If Puppy didn't exist, what distro would you be using?

Message

8Geee · #21 Post by **8Geee** » Sun 23 Aug 2015, 23:04

I'll have to cast another vote for W98Lite. Using CF card for OS store. In spite of IE, I was pleased with W98-2.

Colonel Panic · #22 Post by **Colonel Panic** » Sun 23 Aug 2015, 23:23

Interesting posts above. Is it still feasible to run Windows 98 in 2015? I ask this because I have a copy of Windows ME (the immediate successor of 98 ) which I could install again if I wanted to.

nic007 · #23 Post by **nic007** » Mon 24 Aug 2015, 00:12

Colonel Panic wrote:Interesting posts above. Is it still feasible to run Windows 98 in 2015? I ask this because I have a copy of Windows ME (the immediate successor of 98 ) which I could install again if I wanted to.

Software and drivers become a problem. I used window 98 SE until 2008 but had to change because I could not find a driver for my cellphone modem. That was also the time I discovered Puppy as I was looking for a small distro which was relatively up to date as far as drivers are concerned (although there is no linux driver for my canon laser printer). Using Windows XP mostly now. Find it the best option in terms of overall usage for my 12 year old machine.

8Geee · #24 Post by **8Geee** » Mon 24 Aug 2015, 03:24

Yeah, its the drivers, and the added complexity of the internet (re: ad blocking. And of course, theres no real dedicated maintainence with improvements (re: boot from USB). One can say that about anything M$, including current vesions.

tallboy · #25 Post by **tallboy** » Mon 24 Aug 2015, 03:34

I already have Debian, but I would most likely use a live Antix 15 for daily tasks.

tallboy

corvus · #26 Post by **corvus** » Mon 24 Aug 2015, 11:06

Hi all,

Rattlehead wrote:... where Puppy had never been invented, ...

I will not even think of such a possibility !!

corvus

Colonel Panic · #27 Post by **Colonel Panic** » Mon 24 Aug 2015, 12:21

Nic007 and 8Geee, thanks for your replies. I'll probably just leave the computer as it is and not bother to reinstall ME; it doesn't seem to be worth it.

Rattlehead · #28 Post by **Rattlehead** » Mon 24 Aug 2015, 14:37

bark_bark_bark wrote: Arch linux is a poor excuse of a distro. It is unstable and everything changes for no reason.

Can you give examples of that 'everything'? Things like the packet manager and such?

nic007 · #29 Post by **nic007** » Tue 25 Aug 2015, 19:01

Colonel Panic wrote:Nic007 and 8Geee, thanks for your replies. I'll probably just leave the computer as it is and not bother to reinstall ME; it doesn't seem to be worth it.

One can still go a long way with Windows 2000, which is now abandonware and free to download.

nic007 · #30 Post by **nic007** » Tue 25 Aug 2015, 19:29

As a matter of interest - the Winworld site hosts a lot of abandonware, ie. Old releases of Windows, beta releases, etc. How many of you have tried beta releases? For instance, there are beta releases of Windows Vista called Longhorn. Now we all know that the final Vista product turned out to be rubbish but what about the early beta releases released just after Windows 2003? It may be good.

starhawk · #31 Post by **starhawk** » Tue 25 Aug 2015, 19:33

nic007 wrote:Now we all know that the final Vista product turned out to be rubbish but what about the early beta releases released just after Windows 2003? It may be good.

The problem, as I understand it, was that the public release of Vista was a beta release. It never got to proper release candidate status.

Even supposing for the moment that 'Longhorn' did work better... that's not much of an achievement.

If you put a spoonful of wine in a barrel of sewage, you get sewage.
If you put a spoonful of sewage in a barrel of wine, you get sewage.

nic007 · #32 Post by **nic007** » Tue 25 Aug 2015, 19:59

Correct, there were two beta building phases. The first started in 2001 and the whole thing was reset from the ground in 2004. I just wonder how good the first beta release after the reset could have been (probably close to what Windows 2003 was)? But as you say, betas and not RC's. I see they have RC2 of Whistler which should be close to the final release of XP.

grr_argh · #33 Post by **grr_argh** » Tue 25 Aug 2015, 22:13

Back to the original question, I've tried Ubuntu in the past and found it heavy and OTT for my requirements. I chose Puppy because Windows updates were just getting too much, and I wanted an OS that was very light weight and simply served to make the computer operate and to provide the bare bones necessary to manage programs, which Puppy does admirably with no fuss and overhead.

without it I'd probably have stuck with XP or possibly gone with Zorin (which was my other serious candidate besides Puppy)

ozsouth · #34 Post by **ozsouth** » Wed 26 Aug 2015, 07:18

Since I first joined the forum (under another name) in 2005, I have dabbled in a few others, but NOTHING matches Puppy.
Small, fast, customisable, remasterable, installable.
I am quite worried about the future - recently tried X-slacko = good! Hopefully pups keep on coming.

kb8amz · #35 Post by **kb8amz** » Thu 21 Apr 2016, 04:43

Debian

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

If Puppy didn't exist, what distro would you be using?

Really don't know