Running modern Puppy in Low RAM systems

[jamesbond]

Puppy has grown in size in recent years. Questions have been asked, how does this size growth affect the ability of Puppy to run on older computers. To answer that questions, I have performed a test to run modern Puppy on low RAM systems.

Running modern Puppy in Low RAM systems
---
1. Tested: Dpup Stretch 7.5 CE (RC-4) with k4.1.48-i686-pae kernel (341MB)
2. Test environment: Qemu 3.1 (note1)
3. Simulated environment: RAM 256MB, Harddisk 512MB (note4)

Steps:
---
1. Get the it from here http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=112125

2. Boot with pfix=nocopy (note2)

3. Boot with default video. Once inside, click "OK" to close the First Run wizard. Then click "OK" to close the Welcome message.

4. At this stage if you open terminal and run "free -h" you well see that only 61M is being used.

5. Run gparted and partition the harddisk to 2 partitions: 256MB for swap and 256MB for ext4. Then I mounted the swap using "swapon /dev/sda1".

6. I can comfortably run libreoffice and edit some of the reference documents I found from the ISO. However, I decided to save the session into a savefolder first.

7. During shutdown I was asked if I want to copy the SFS files to the disk, which I rejected (note3).

8. After I've rebooted, swap is automatically recognised, and the savefolder loaded. RAM usage still hovers around 60MB, no swap usage.

9. I launched web browser. The browser is already installed, I don't have to download first. The browser is Pale Moon. I visited youtube.com and watch a few trailers, in full screen, with sound, comfortably. The swap isn't even fully occupied (only about 128MB out of 256MB).

10. Web browsers are among the memory hog these days, so I'm quite confident that if I can run the web browsers with full screen video, most other every task will be fine too.

11. This is not to say I don't feel the memory pressure. I can definitely feel the swapping effect. The machine isn't as responsive, mouse clicks to start/stop video play back takes a while to respond, and pressing Esc to return from full screen also takes a few seconds to take effect. But the video playback itself is smooth, almost uninterrupted. Overall the impact is very minimal.

12. Of course, don't expect to do video editing on it. And don't expect to be able to open too many apps at the same time. But, for example, typing a document in Libreoffice and having the browser open for researching stuff at the same, is very workable. In fact I'm tying this in geany with web browser open in inside Dpup itself.

Notes:
---
1. The computer I used to run qemu (the "host" computer) is a 2012 i5 computer with 8GB of RAM. It is a 7-year old second-hand computer that I've got from gumtree. It's not exactly new.

2. Use pfix=nocopy if your RAM size is larger than the ISO, to tell Puppy __not__ to load its SFS into RAM (for RAM size smaller than ISO this is automatic). This way, you can use your RAM for its intended purpose - running applications.

3. I decided not to copy the SFS from the (simulated) CD ROM to the (simulated) harddisk because in Qemu both have the same access speed, and because I have only set up a 512MB disk. In real machines you may want to copy it especially if you have the space because generally harddisk is a lot faster than a CD.

4. Use a real harddisk. Don't use USB flash drive, SD card, of the likes. These flash memory devices (with exception of SSD) are __really slow__ devices. With low-RAM systems you definitely want to use swap, and you want to use the fastest device you have for it. If you have both USB flash drive and harddisk, and have to choose which one to use, do it this way: use your USB flash drive for savefile/savefolder, and use your harddisk for swap.

5. Why dpup-stretch?
- It's 341MB - a bit on the bigger side as far as Pup is concerned.
- It's very recent (Jan 2019 release).
- It's 32-bit.

6. I did similar test for Fatdog64. I couldn't get it to run comfortably with 256MB, but at 384MB I got more or less the same experience. See link here: http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 72#1020472

7. Finally: in case you forget, this is a simulated test done in Qemu. I don't have a machine with 256MB or 384MB RAM anymore. The performance I've gotten from Qemu is very likely to be better than performance in real low RAM machines (since, not only they are low RAM, but also has older CPU, which is also slower), so take them with a grain of salt. The point still stands, however, that even modern Puppy can still be used on low RAM machines, even if they do look bigger than before.

---

Two last words:
- This kind of test probably needs to be done every couple of years to confirm its validity
- Dpup Stretch is a nice looking polished Puppy that I won't mind using on my older 32-bit only computers.

____________________________________________


EDIT: I also tested Upup Bionic Beaver

from here: http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=113244 which according to the post date is also dated Jan 2019. This is 260MB in size, and is also meant for 32-bit systems. The office suite is abirword+gnumeric (vs Libreoffice for Dpup Stretch); it's browser is Light (a derivative of Mozilla) (vs Palemoon in Dpup Stretch).

