Tahrpup 32 to 64 Upgrade

[jaje]

I have been using Puppy in various versions as my main OS for about four years on my old WinXP computer, so I guess I am not a beginner in that sense. I just bought a used 64-bit machine with Win7 on it - I am a beginner at 64-bit computing.

I spent three hours learning just enough about Win7 to battle its partition down to about 70 GB. (I might be wrong, but it looks like this greedy OS uses up THREE primary partitions!)

So my question is this: Can I just copy a Pudd backup of my old computer's Tahrpup partition to a partition of the new computer, and then copy the four files (vmlinuz, puppy_tahr_6.0.sfs, zdrv_tahr_6.0.sfs, and initrd.gz) from the tahrpup64 iso file over the 32-bit versions?

Thanks,
John

[p310don]

You cannot do that as 32bit and 64bit programs aren't compatible (usually).

You can just run the 32bit Tahr on your 64bit machine. For most tasks, you won't see any difference between 32 and 64.

The biggest difference between 32 and 64 bit is how they handle memory. If you have 4gig or less, you won't see any difference. Programs designed and compiled specifically for 64bit do theoretically run much faster, but in my experience, there is little to no difference in every day usage.

[jaje]

Okay, thanks - That makes it simple then. I might put Tahrpup 64 on a separate partition just to try it out, or maybe just add it to my USB full of distros.

Thanks!

[Flash]

You don't have to install any Puppy to try it out, just burn the iso to a CD or DVD, boot and enjoy.

[duckguy]

Hi, I also just "upgraded" to Tahrpup64 6.0.5. I am posting here instead of starting a new thread, since I am in a similar situation.

I have had a 64 bit computer for a long time, but till now, only ran 32 bit OSs on it. I never had problems with Tahrpup32 (till just recently when I tried to install Wine). Other Puppies would eventually crash or have configuration issues that I never encountered with Tahrpup32 6.0.5. I just wanted to take advantage of my 64 bit CPU, since that was my hardware.

I found Tahrpup32 6.0.5 was very stable, and easy to configure. Not so with the 64 bit version. I'm happy with the 64bit's smoother operation, and it seems more powerful, but it loses settings between boots! My touchpad seems like it has to be reconfigured every time I reboot.

Also, all the SFS applications and a few of the PET applications that worked when installed on the 32 bit OS are inoperative in the 64 bit version. I tried loading the 32 bit compatibility libs. They don't work either. I see no difference in operation, and I suspect they aren't compatible with Tahrpup 64 (if that's even possible).

I like the increase in speed and the lower CPU fan usage with the 64 bit Puppy, but without the bugs, without losing settings, and without compatibility issues with the software I want to load.

Should I just go back to the 32 bit OS? Should I try another 64 bit Puppy?

Thanks in advance.

[Sailor Enceladus]

@duckguy: I'm mostly using Slacko 6.3.0.6 32-bit on Core 2 Duo laptop (as the 64 kernel doesn't detect my wifi) but I didn't have any large issues with Tahr 64-bit 6.0.5 on it, but I didn't try to add anything. I guess, if you like tweaking, it sounds like the 32-bit version works better for you? idk, you can try to fix the bugs or go with your gut. My jam is Slacko 32-bit + Tahr 64-bit.

[p310don]

Because of my earlier comments about largely un-noticeable differences between 32 and 64 bit computing, I thought I'd do a couple of lab tests to make a comparison.

I used Tahr 32 and Tahr 64 to do an MD5 hash check on a couple of large files.

The files were both ISO files, one of Ubuntu at 686Mb and one was Linux Ultimate Edition at 2923Mb. In both versions of Tahr I found the file on a solid state drive, right clicked in ROX and selected GTKHash. I ran the has program once on each file and timed them with the stop watch on my phone.

The results are:

686MB file took 11.2 seconds for 64bit
2923MB file took 46.8 seconds for 64bit

Both the 64bit hashes ran at an indicated 61 - 62MB/s

and

686MB file took 12.5 seconds for 32bit
2923MB file took 64.4 seconds for 32bit

Both of these 32bit hashes ran at an indicated 58.2MB/s

My conclusion is that YES, 64bit is better. But, this sort of test is not indicative of real world usage. It is not often that you'd manipulate a file that is nearly 3gig in size. I did a similar test on a thunderbird sfs file which is 19Mb. The times were immeasurable for me (much less than a second), which makes the time differences negligible. If you're doing very CPU intensive work, like picture of video editing, then there would be noticeable benefits to 64bit, but if you just do regular computing, web browsing etc, then stick with whatever you find most stable and usable.

