(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

obxjerry wrote:

It is never correct to hijack the thread of another poster to raise an issue of your own.
Seeing your issue, I think it's better to start a new thread.

Thank you, Béèm. I have wondered for some time if I was repeatedly committing a faux pas on this forum. I thought I was on topic and the OP posted only once and that was 4 days ago so posted here. I need to work on my forum etiquette. Please believe me when I tell you I appreciate your heads up. I don't mean to offend.

Thanks again.

It is not always easy to distinguish if an own issue is the same as the OP's one.

But mostly the hardware and software can be quite different, so advise for one won't always work for the other.

Don't consider it as a faux pas (French is spoken in Kentucky?)

Béèm wrote:

obxjerry wrote:

It is never correct to hijack the thread of another poster to raise an issue of your own.
Seeing your issue, I think it's better to start a new thread.

Thank you, Béèm. I have wondered for some time if I was repeatedly committing a faux pas on this forum. I thought I was on topic and the OP posted only once and that was 4 days ago so posted here. I need to work on my forum etiquette. Please believe me when I tell you I appreciate your heads up. I don't mean to offend.

Thanks again.

It is not always easy to distinguish if an own issue is the same as the OP's one.

But mostly the hardware and software can be quite different, so advise for one won't always work for the other.

Don't consider it as a faux pas (French is spoken in Kentucky?)

However, the next step for the user is to establish a _stable_ Puppy system... So, the software discussion is not completely out-to-lunch...

azstew wrote:Ram is pretty cheap right now, so load up. Puppy with 2 GB flies.
But my next laptop will have 8-12 GB. (Win7 likes RAM, and I need it for work)

In the US RAM is ~$10/GB right now.

I think the older RAM (most likely what the OP has) is still fairly expensive (due to rarity and lack of production).

[quote="RetroTechGuy]However, the next step for the user is to establish a _stable_ Puppy system... So, the software discussion is not completely out-to-lunch...[/quote]I don't agree.
The discussion of the OP was requirements to run Puppy.

f someone comes in about his problems of his running installation, this has nothing to do with the initial thread.

But mostly the hardware and software can be quite different, so advise for one won't always work for the other.

Don't consider it as a faux pas (French is spoken in Kentucky?)

The OP never got a firm answer on his question. I've run 421-retro on 366mhz, 160mb ram in less than 500mb on the hard drive for almost a year. I think it runs plenty quick. I posted here because yesterday I installed two Puppys, I thought were designed to run on old machines, on a 800mhz, 160 ram computer and neither ran acceptably, not nearly as fast as 421 on the lesser machine.

I don't know a lot of things. I don't know whether my problem is user error, hardware, software or combination of those. I don't know what the minimum requirements are for any Puppy version. I do know the answer I would have given a couple of days ago is not what I would say today. Today I don't know much of anything. I do know how a newbie feels.

I'm a quarter French. I don't speak French but there are people in KY that do. KY is nothing if not diverse.

Bruce B has replied quite precisely on the question.

obxjerry wrote:

I posted here because yesterday I installed two Puppys, I thought were designed to run on old machines, on a 800mhz, 160 ram computer and neither ran acceptably, not nearly as fast as 421 on the lesser machine.

Can you tell us which two?

Can you tell us which two?

Wary 104, Wary 5.0s smaller brother and Classic Pup 2.14x.

I'm doing some things and am more puzzled than ever.

related comment i hope??

I downloaded libflashplayer to temp file...
clicked the install icon
got box with package listed in it...
only options under action and archive are extract or add???
Why not an "install" choice??

I mean... what do I do now???
Thnx

Stocky wrote:related comment i hope??

Tangentially ......

I downloaded libflashplayer to temp file...

What is the full name of the file?

If it's something like .tgz then it's not a puppy package, so it is not automatically placed where puppy will need it. With a .tgz file, you first expand it to its uncompressed form, then move it yourself to the directory where the browser expects to find it.

adobe falsh player..?

.tar.gz

lots o fun here..

Thnx

got no clue

Stocky wrote:adobe falsh player..?

.tar.gz

lots o fun here..

Thnx

got no clue

http://puppylinux.org/wikka/FlashPlayer

Thnx for the linkkk


It gives 2 choices(vs)...?

I'm using classic... but... guess i'll just downld the newest version.