I used the same configuration and the same virtual disk - same swap file and sharing the same partition for its savefolder (but different savefolder for each).

All the previous notes applies, except for one thing: while I could get the same response generally for non-browser applications, once I start the Light browser the system becomes sluggish. This is because Light uses a lot more memory than Palemoon (as htop indicates). The system becomes sluggish due to swapping especially when playing video (I used the same youtube video). When I adjusted RAM up to 384MB, then everything becomes reasonably responsive again.

I'm typing this EDIT from UpupBB itself.

_________________________________________


EDIT: Updated Nov 2019. Running Dpup Stretch in 14-year laptop.

I finally got the chance to test this on a real machine.
I got a Dell laptop, circa 2005. It has Pentium M CPU with Centrino chipset that can run between 800Mhz and 1.6GHz, with 512MB RAM and 60GB harddisk.

I use the same Dpup Stretch (but I used the Jul 2019 version). I used the legacy version with 4.1 kernel without PAE (all PAE does in 512MB machine is to eat memory and makes it run hotter).

I installed it manually on a USB stick with fat32 partition (factory default - never formatted to anything else); so the harddisk is not used at all.

Puppy boots up well. Initially it booted very slow because the CPU is fixed to 800MHz by BIOS; but once I "override" it; running it at variable frequency up to 1.6GHz is very comfortable.

Because the RAM size is only 512MB, puppy decides to use pfix=nocopy by default. Booting with no savefile uses up only about ~63MB (this is with the welcome dialog shown).

I created a 1GB savefile, and booting with this savefile, RAM used is only about ~61MB (probably because the welcome screen isn't running anymore rather than anything to do with the savefile itself).

Browsing using palemoon works, watching youtube (even fullscreen) works comfortably, with plenty of RAM left (only about ~200MB were used for watching full-screen video in a single tab). I don't even use a swap file.

I wanted to try the libreoffice but it did not work for two reasons:
a) the getlibre script has a bug; it assembles the files in the save device; but of course assembling only works if the save device has a Linux filesystem, of which fat32 isn't.
b) even if it were not because of the bug, the assembling would fail because this particular laptop has an overheating issue: the "mksquashfs" to create the libreoffice would have caused thermal shutdown before the sfs is completely created (see below for the reason).

So I cannot test that. However, this demonstrates that the result is quite consistent with the test results I've done in qemu, previously.

=====================

Notes:

1. The laptop I used for testing is from 2005 (from BIOS date). At the time of writing this is 14-year laptop, and even on its heyday, this wouldn't be considered as a high-end laptop. Running a Puppy created in 2019 on a machine from 2005 and can still have it running very well is pretty amazing in my book.

2. Almost everything works: screen works (xorg automatic) booting up to highest resolution (1650x1050), touchpad works, sound works, wireless works. I plugged in a logitech mouse and of course it works as well.

3. The only thing that DOES NOT work and makes Puppy unusable on this machine is because it cannot make the CPU fan to work. This is apparently a well-known issue; plenty of articles from days past to fix this "problem" (from 2.6.xx kernel days); but time has moved on and whatever solutions that I can still find on the Internet, no longer helps. The fan itself definitely works, if I boot it to WinXP then it runs. It only refuses to run under Puppy.

If I really want to get Puppy to work on it, it's easy: just open the case, cut the cable to the CPU fan, and re-attach it to a 5V (or 12V) rail and let the fan run at full-speed. But since I only use it for this particular testing, and my son want to keep the XP for playing legacy games (Win 3.1 games that can't run on Wine), so I leave it as is.

After note:
===========

Well, that concludes my experiment. My conclusion is that a modern Puppy can still comfortably run on a medium spec 14-year laptop comfortably.

You may disagree with me on the conclusion. But here is the thing. Let's compare the same situation to 10 year ago: trying to run a 2008 Puppy on a ten-year-older machine (that is, 1998 machine). I actually did that: back in 2008, I tried to run Puppy 3.0 on a desktop with a Pentium CPU (can't remember the speed, perhaps 133MHz or something), with 64MB RAM and perhaps 40GB disk (which previously ran Windows 95). It did __not__ work. Even with 64MB swap enabled, Puppy was way __too slow__ to be useful for anything. Puppy 2.x fared a bit better (=better, not definitely not great), but Puppy 2.x was getting long in the tooth by then, and I wanted the latest and greatest.

