MX Linux Forum

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

JayM wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 5:10 am 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.

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

j2ee wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 5:15 am 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!

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.

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.

I just find out updating to MX Linux 19 means someone needs to uninstall MX Liunux 18 first, this part is so bad and doesn't make much sense for me.

You do not need to uninstall it. You can install right over it.

Eadwine Rose wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:23 am You do not need to uninstall it. You can install right over it.

All personal files would be gone?

You need to back those up. You said nothing about that, you mentioned uninstalling. That is not needed.

Eadwine Rose wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:33 am You need to back those up. You said nothing about that, you mentioned uninstalling. That is not needed.

Backup just for safety purpose or install 19 over 18 would delete all personal files?

j2ee wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:35 am

Eadwine Rose wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:33 am You need to back those up. You said nothing about that, you mentioned uninstalling. That is not needed.

Backup just for safety purpose or install 19 over 18 would delete all personal files?

I think that you're looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. Since it should be S.O.P. to back up your data on a regular basis for any linux distro, just wait to install MX 19 until immediately after the next back-up of 18.3 is made. That Way you will lose nothing.

FWIW, I did not have any issues installing MX-19 over the top of my existing MX-18.3 daily driver. I backed up my /home folder and then I chose to Keep the /home when I ran the installer.

I did have to re-install Kodi and Chrome. But the settings were all saved in my /home folder and they were picked up when I restarted the apps. I don't do a lot of customizing, but there are some write ups here on the forum for how to save all of your customizations and then run the MX-19 install. Use the search to look around.

Seaken64

As to the question posed in the topic:

I chose MX because I already had a comfort level with a Windows-XP/7 interface. And I came to MX from antiX, which I found to be the best on some old computers. I had tried Mint LMDE and LXDE and some others. But I landed on MX because of the community here and on the antiX forum. I was helped several times to get things working by these forums with direct participation from some of the developers. I've been impressed ever since that the developers and other regulars here are genuinely interested in our success as users.

Which one should you choose? I would suggest MX. I installed MX-19 32-bit on an old P4-3.2Ghz with 4GB ram and it runs just as good as my Windows 7 on one of my Core2Duo machines. I tried Xubuntu on that P4 and MX just runs better and is easier to setup and keep updated. And as pointed out further up the thread Ubuntu (and Xubuntu and Mint by extension?) will not be supporting 32-bit anymore. I would go with MX.

Seaken64

Doesn't Mint LMDE use the much heavier Cinnamon desktop by default?

Latest Mint LMDE is (still) stretch based. It was released 31 August 2018 and from what I can tell, that is it. ie no upgraded iso files.

once as a n00b (now only noob) i was trying diferent known distros on some old machines, and none of them really worked,
then i went to DISTROWATCH and i see that MX is on the first place of popularity (still is). I gave it a chance, it worked out of the box, it is a great experience. Thank you.

Eadwine Rose wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:23 am You do not need to uninstall it. You can install right over it.

Would one just choose to keep their home folder in this case during the install. Plus having a backup of course..?

KoO wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:15 pm

Eadwine Rose wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:23 am You do not need to uninstall it. You can install right over it.

Would one just choose to keep their home folder in this case during the install. Plus having a backup of course..?

That's what I did. But I also did not have a lot of customizations to the XFCE interface or themes. I re-installed a few packages that were lost after the install and I was good to go.

But I have read that others took a more careful approach and used some specialized software to backup all the custom keybindings, themes, etc.

Seaken64

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that another big reason for me to stay with MX was the LiveUSB Maker utilities/tools. I had not come across an easier system to use and setup a LiveUSB linux. This is another reason to choose MX/antiX IMO.

Seaken64

To Admin: why do we have two threads on this same topic? Can we merge these two threads?

seaken64 wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:23 pm

KoO wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:15 pm

Eadwine Rose wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:23 am You do not need to uninstall it. You can install right over it.

Would one just choose to keep their home folder in this case during the install. Plus having a backup of course..?

That's what I did. But I also did not have a lot of customizations to the XFCE interface or themes. I re-installed a few packages that were lost after the install and I was good to go.

But I have read that others took a more careful approach and used some specialized software to backup all the custom keybindings, themes, etc.

Seaken64

Thanks for the info this is always handy for people who are upgrading.

Any technical reason why need to reinstall mx linux when there is a new version? I tried different distros before and I never heared of this.

Yes, it has to do with the change of generations in the underlying Debian. MX 19 is based on Debian 10. MX 18.3 was based on Debian 9. You can't go from one generation to the next without a re-install. At least it is difficult, at best, and not recommended for the non-experts.

There are some links at the top of the forum for more information.

Seaken64

seaken64 wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:21 pm Yes, it has to do with the change of generations in the underlying Debian. MX 19 is based on Debian 10. MX 18.3 was based on Debian 9. You can't go from one generation to the next without a re-install. At least it is difficult, at best, and not recommended for the non-experts.

There are some links at the top of the forum for more information.