CU

Says it installed ok...

so i'll reboo and give it a wak.

thnx much agin

Stocky

Thanks again...
An hour at youtube started with serious lag on video and audio...
But for some reason smoothed out on audio completely after not too long... but with the video still goin fits and stops...
Before i got a recent gum up I caused with firefox fixed... It ran pretty smoothe...
but realistically... i'm short on ram... 256... older vaio...
no complaint here.. just an observ...
Bless us all....
and what the heck is Russia doing moving the magnetic north line???

Shoot... 5:33 Boston USA time... Gotta go eat some captain crunch!
cuStocky
ps... i don't say it enough.. appreciate the patience.

Stocky wrote:but with the video still goin fits and stops...

Close all other tabs in the browser, and have as few other processes going, to give your computer the best chance at playing smoothly. There might be a cache setting that would help performance.

There's a thread on installing in a PC with only 16 MB of RAM, though it's earlier than Wary & Lucid, so does not directly help the OP. Nevertheless, is deserving of some sort of award.

http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=48214

Re the original question as to Puppy's minimum requirements, I find it useful for MS refugees to place Linux distros on a MS continuum. So on my hardware Ubuntu is a bit heavy compared to Win98 but Puppy is somewhere between 98 and 3.1. In fact, the slowest machine I run Puppy on (2.x) has a Pentium 200 clone and 64Mb of RAM. Win98 won't install and I don't think I would be very happy with it if it did. With this machine we are getting back to a different family of requirements. It has no USB support and will not boot from a CD. So I did a frugal install and there is a swap file in there somewhere. The HDDs are 1.6 and 2.1Gb. I boot from a floppy. Puppy runs fine for what I use it for on that machine.

Which brings me to my second point. When we go that far back in time we hit a mind boggling point where the OS takes up a small fraction of the resources that applications do. Puppy is like that. So the right question may be, "What are the requirements of the software you want to run?" For my old machine burning CDs or browsing the web isn't possible in Win3.1 and doing it in 98 would be slower than Puppy (assuming I could get 98 to install). Puppy lets me install a CD burner and use it to back-up the Win3.1 partitions.

So figure out if your HARDWARE can do what you want to do. If it can, then for old computers, Puppy is less likely to drag it down than any Windows since 3.1. A swap file helps a lot. I seem to recall some Puppies automatically use one if present while others require you to turn it on. Antique memory can be pricey but old IDE hard drives are cheap.

hayden wrote:Re the original question as to Puppy's minimum requirements, I find it useful for MS refugees to place Linux distros on a MS continuum. So on my hardware Ubuntu is a bit heavy compared to Win98 but Puppy is somewhere between 98 and 3.1. In fact, the slowest machine I run Puppy on (2.x) has a Pentium 200 clone and 64Mb of RAM. Win98 won't install and I don't think I would be very happy with it if it did. With this machine we are getting back to a different family of requirements. It has no USB support and will not boot from a CD. So I did a frugal install and there is a swap file in there somewhere. The HDDs are 1.6 and 2.1Gb. I boot from a floppy. Puppy runs fine for what I use it for on that machine.

Which brings me to my second point. When we go that far back in time we hit a mind boggling point where the OS takes up a small fraction of the resources that applications do. Puppy is like that. So the right question may be, "What are the requirements of the software you want to run?" For my old machine burning CDs or browsing the web isn't possible in Win3.1 and doing it in 98 would be slower than Puppy (assuming I could get 98 to install). Puppy lets me install a CD burner and use it to back-up the Win3.1 partitions.

So figure out if your HARDWARE can do what you want to do. If it can, then for old computers, Puppy is less likely to drag it down than any Windows since 3.1. A swap file helps a lot. I seem to recall some Puppies automatically use one if present while others require you to turn it on. Antique memory can be pricey but old IDE hard drives are cheap.

tnx for all the contributions,

i think hayden hit the point, sometimes the applications use more resources than the OS itself, so can you plese tell me the best applications for a "normal" use of the computer (playing video, music, youtube, etc).


i pretend to use a p3 1.2ghz and 256 mb of ram, b




PS: sorry for my bad english

Stocky wrote: but with the video still goin fits and stops...

I never use the flashplayer. It is hopeless, needing too much resources. (PIII 560 MHZ)

After clicking on a video, and checking that it starts okay in the flashplayer, I pause the flashplayer. The video continues to download in the background.

Using the filemanager, I go to the /tmp directory and click on the Flashxxxxx file (which is the temporary file where the browser is buffering the video for its flashplayer).

Your multimedia player (it's Mplayer here) then plays the flashvideo much less resource-intensively, and much smoother, than the flashplayer.

You don't have to wait until the whole video has downloaded before you click to start the media player, either.