Do you use Trisquel, or Trisquel Mini?
I haven't tried Mini, but I'm thinking about switching when the new edition comes out.
How do the two compare?
How do Midori and Abrowser compare, for example?
I use Mini on my netbook. It is much faster than all the other desktop environments I have tried on it (GNOME Fallback, GNOME Shell, KDE, Cinnamon, Unity...). I find the Trisquel theme and the transparent taskbar quite pleasing to the eye, too. Midori is very fast, compared to abrowser. I tend to use both. All in all, Mini is a fast and nice-looking environment. Some settings can be hard or impossible to find, though, but there's always a way (console or through other DEs).
I use Cinnamon on my desktop.
Mini.
Because I use it on an old laptop (secondary) computer, in which GNOME wouldn't run as well or as fast as LXDE.
Besides, I stopped using GNOME, a long time ago, for being unnecessarily "heavy". And, I think that Xfce is the best DE, that now exists, in terms of speed vs. functionalities trade-off.
Rubén says that GNOME has more "accessibility" options, for the visually impaired and such. So, for those, it makes sense to use it. But, for the rest, I don't think that GNOME is that much of a DE - even if it has more functionalities - ever since Xfce appeared.
Midori is not an option for me, nevertheless... It's missing a lot of (very useful) functionalities that Abrowser has. And, if you browse a lot and want a decent experience, you'll have to use the latter. (Which, with a "light" DE, like LXDE, is not a bad combination.)
Cool; I was thinking of getting Abrowser even if I use Mini. It probably won't come with Gnash and other extras (if there are any other extras) pre-installed from the repos though, right?
I can't remember if it came with Gnash already pre-installed or not.
But, I can watch flash videos on Abrowser, with the Gnash plug-in, in such computer running Mini.
I use both. I use Trisquel on my desktop and Trisquel Mini on my netbook.
Desktop(2004) Celeron 2.5Ghz running Trisquel 64-bit with 1GB of RAM DDR.
Laptop(2004) Pentium M 1.6GHz (32-bit only) running Trisquel 32-bit with 1GB of RAM DDR.
Laptop(2008) Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz running Trisquel 64-bit with 2GB of RAM DDR3.
Desktop(2011) Core i3 3.10GHz running Trisquel 64-bit with 4GB of RAM DDR3.
I always prefer Trisquel because it is complete (with GNOME Fallback or GNOME Shell). Mini is fast but need many changes to be good to daily use.
In my opinion Trisquel Mini only with 256MB or less.
Thank for the responses guys. I'm surprised at how popular Mini seems to be. My computer is a pretty regular laptop. It has a dual core Pentium processor. Trisquel runs well on it. I was wondering if Mini might run faster.
Here are my specs (I think these are right):
2.2ghz dual core Pentium 2mb cache
2gb ram
40 gb hdd 5400 rpm
My laptop runs pretty fast with the normal Trisquel DE.
1.5 GHz Pentium M,
1 GB of RAM (2 Matched 512 MB RAM)
40 GB Hard Disk Drive, 5400 RPM
Lightweight OS's are becoming pretty popular, from what I know.
(from DistroWatch, in the beginning of 2011:)
"Looking through the tables, an interesting thing is the rise of distributions that use the lightweight, but full-featured LXDE desktop or the Openbox window manager. As an example, Lubuntu now comfortably beats Kubuntu in terms of page hits, while CrunchBang Linux, a lightweight distribution with Openbox is still in the top 25 even though it failed to produce a stable release for well over a year. Many other distributions started offering LXDE-based editions of their products, further contributing to the dramatic rise in popularity of this relatively new desktop environment."
I suppose many people still have old computers around, that they can use, and also make the same type of reasoning as I do, even for new computers, and just decide that they don't need all the extra fancy features that other, more heavyweight, OS's have.
I've even installed Xfce on a laptop bought only 2 years ago, because there's simply no need for anything more than that, for everyone who uses such computer, to do everything they need, and it's a much more simple DE to use than GNOME, with the shell and all that, that it could run, with no problems.
Well, the main difference is the DE, so I guess I use neither. I installed from the regular GNOME Fallback liveCD, but I use GNOME Shell.