon be dropping support for 32-but systems, so there won't be many more updates. MX and antiX will continue to support those systems for the foreseeable future. Of those two, I would say that MX will run slower but be easier to use especially for Linux newbies, while antiX will run faster and smoother but unlike MX doesn't have as many GUI tools so you have to edit text config files and use the command line in terminals more often.

The best thing is that all three distros are free downloads so it's easy to try them out and make up your own mind.

linux mint lmde 3 is same as MX Linux which is based on Debian, just not many people talk about it.

[junoluna]

extremely responsive devs who seem to go out of their way to help you

spent a few hours reading the forum and chose mx because of the forum culture

doubt i will be looking elsewhere any time soon

[JayM]

linux mint lmde 3 is same as MX Linux which is based on Debian, just not many people talk about it.

That is incorrect in so many ways!

[Head_on_a_Stick]

It's not for n00bs but pure Debian running something like dwm would be even lighter than antiX, as long as you don't mind a bit of manual configuration.

Sample ISO image here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1AI6u0 ... fBZny-gpoI

In my tests the antiX-full image boots to 153MiB used (according to the free -h output), the dwm image manages 123MiB.

[nathan2423]

I run MX-15 from a fully-installed flash stick on a Centrino Pentium M 1.6 Ghz laptop (no more HDD) with only a GB of DDR2-533. Anything higher than Debian Jessie chokes it.

Considering how we see each new edition of debian consume more ram and being somewhat slower than the earlier one, I often whether it makes sense to recommend current antix over older versions of antix or even mx.

Like Justinian is implying, I am thinking that older 32-bit versions even of MX are probably going to run faster than current versions. No doubt there is a tradeoff on whether the older versions are updated for security issues, but I think it would be interesting to see a test comparison of older versions of MX (with its full xfce desktop, which many find so much more useful) against current versions of Antix in terms of usability and responsiveness.