So? Ten years ago, the latest and greatest Puppy did not work on a ten-year-old machine.

Today, the latest and greatest Puppy runs very well on a 14-year old machine.

I would say that despite Puppy's getting fatter, not only Puppy retains its ability to run on older machines; it actually __improves__ the situation, a lot! All thanks to the hard work of the people (visible and invisible) who keep improving it.

Of course, if you insist on running modern Puppy on 128MB machine (which is 20-year old by now), you are probably asking a bit too much. If you really need that then you shoud stick to older Puppies. I would say that at 64MB, you'd probably be better off using Win98SE because even older Puppy would struggle.

[s243a]

You post should be pinned for new users.

On another note, I was wonder if setting up a ram drive might help but only populating it with the files that use the most I/O (or maybe some raio of I/O usage to file size). To figure this out the kernal has to support iotop though. Maybe some script could be devised that would figure out witch files to populate said ram drive with based on the currently running processes.

P.S. I think choosing dpup strech was a good choice for your tests because I have found dpup stretch to have beter performance than many of the other newer pups.

[darry19662018]

Yes it would be interesting to have people with really old machines to give their findings on this thread.

I run Stretch on a Dell D620 and its pretty good on that. Though I have 2 gig ram it still has a pretty old processor.

Anyway added this to wiki entry here:
https://puppylinux.org/wikka/old_laptops

[jamesbond]

You post should be pinned for new users.

Thanks. I'll leave it to Flash and others, if they think it is useful.

On another note, I was wonder if setting up a ram drive might help but only populating it with the files that use the most I/O (or maybe some raio of I/O usage to file size). To figure this out the kernal has to support iotop though. Maybe some script could be devised that would figure out witch files to populate said ram drive with based on the currently running processes.

If you are on a low RAM system it is best to use all your RAM for your applications. Using them for a RAM disk will not help.

Another way which could help is to use "zram" as a swap device. "Zram" is compressed, so e.g. if you create a 64MB zram swap, to the system it would look like you have 128MB of swap, and this "swap" is actually still in RAM so it would be faster than swapping to harddisk. However, zram swap is still swap, and memory allocated for zram cannot be used directly by applications, so there is a cut-off where the benefit of doing so disappears. I actually tried this on my Fatdog64 test (see the link from the 1st post) and could not get it work either witn 256MB or 384MB situation (tried allocating 64MB and 128MB for zram swap). When you have comfortably enough memory (say 2GB), dedicating 512MB out of that for zram probably helps a lot; but when you're hard pressed for memory, it's better to use another device for swap and let RAM be used by the applications.

P.S. I think choosing dpup strech was a good choice for your tests because I have found dpup stretch to have beter performance than many of the other newer pups.

I didn't know that when I started, and my choice was actually try to prove the opposite (Dpup Stretch being bigger than Upup, for example). I wanted to know what's the worst case RAM you need for large-than-normal Puppy. Your comment, however, motivated me to do another test with UpupBB, and true enough it requires more RAM to be reasonable responsive. I can point out the culprit: it's the Light browser.

I run Stretch on a Dell D620 and its pretty good on that. Though I have 2 gig ram it still has a pretty old processor.

The wisdom from the old days is this: when your computer is slow, the first thing you "upgrade" is RAM, that is, add more RAM. Then (if you play games) get a better GPU. Upgrade the CPU last. I think it is still true today.

Aside, if your Dell D620 run Core 2 Duo: Core 2 Duo was one of the better CPU from Intel. It may be old but it is certainly capable (I used to have a laptop with that CPU too).

Anyway added this to wiki entry here:
https://puppylinux.org/wikka/old_laptops

Thanks.

[p310don]

7. Finally: in case you forget, this is a simulated test done in Qemu. I don't have a machine with 256MB or 384MB RAM anymore. The performance I've gotten from Qemu is very likely to be better than performance in real low RAM machines (since, not only they are low RAM, but also has older CPU, which is also slower), so take them with a grain of salt. The point still stands, however, that even modern Puppy can still be used on low RAM machines, even if they do look bigger than before.

I have an old clunker in the garage that would suit testing for usability beyond just ram usage. I think it has 512, but maybe 256mb ram. P4 processor of some kind, maybe single core, maybe ht core.

[darry19662018]

7. Finally: in case you forget, this is a simulated test done in Qemu. I don't have a machine with 256MB or 384MB RAM anymore. The performance I've gotten from Qemu is very likely to be better than performance in real low RAM machines (since, not only they are low RAM, but also has older CPU, which is also slower), so take them with a grain of salt. The point still stands, however, that even modern Puppy can still be used on low RAM machines, even if they do look bigger than before.

