is MATE lighter than Cinnamon?

Forum rules
Before you post please read how to get help
jglen490
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 642
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:57 pm

Re: is MATE lighter than Cinnamon?

Post by jglen490 » Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:37 pm

It depends. On my laptop with it's fewer available resources, MATE most definitely runs well and Cinnamon is totally unhappy. Based on the experience of others, it's probably a point where hardware limitations become significant enough.
I feel more like I do than I did when I got here.
Toshiba A135-S2386, Intel T2080, ATI Radeon® Xpress 200M Chipset, 2GB RAM, 500GB

jharris1993
Level 3
Level 3
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:43 pm
Location: Woprcester Ma. (USA) when I'm not in Moscow Russia
Contact:

Re: is MATE lighter than Cinnamon?

Post by jharris1993 » Mon Dec 17, 2018 2:25 am

jglen490 wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:37 pm
It depends. On my laptop with it's fewer available resources, MATE most definitely runs well and Cinnamon is totally unhappy. Based on the experience of others, it's probably a point where hardware limitations become significant enough.
My two centavos here:

I am translating the intent of this question to specifically reference older systems with more limited capabilities, slower graphics with less GPU RAM, (if any at all!), less RAM and/or a CPU more suited to a flip-phone than a production computer system.

This is something of a hobby of mine, not only because I'm a Certified Masochist who likes insane challenges*, but because I really HATE throwing away perfectly good hardware just because it won't run the current versions of Windows!

The first and primary constraint is memory.
A system with insufficient memory will run horribly because of the amount of time spent thrashing swap, no matter what system you put on it.

If the system has adequate RAM installed, the next important constraining factor is graphics capability. This includes factors like GPU capabilities and the amount of video RAM installed, if any.

I tried installing an older version of Mint on a Dell PowerEdge 2800 server awhile back. It had twin MONSTER Xeon processors, enough memory to run Los Angeles, a half-dozen 10k RPM fast/wide SCSI, (more like SCSI's older brother on steroids - I forget what it's called), hard drives arranged as RAID-0 (striping) on a BEAST hardware controller, and a motherboard faster than the Indy 500! Since it was specifically designed to run headless, the graphics capabilities stank with barely enough power for a command-line interface on a VGA monitor. Obviously, the only significant constraint here was with the graphics.

Attempting to run Cinnamon on it caused it to crash when the GUI capabilities started to load.

Running MATE, it was snappier than a brand-new rubber-band. (I used it to experiment with WordPress for a while.)

Installing on older systems, things like netbooks, or other systems that have been designed down to fit the minimum requirements of a specific O/S, you introduce the constraints of CPU and/or motherboard capabilities.

All things being equal, on smaller more constrained systems I usually start with Mint Cinnamon and see how that works. If that fails, I try:
  • Mint MATE
  • Mint Xfce
Failing that, I might try a smaller version of Ubuntu. If I'm really desperate, (or pig-headed stubborn!), I'll try things like Puppy, Tiny Core and the other mini-distros. If none of that works, I usually try Damn Small Linux. If that doesn't work, it goes into the "use for parts" box!

-----------------------------
* Insane challenges:
The most insane system I ever tried to resurrect was a 90's vintage Toshiba Libretto 50CT, with 8 megs (?) of RAM and a 6.something inch screen that was released back when Windows '95 was Bleeding Edge. I got it to run Damn-Small, but barely. It would get on the Internet, but not much else. I still have it.
Jim "JR"

Some see things as they are, and ask "Why?"
I dream things that never were, and ask "Why Not".

Robert F. Kennedy

“Impossible” is only found in the dictionary of a fool.
Old Chinese Proverb

User avatar
lsemmens
Level 8
Level 8
Posts: 2442
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 9:07 pm
Location: Rural South Australia

Re: is MATE lighter than Cinnamon?

