Which Puppy version is best for PII-500?

Message

Sage · #1 Post by **Sage** » Tue 04 Sep 2007, 19:05

Lot of water under the proverbial since a PII slot last used - prefer AMD, but the junk keeps flowing.
Should know the answer, but would appreciate a range of views from users, please. This is an old Dell (run for the garlic, Lob) Optisomething G with onboard everything. v1.0.8rc1 running well at present. How about something from the 2.x series? Memory a bit limited at 128 so added an old Seagate 170 dedicated as swap. Not expecting to run Beryl or Compiz anytime soon - just surfin', emailing and some photoediting (maybe!) for an elderly person.

Thanks in advance.

Everitt · #2 Post by **Everitt** » Tue 04 Sep 2007, 19:15

I've run 2.13 (I think) on a PII-350. Not exactly fast, but perfectly usable. Not a whole lot has changed since then really has it? You could try the latest version, 2.17. With the new compression shouldn't that actually use slightly less ram? Ok, so loading things for the first time will be slower, but as slow as using too much swap?

Bruce B · #3 Post by **Bruce B** » Tue 04 Sep 2007, 19:40

I think Sage plans a normal install ???

Lobster · #4 Post by **Lobster** » Tue 04 Sep 2007, 19:51

Mean Pup based on 2.02 was fast and small
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=9510
- however it used xvesa rather than xorg

NOP uses the clean and simple Xfce interface
that might appeal to an older person
http://puppylinux.org/wikka/PuppyNOP

Everitt · #5 Post by **Everitt** » Tue 04 Sep 2007, 19:54

I've never like normal installs much. Too many complications. I didn't get that impression though.

OH! I just reread it! I'd missed the words 'dedicated', I though he'd installed a HDD for swap, suggesting it didn't have a HDD, and he didn't plan to use one.

Puppy is designed to run on machines like that isn't it?

CPU : Pentium 166MMX
RAM : 128 MB physical RAM for releases since version 1.0.2 or failing that a Linux swap file and/or swap partition is required for all included applications to run; 64 MB for releases previous to 1.0.2
Hard Drive : None
CDROM : 20x and up

Bruce B · #6 Post by **Bruce B** » Tue 04 Sep 2007, 21:03

In this particular case Sage has two hard drives. One will be used as a swap drive.

128MB RAM doesn't lend itself well to a Frugal Install, thus making a Normal Install desirable, if not somewhat mandatory, IF one wants to have sufficient FREE RAM to work with.

Within a few megabytes the Frugal requires about 120 MB to boot into the Windows manager, the Normal requires about 30 MB to boot to the same place.

Thus with the Normal one has about 98 MB RAM to run applications in, compared with about 8 MB to do the same thing with the Frugal.

That's why I said I think he plans a normal install. Because I think he knows about the criteria involved. Also, everything equal, I think he prefers a normal install, even where both options are as feasible.

--------------------

I wonder how MEPIS antiX 7.0 would work on this computer?

Quote below is from Distrowatch, on September 4, 2007

The second development release of MEPIS antiX 7.0, a light-weight edition of MEPIS Linux designed for older computers, is now available for testing: "MEPIS has announced the 7.0 beta 2 release of antiX, a light-weight derivative of MEPIS. AntiX is built and maintained by a MEPIS community member as a free version of MEPIS for very old 32-bit PC hardware. AntiX 7.0 beta 2 is very similar to AntiX 6.5 except that it is built using the MEPIS Linux 7.0 core including the MEPIS 2.6.22 kernel and utilities, but mostly it has a different set of default user applications. AntiX is designed to work on computers with as little as 64 MB RAM and Pentium II or equivalent AMD processors." Read the full release announcement for more information. Download: antiX-M7_beta2.iso (299MB, MD5).

---------------------

PS Everitt, speaking about Sage in the third person, should not be taken to mean I'm speaking directly to you. I've simply not spoke directly to Sage. This is sometimes, in some customs, considered showing respect.

JohnB · #7 Post by **JohnB** » Tue 04 Sep 2007, 22:25

I run a Dell Optiplex 400Mhz with Ecopup. It is a bit of a heavy download and there is a hesitation in the boot up, but when running it works fine. It is based on Puppy 2.05 and looks absoutely gorgeous. It also has OO and lots of other goodies out of the box. For a less experienced user most things they might want to do can be run from icons on the screen.

jonyo · #8 Post by **jonyo** » Wed 05 Sep 2007, 00:16

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 451#131451

2.17 runs fine with an ibm 380 ed lap, p166 mmx, 80 megs ram, 160 meg swap partition live cd save file to HD.

Haven't sorted out the wifi (wep anyway..) or tried it out on the net yet.. in pup. Win 98 works great with pup 98.

cthisbear · #9 Post by **cthisbear** » Wed 05 Sep 2007, 05:10

Amongst other things I have donated to Reverse Garbage

http://www.reversegarbage.org.au/

was an IBM P11 500....64 megs, dodgy hard drive,
complete with very dodgy CD drive with my first Puppy install,
2.14 I think.

Ran amazingly well...could hardly hear the clunk of the HDD,
but Seamonkey was a bit slow.

Regards Chris

Bruce B · #10 Post by **Bruce B** » Wed 05 Sep 2007, 05:34

For a long while I ran Puppy versions on a K6-2 500 with 368MB RAM.

My 'feel' was that Puppy was respectably fast even when running the Mozilla and later the SeaMonkey suite.

However, I think Opera is the winner in the class of full-featured browsers in term of (1) RAM usage and (2) CPU demands.

