that's okay, as it's not a very dumb question at all.ssme wrote:i don't know if this thread is meant to be for developers or something, but i was just passing through when i came across this statement.Yep. We could have ...
- 2.xx series for earlier lower resource machines (Retro series)
- 3.xx series for Slackware binary compatibility (Chihuahua series)
- 4.xx series for modern, higher resource machines (Dingo series)
- 5.xx series for Debian binary compatibility (Woof series)
I think that would just about cover everyone's requirements, don't you? There is no reason these can't all develop side-by-side and feed off each other's development efforts.
i'm a relative newcomer to puppy, and i always assumed that the whole point of new releases was so that everyone could upgrade to them, and that newer versions would be more efficient and generally run quicker on old hardware (as this is a puppy goal). am i wrong? i'm currently running puppy 4.1.2 on a p1 233mhz with 64mb ram... would i actually be better off with one of the puppy 2 series? this is the oldest machine i've ever tried puppy on, and 4.1.2 seems to run tolerably well (although it flatly refuses to give me any sound, which is almost annoying enough to make me give up with it). would a puppy 2 suit my hardware better?
apologies if this sounds like a stupid question, and keep up the good work (i'm downloading the alpha for testing on my other machine!)[/i]
but there are major differences between different puppies.
Puppy 2.xx or possibly Puppy R.xx, something i might make would be probably best for your computer.
or maybe Puppy 1.xx. But it's not used by too many people. But it is quite light, and fast. But it might not support as much, but you might be pleasantly surprised by Puppy 1.xx. It's flash works with youtube, so i know it's not extremely outdated. But it's still very old. And not recommended.