[bigpup]

64bit support in the official Puppies is new. The Puppy software has not had time for much of it to get changed to 64bit.

From Tahrpup64 6.0.5 topic

a 32bit compatibilty.sfs is available which allows tahrpup64 to run skype, steam and various other 32bit packages. to install type sfsget into a terminal. Select the 32bit compatibilty.sfs. once loaded type ldconfig into a terminal and you're set to go. (if you want to install proprietary graphic drivers please install the 32-compatibilty.sfs first)

Not sure if you did this correctly and got the sfs loaded.
A reboot would probably be a good idea to make sure it all got saved and now being used.

If it is still a problem, you need to report it in the Tahrpup64 6.0.5 topic.
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=96748

[duckguy]

64bit support in the official Puppies is new ...
... please install the 32-compatibilty.sfs first ... sure if you did this correctly and got the sfs loaded ... reboot ... make sure it all got saved ... http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=96748

Yes, I rebooted a few times. I'm sure that it's not configured correctly, somehow. It's in there, but it's not actively interfacing with the OS. Also when I load in the SFS's they even add themselves to the menu and everything, the loader shows that they're installed, but when I click on them, nothing happens.

I'm giving Fatdog64 v7 a run, for now before I re-tackle Tahrpup64. My initial impression is that it's a little tougher to configure, since I can't get it recognize its own save file after over 10 attempts. Fatdog64 doesn't seem to be able to load a savefile from a SM card, or even a folder on an HD. At least with Tahrpup64 it would remember which computer it booted from last (although it still would lose some settings with every reboot).

[bigpup]

Select the 32bit compatibilty.sfs. once loaded type ldconfig into a terminal and you're set to go

Sure you did all of that?

It is possible you got a bad download of Tahrpup64 and or a bad install.

It does happen.

[duckguy]

Select the 32bit compatibilty.sfs. once loaded type ldconfig into a terminal and you're set ... possible you got a bad download of Tahrpup64 ... a bad install ... It does happen.

OK so I actually did this. I posted a screenshot attached to this post. I type in 'idconfig' and I just get an error reply saying "bash, idconfig command not found." Who is "bash," anyway???

Also I am running Tahrpup64 successfully (in other respects) and am posting from the OS right now. I am having a few more issues with it, but I like the smoother operation of it.

So, what am I doing wrong? Thanks in advance!

[Sailor Enceladus]

So, what am I doing wrong? Thanks in advance!

Linux is case-sensitive, and I believe bigpup wrote l as in lemon, not i as in ice cream.

[duckguy]

... case-sensitive, and I believe bigpup wrote l as in lemon ...

Thanks, This actually works! It's "LDCONFIG!!" So my result was:
root# ldconfig
ldconfig: libraries libpng.so and libpng.so.0 in directory /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu have same soname but different type.
ldconfig: libraries libpng.so.0 and libpng.so.2.1.0.8 in directory /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu have same soname but different type.
ldconfig: libraries libpng.so.2.1.0.8 and libpng.so.3 in directory /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu have same soname but different type.
ldconfig: libraries libpng.so.3 and libpng.so.3.22.0 in directory /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu have same soname but different type.
ldconfig: libraries libpng.so.3.22.0 and libpng12.so.0.22.0 in directory /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu have same soname but different type.
ldconfig: libraries libpng12.so.0.22.0 and libpng12.so.0.50.0 in directory /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu have same soname but different type.
ldconfig: libraries libpng12.so.0.50.0 and libpng12.so.2 in directory /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu have same soname but different type.
root#
Screenshot attached.
The 32-bit PET installs are now operating, as it seems. Thanks to everyone, so very much.

[duckguy]

OK, so now that I have the 32-bit compatibility issue solved, I still have the issue of the touchpad not retaining its settings between startups.

I like using tap and scroll, but more often I keep it disabled due to false button presses and false scrolls when sweeping the arrow across the screen. So I load the 'flsynclient' 0.7 settings utility, and disable the tap setting each time I load the OS. I checked the Puppy Package Manager, and this is the only version of the utility in the database. I updated the database using the Package Manager configuration update function, and flsynclient 0.7 seems to be the latest version.

What am I doing wrong? Thanks in advance.