--------------

Sage · #11 Post by **Sage** » Wed 05 Sep 2007, 06:19

Thanks for those opinions, folks. Always useful to have a range of views. And apologies for not explaining adequately:

Presently using a live CD on this one for maximum security
The CD drive is an old 24x which will not read CD-RW, (wanted to avoid burning everything in my collection to CD-R and creating more landfill!)
SDRAM cannot be upgraded (for all sorts of reasons)
There is a single 170 HD running as swap, but could add a second to carry saved settings. Possible that I might revised that to a full install, eventually to overcome the limited memory.

Seamomkey remains the fly in the ointment, but BK is extremely reluctant, especially vis-a-vis Opera.

Everitt · #12 Post by **Everitt** » Wed 05 Sep 2007, 13:42

Sage wrote: Presently using a live CD on this one for maximum security
The CD drive is an old 24x which will not read CD-RW, (wanted to avoid burning everything in my collection to CD-R and creating more landfill!)
SDRAM cannot be upgraded (for all sorts of reasons)
There is a single 170 HD running as swap, but could add a second to carry saved settings. Possible that I might revised that to a full install, eventually to overcome the limited memory.

I've just tried puppy 2.17 on my PII-350, with 128MB of RAM and a 170MB swap . It loads quickly enough, and is usable, but slow. Seamonkey takes about 20 seconds to load, email slightly less (~17 seconds to load it, cancel the dialogues and exit)
Out of interest, how do these times compare to v1.0.8? I'd be interested to find out just how much things have slowed down.
---------------------

PS Bruce B, commenting on things said by others in a thread in a friendly manner is, in some cultures, considered friendly. Reading this as a personal reply would be a mistake, it is in fact merely an attempt to give the forums more of a community feel. I'm sorry is this was unclear. Please can we just accept this as a misunderstanding, rather than turn this thread into something nasty.

Sage · #13 Post by **Sage** » Wed 05 Sep 2007, 15:26

OK - got it! In the end, I had to breadboard it with a (temporary) faster CD drive and run through my vast collection of versions/distros on CD-RW. After wading through the Dellquirks, turned out to be no contest:-
MeanPup2.0.2 with Opera
(thanks for the reminder, Lob. &, of course, John). Has the speed, performance and looks. Outa da box, so to speak. Opted for a Full install with 130Mb swap partition to minimise memory issues.
Confirms what I've said so many times - Opera!! If you're still battling on with the marinemonster, study the ways of removing it and install Opera. Forget the detractors beefing about Java, 3D, etc. - if you want all the bells and whistles you won't be running on ancient PII HW. Indeed. if you've got AM2 with 1GDDR2 and PCI-E16 you wouldn't be running any compact distro...

Bruce B · #14 Post by **Bruce B** » Wed 05 Sep 2007, 17:48

Everitt,

I really liked 1.08 - then about 2.12 I moved over to the 2.xx series. What I think would be fun is to take 1.08, strip it down of applications which have newer versions, then update 1.08, though I'll likely never get around to it.

As far as speed differences, the only way I could say is: run and compare them on low end computers where you could actually notice the speed difference.

On my computer SeaMonkey is up in about 1 1/2 sec. Opera seems almost instantaneous.

I believe Krevolutionist runs a site dedicated to 1.08 fans. Also, I think the preferred version is 1.08rc1 - I let Sage confirm this.

I was thinking what Sage really needs is a bigger hard disk for this project, I'm wondering if things like that are easy to find in his neighborhood for free.

Bruce

jonyo · #15 Post by **jonyo** » Wed 05 Sep 2007, 18:30

Checked it out with pup98 (1.07based) with the ibm lap, p166mmx, 80 meg ram &160 meg swap partition. From cold, takes ~ 18 secs to post ( i think its called..) or 'find itself'..

then pup 98 starts & ~ 48 secs to a full start screen. Seamonkey 1.85 takes ~ 28 secs to fully load, 'pute shutdown ~ 14. All the pup files are on the HD & requires no cd to boot or run.

I'm still experimenting with the 2x variants running live cd (with a wake floppy) save file to HD so need to set it up again to do some accurate comparison tests, but pretty sure 2.17 did about the same. Probably a bit longer to boot because the wake floppy requires some extra time.

At any rate, diffs weren't really noticeable but I think that pup98 was allround quicker & 2.17 took a bit longer to start & shutdown.

Everitt · #16 Post by **Everitt** » Wed 05 Sep 2007, 19:06

Bruce B wrote:As far as speed differences, the only way I could say is: run and compare them on low end computers where you could actually notice the speed difference.

Unfortunately I doubt I'll have time, I'm leaving all my older hardware in a week and a helf, and I've got a fair amount going on. I do think it would be an interesting test though.

jonyo · #17 Post by **jonyo** » Wed 05 Sep 2007, 20:35

Sage wrote: Confirms what I've said so many times - Opera!! If you're still battling on with the marinemonster, study the ways of removing it and install Opera. Forget the detractors beefing about Java, 3D, etc. - if you want all the bells and whistles you won't be running on ancient PII HW. Indeed. if you've got AM2 with 1GDDR2 and PCI-E16 you wouldn't be running any compact distro...

Why not? I run pup on all my stuff, new & old. Pup zips

along in new gear (with secure net browsing) & some variants are not so compact.

Resistance is futile..

jonyo · #18 Post by **jonyo** » Thu 06 Sep 2007, 18:14

Here's another one, 2.15 live cd on a 233mmx (I think) lap 96 meg ram
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=18750
"Puppy not only works, the OS updates my laptop. The speed at which it operates is a pleasant surprise, even at my 96mb of ram and running off a CD. Even with occasional CDROM disk access it feels like a completely new machine. I found Puppy even more responsive after I used logout/shutdown to create the pup_save.2fs. The second boot felt faster still. Puppy must really rock on newer hardware! "

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Which Puppy version is best for PII-500?

Which Puppy version is best for PII-500?

P II Puppy