Seaken64

Ubuntu is based on Debian but doesnt have issue like this?

j2ee wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:50 pm

seaken64 wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:21 pm Yes, it has to do with the change of generations in the underlying Debian. MX 19 is based on Debian 10. MX 18.3 was based on Debian 9. You can't go from one generation to the next without a re-install. At least it is difficult, at best, and not recommended for the non-experts.

There are some links at the top of the forum for more information.

Seaken64

Ubuntu is based on Debian but doesnt have issue like this?

No, it does have these issues. All distro's that focus on "stable" software have the same issues. Ubuntu does offer to do the upgrade tasks on your behalf. But it does not always work and it will depend on how complex your system has become over time. I have had both success and failure moving from one generation to another using the tools provided by Ubuntu.

To me it makes more sense to follow MX's plan and not attempt a direct upgrade if your system has been around awhile. If you don't care and can risk a broken system then go for it. But most folks would be smarter to follow the lead of the MC developers and start with a re-install when the current stable changes generation. There are tools to help make the process easier. But it takes some understanding.

Using a "rolling" release distro does not eliminate problems from upgrades. The best solution to upgrades is careful planning. Some things happen in MacOS and Windows worlds. Computer operating systems are not generally understood by the general public and end-users. This is why we have IT departments and software engineers.

Seaken64

The official MX position.
https://mxlinux.org/migration/

j2ee wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:06 pm Any technical reason why need to reinstall mx linux when there is a new version? I tried different distros before and I never heared of this.

You may not have heard of this but it is the norm if you use Linux long enough. Sooner or later some piece of software will not be compatible with one piece or another.

Rolling distros are really the only ones that you wouldn't have to reinstall at some point. Rolling distros come with their own set of problems.

As for this "Considering how we see each new edition of debian consume more ram and being somewhat slower than the earlier one" notions, I never IMO felt that Debian consumed anymore RAM or was slower for each subsequent edition. If anything, I hear users saying that newer Debian releases are faster and more lightweight than the previous ones. So perhaps this is a case of "YMMV"? Naturally, what consumes RAM or what makes something performant is the combination of software inside a distro and how everything is built-in. Of course, you can't expect GNOME3 to be amazing on all PCs, but if one sticks with fluxbox, I think even "underpowered" PCs should be able to run it without much effort. Nowadays it isn't much or at all about the OSes but about browsers that make people annoyed when using older hardware. But that's a discussion for another topic.

I chose MX Linux, because, well, is stable, offers 32-bit editions and because I don't fancy rolling release distros. Sure, I can use the latter, but when having the choice of something stable, I'd choose that in a heartbeat. And also because I know my way about xfce and can use it comfortably. I don't think it gets better than that if you ask me.

SwampRabbit wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:44 pm

j2ee wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:06 pm Any technical reason why need to reinstall mx linux when there is a new version? I tried different distros before and I never heared of this.

You may not have heard of this but it is the norm if you use Linux long enough. Sooner or later some piece of software will not be compatible with one piece or another.

Rolling distros are really the only ones that you wouldn't have to reinstall at some point. Rolling distros come with their own set of problems.

For Ubuntu update to another version is one command or clicks in GUI. I google and even upgrade main version in Debian takes some steps with commands but not completely reinstall.

I agree one command upgrade may screw up stuff for some very customized system. But I just use the default simple stuff, I would not even have a choice to update with one command with mx linux.

tried manjaro, ubuntu, kubuntu and mint in the past year ... had issues with each ...

MX was the one i enjoyed the most and the one with the best support

i did not need to upgrade to 19 but since my system was new, it was no big deal

well worth the 8 minutes it took to install in my opinion and once themed and tinkered with for a few hours, i just did a snapshot of the install to stick on the other laptops laying around

seems really hard to break MX ... that is a major plus for me though i am sure i will get around to it soon enough ... the snapshot ISO is a wonderful tool .. if you to manage to bork your system, you an have it back to where you were before the kettle is boiled..

j2ee wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:06 pm Any technical reason why need to reinstall mx linux when there is a new version? I tried different distros before and I never heared of this.

You only have to do a fresh installation of newer versions of MX when the underlying version of Debian Stable that it's based on is updated as it was in November of this year (Debian Buster.) Otherwise pretty much all of the version updates will happen automatically through the regular update method as they were from MX-17 to MX-18, both of which were based on Debian Stretch which was the previous version of Debian Stable. Long story short: as long as the base version of Debian hasn't changed you usually don't need to reinstall MX to update its version. That's why some people call MX a "semi-rolling release."

Editing to add that even if a newer version of MX is released there's no reason why you have to install it. MX-18.3 will be supported at least until the end of 2022, and even older versions of MX are still supported. The main thing is whether or not Debian is still supporting their version that that MX version is based on: still providing security updates and bug fixes. Even when that stops, MX's developers are known for going above and beyond the call of duty to continue to offer support for older MX versions as much as they can.

But since you're talking about doing a fresh installation anyway, whether to Mint LMDE, MX or (possibly) antiX, why are you even worrying about it and about possible loss of data? You would install MX the same way you would any other Linux distro: back up your data first, install the distro, then restore your data. The entire process takes perhaps an hour or two depending on the speed of your back-up media and the amount of data that you have. As has been pointed out earlier in this thread you should be making regular backups anyway.