Post by lsemmens » Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:28 am

jharris1993 wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 2:25 am
-----------------------------
* Insane challenges:
The most insane system I ever tried to resurrect was a 90's vintage Toshiba Libretto 50CT, with 8 megs (?) of RAM and a 6.something inch screen that was released back when Windows '95 was Bleeding Edge. I got it to run Damn-Small, but barely. It would get on the Internet, but not much else. I still have it.

I like your attitude, I'm not sure that I'd have even tried it. :D
Kernel: 4.15.0-46-generic x86_64 bits
Desktop: Cinnamon 3.8.9
Distro: Linux Mint 19 Tara

Laptop HP-ProBook-470-G2 8Gb RAM SSD
Server AMD Phenom 9650 - GEForce 9400GT 6Gb RAM
+ three other Mint machines
Out of my mind - please leave a message

gm10
Level 19
Level 19
Posts: 9222
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: is MATE lighter than Cinnamon?

Post by gm10 » Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:35 am

lsemmens wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:28 am
jharris1993 wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 2:25 am
-----------------------------
* Insane challenges:
The most insane system I ever tried to resurrect was a 90's vintage Toshiba Libretto 50CT, with 8 megs (?) of RAM and a 6.something inch screen that was released back when Windows '95 was Bleeding Edge. I got it to run Damn-Small, but barely. It would get on the Internet, but not much else. I still have it.

I like your attitude, I'm not sure that I'd have even tried it. :D
I still have a functional 80486 with Win3.11 on it. Wouldn't dream of trying to install a current Linux kernel to it, there's no hope of that working, but you could go with one of the early kernel versions if you wanted to (which I don't, I like this bit of computing history as it is).

User avatar
lsemmens
Level 8
Level 8
Posts: 2442
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 9:07 pm
Location: Rural South Australia

Re: is MATE lighter than Cinnamon?

Post by lsemmens » Mon Dec 17, 2018 8:27 pm

gm10 wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:35 am

I still have a functional 80486 with Win3.11 on it.
Just out of curiosity, do you ever use it? Or, is it on a shelf somewhere taking up space? I went from a 386sx to a Pentium 2 back in the day. Don't have either now.
Kernel: 4.15.0-46-generic x86_64 bits
Desktop: Cinnamon 3.8.9
Distro: Linux Mint 19 Tara

Laptop HP-ProBook-470-G2 8Gb RAM SSD
Server AMD Phenom 9650 - GEForce 9400GT 6Gb RAM
+ three other Mint machines
Out of my mind - please leave a message

gm10
Level 19
Level 19
Posts: 9222
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: is MATE lighter than Cinnamon?

Post by gm10 » Mon Dec 17, 2018 8:37 pm

lsemmens wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 8:27 pm
gm10 wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:35 am

I still have a functional 80486 with Win3.11 on it.
Just out of curiosity, do you ever use it? Or, is it on a shelf somewhere taking up space? I went from a 386sx to a Pentium 2 back in the day. Don't have either now.
Outside of nostalgia there's not much of a use case, no.

all41
Level 15
Level 15
Posts: 5668
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:12 am
Location: Computer, Car, Cage

Re: is MATE lighter than Cinnamon?

Post by all41 » Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:32 pm

gm10 wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:35 am

I still have a functional 80486 with Win3.11 on it. Wouldn't dream of trying to install a current Linux kernel to it, there's no hope of that working, but you could go with one of the early kernel versions if you wanted to (which I don't, I like this bit of computing history as it is).
This might bring good money at online auction :shock:
I think I still have a 286 motherboard around here somewhere.
But back in the days when processor speeds were 4 mb (not gb)
and adding 4k of ram was exciting (not 4mb, not 4gb but kilobytes), when humongus hard drives were still a few mb------
people exploited that hardware to the max.

gm10
Level 19
Level 19
Posts: 9222
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: is MATE lighter than Cinnamon?

Post by gm10 » Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:04 pm

all41 wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:32 pm
I think I still have a 286 motherboard around here somewhere.
But back in the days when processor speeds were 4 mb (not gb)
and adding 4k of ram was exciting (not 4mb, not 4gb but kilobytes), when humongus hard drives were still a few mb------
people exploited that hardware to the max.
My 80286 had 8 MHz base frequency on the CPU with the great innovation of a turbo mode to 12 MHz. Hard to imagine these days.