Regarding the question in the subject, I chose MX because it was the best compromise between performance on my ~10 year old PC that I had at the time and ease of use, because almost all apps that I wanted were preinstalled for me as though the distro had been custom-built just for me, because when I tested it everything just worked, and because 90% of the questions or issues I had (and there were very few of those) had already been covered in the manual, the wiki or the forum and were found by simply searching those resources, or by simply looking around in the OS and getting familiar with it, such as the MX tools which provide easy ways of adjusting configuration settings and getting MX to work the way I prefer.

i forgot to mention the qualified guides :)


also seems to me that people only post here when they have something constructive to add

one of the main problems i had with ubuntu was the forum ..... way too many potential solutions being posted with varying degrees of accuracy and i am an average clueless user, who had a lot of problems to try to troubleshoot

jumping about a bit is inevitable til you find the distro that suits you i guess...i did enjoy the kubuntu DE, which is why i have started using the kde 'version' of mx

I have an Ubuntu 11.10 Oneric Ocelot DVD dated March 2012 sitting beside me right now and I guarantee that if I installed it and ran the initial updates it would not update itself to 19.10 Eoan Ermine. Too much has changed in the meantime. If I wanted the latest and greatest Ubuntu version I would need to back up my data, install it (which would format and repartition my drive), and restore my data.

j2ee wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:28 pm For Ubuntu update to another version is one command or clicks in GUI. I google and even upgrade main version in Debian takes some steps with commands but not completely reinstall.

I agree one command upgrade may screw up stuff for some very customized system. But I just use the default simple stuff, I would not even have a choice to update with one command with mx linux.

This is partially incorrect. You CANNOT update just ANY or ALL versions of Debian, Ubuntu, Mint to the next. Ubuntu only supports upgrading from one version to the next version, or from one LTS version to the next LTS version. But for any other you need to actually update from one release to the other until you get to the final one.

Sure you might be able to upgrade from from 16.04 to 19.10, but major changes to Ubuntu in between those releases, you risk going through multiple upgrades, at which something can go wrong multiple times. Heck just having a PPA installed on Ubuntu or Debian can crash a upgrade process and you'll be reinstalling then.

Not every version of MX needs reinstalled, from MX-17 to MX-18 you could, but MX-18 to MX-19 you couldn't. This isn't much different from other Linux Distros. You'll see more people complaining about sloppy dist-upgrades then you will see from fresh installs.
https://mxlinux.org/migration/

j2ee wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:28 pmI google

Folks here aren't making things up, if you want to stick with Google that's fine.

Because I have tried other distros and they don't have one or more of the following, the tools, tweaks, applications, and the speed of MX Linux which is why I have recently returned to using it. While I was away it was a good learning experience trying other distros.

Mauser wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:19 pm Because I have tried other distros and they don't have one or more of the following, the tools, tweaks, applications, and the speed of MX Linux which is why I have recently returned to using it. While I was away it was a good learning experience trying other distros.

I was just about to say I haven't seen you on here in awhile, welcome back!

Looks like you have good reason to "re-choose" MX!

I'm using MX on a single core Core2 of about the same generation except that I've upgraded to 4 GB RAM. I recommend MX over Mint LMDE because LMDE is kind of like a bastard step child of Mint with a much smaller user base. Caveat, I have not used LMDE for quite a few years, but when I did it did not make me happy -- it was messy at the system level. Mint's current desktops on the Ubuntu core don't make me happy either -- too much underlying Cinnamon and Gnome junk.

As long as your expectations are appropriate (don't open too many windows in Firefox), you won't be disappointed in MX. If you want a lighter desktop, you might try AntiX instead, but XFCE doesn't hog resources and is a better desktop experience.

I started with programming in machine language, then Assembler, worked in DOS for a while then along came Windows. Had progressed up to
WinXP and Kubuntu on the side, when a friend suggested Mepis. This led on to MX14 and, instead of moving to other Linux versions (which were tried) I have
remained with MX. It is stable. provides all the functions that I need, and has excellent support. Why try anything else??

Admitted that I have a current problem with MX19 but think that is a hardware old age issue. I'll be 90 next year (if i make It) certainly the hardware can
be updated but am not sure about myself

On a 2GB machine I would use antiX.

Gordon Cooper wrote: Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:06 am I started with programming in machine language, then Assembler, worked in DOS for a while then along came Windows. Had progressed up to
WinXP and Kubuntu on the side, when a friend suggested Mepis. This led on to MX14 and, instead of moving to other Linux versions (which were tried) I have
remained with MX. It is stable. provides all the functions that I need, and has excellent support. Why try anything else??

Admitted that I have a current problem with MX19 but think that is a hardware old age issue. I'll be 90 next year (if i make It) certainly the hardware can
be updated but am not sure about myself

I am impressed that you are almost 90 and you still use Linux.

j2ee wrote: Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:25 am I am impressed that you are almost 90 and you still use Linux.

MX Linux... so easy an 90yr old can use it.

Kidding Gordon Cooper .... you're a hero!