As to exploiting to the max, I remember Microsoft's keyboard driver had some crazy large size of 8.92 KB or so, had to replace that with a custom one of around 500 bytes. Pure assembler. Same for a custom graphics driver. I haven't touched assembler in a long long time but back then we had 640 KB of base memory and they had to be maximized. Fun times. These days just opening a terminal window costs a wasteful 35+ MB of RAM, a multiple of what a HDD back then could even hold. :D

all41
Level 15
Level 15
Posts: 5668
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:12 am
Location: Computer, Car, Cage

Re: is MATE lighter than Cinnamon?

Post by all41 » Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:15 pm

gm10 wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:04 pm
all41 wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:32 pm
I think I still have a 286 motherboard around here somewhere.
But back in the days when processor speeds were 4 mb (not gb)
and adding 4k of ram was exciting (not 4mb, not 4gb but kilobytes), when humongus hard drives were still a few mb------
people exploited that hardware to the max.
My 80286 had 8 MHz base frequency on the CPU with the great innovation of a turbo mode to 12 MHz. Hard to imagine these days.

As to exploiting to the max, I remember Microsoft's keyboard driver had some crazy large size of 8.92 KB or so, had to replace that with a custom one of around 500 bytes. Pure assembler. Same for a custom graphics driver. I haven't touched assembler in a long long time but back then we had 640 KB of base memory and they had to be maximized. Fun times. These days just opening a terminal window costs a wasteful 35+ MB of RAM, a multiple of what a HDD back then could even hold. :D
It's hard to imagine such hardware used in business and office--but a lot of stuff happened with minimal hw & dos
We've becomed spoiled and lazy in these days of mega-resources--what's a few wasted mb here and there?
As a matter of fact I had lots of fun with 8 bit---atari, and commodore 64s

User avatar
Joe2Shoe
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 429
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:12 pm
Location: Ozone

Re: is MATE lighter than Cinnamon?

Post by Joe2Shoe » Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:22 pm

I have 2 10+ year old laptops running LM Mate 19 64-bit and it's great. 4GB RAM.
Had LM Cinnamon 18.3 on them, but Mate is quicker and I don't miss anything in Cinnamon, which is running on 4 other newer laptops.
"Tolerance is the refuge of men without conviction."
"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire

all41
Level 15
Level 15
Posts: 5668
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:12 am
Location: Computer, Car, Cage

Re: is MATE lighter than Cinnamon?

Post by all41 » Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:55 pm

Joe2Shoe wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:22 pm
I have 2 10+ year old laptops running LM Mate 19 64-bit and it's great. 4GB RAM.
Had LM Cinnamon 18.3 on them, but Mate is quicker and I don't miss anything in Cinnamon, which is running on 4 other newer laptops.
+1
This is pretty much as expected, and discussed in the earlier posts of this topic.

'Lighter than--or Heavier than' is subjective.

Cinnamon is more resource intensive than MATE period. That will be a limiting factor on older hardware.
On newer hardware with up to date graphic capability the performance difference is mostly imperceptible

User avatar
vishgaur
Level 3
Level 3
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2018 4:59 pm
Location: India
Contact:

Re: is MATE lighter than Cinnamon?

Post by vishgaur » Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:51 am

You should tell your outcomes now.
Have you tried both?

I have kind of similar configuration as yours
i3, 4GB, 1TB

But my opinion is quite different from the others.
My Cinnamon (19.1) used to load in similar time as compared to windows 10 on my laptop. Also, it used to freeze and lag every now and then in between usage.

Whilst, MATE seems blazing fast and much more reliable. Never frozen, never lost any work.
HP RTL8723BE chipset issue still persists (has a troubleshoot) but other than that, it's awesome and much better than Cinnamon for my device (chipset issue is in both cinnamon and MATE).
Writing doesn't earn me money, but it provides satisfaction that money can't provide.

Image

Post Reply

Return to “MATE”