I have an old clunker in the garage that would suit testing for usability beyond just ram usage. I think it has 512, but maybe 256mb ram. P4 processor of some kind, maybe single core, maybe ht core.[/quote

It would interesting to see how Stretch fares and Slacko 572CE and the new non-pae version of Buster.

[purple379]

If necessary creating the swap file with another machine.

Can you comment on the size of the swap file? I understand making it too big slows things down. I dunno.

[s243a]

If necessary creating the swap file with another machine.

Can you comment on the size of the swap file? I understand making it too big slows things down. I dunno.

Running interactive applications on swap is slow, but I think swap would be fine for background process. One issue with modern versions of linux is there is no longer any bit that one can set to prevent a file from being swapped. On the plus side newer hard drives are much faster than older hard drives.

Anyway, if one can it is better to figure out how to minimize the use of ram. However, with some applications (Internet browsers) it night not be possible on old systems to avoid using a swap file.

That said if you want to try avoiding the swap file maybe replace the browser in dpup strech with netsurf. I saw a post on this forum about a newer version of netsurf that supports javascript. I can't find the thread at the moment but perhaps the following thread will be helpful:
NetSurf 3.8
by OscarTalks

remember to remaster if you replace the browser.


Bionic32-light might be also worth a try. I think by default it comes without a browser so you can add the NetSurf browser without having to worry about re-mastering.

P.S. all my above comments assume that you have very little ram. If you have lots of ram than you probably don't have to worry about a swap file, even with the newest versions of puppylinux.

[Mike Walsh]

Watchdog's SSE-only build of PaleMoon 27.9.4 with self-contained glibc-219 'tweak' is pretty lightweight, too. It's fine with PIIIs; not sure about PIIs. (I believe they're MMX-only, so probably a no-go.)

I've turned this into a 'portable', following Fred's method with FF-Quantum, so it can be run from a separate flash drive on an old machine with low RAM and perhaps little in the way of storage.

http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 06#1022606

Needless to say, despite the Dell's P4 having SSE2s, this is the one I run on there, in both Pups. It runs very, very smoothly, and is pretty snappy, too.

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

I'm currently running DPup 'Stretch' on the 'big' Compaq desktop. I'll get around to giving it a whirl on the Dell, before long; see how it performs. It certainly feels more 'stable' and just more 'solid' than the 'buntu-based Pups.


Mike.

[tallboy]

I ran the Dpup Stretch-7.5 with 4.1.48 kernel, from a live CD-R on an old PC with a Compaq Evo D300 mainboard from 2001, P4 1.80GHz CPU, and 768Mb RAM. It has 2 harddisks, each with a swap partition, app. 2.8Gb in total. Graphics card is a Matrox G550, screen is an old 50 lbs Intergraph 19", 24 bit color at a 1280x1034 resolution. Some very CPU and RAM intensive operations are a bit slower, I guess that may be when swap is being used, but everything works exactly as intended. The CD-R has 4 saved sessions on it, all loaded at bootup. No crashes, no problems at all. Data below are recorded with no running applications other than PupSysInfo.
Personal Storage: RAM Disk
Size Used Free Use%
2.1G 342M 1.8G 17%
Memory Allocation:
Total RAM: 744 MB
Used RAM: 670 MB
Free RAM: 74 MB
Buffers: 67 MB
Cached: 502 MB
Total Swap: 2863 MB
Free Swap: 2830 MB
Actual Used RAM: 101 MB Used - (buffers + cached)
Actual Free RAM: 643 MB Free + (buffers + cached)

I also tested the same live CD-R in a session on a Dell OptiPlex GX240, also from 2001. It has a P4 1.60GHz CPU, and 512Mb RAM, and an ATI Rage 128 PRO Ultra AGP 4x graphics card. I used a 22" HP L2245w LCD screen, resolution 1680x1050. That did not work very well, it booted, but I did not manage to start X. It may work with another screen, I'll try to run with the Intergraph 19", and see if X wakes up.

I run my remastered live Lucid 5.2.8.7 from a CD-R on this old Dell right now, same screen as described above. Even if some CPU and memory intensive operations - which maybe demands heavier use of swap - can be a bit slower, the Lucid feels quite snappy, with all the programs residing in RAM. Simultaniously running Palemoon with several tabs and Thunderbird, works, but some operations are noticeably slower. I suspect that the graphics card could be the main culprit. Data below are recorded while running Palemoon 27.9.4 and PupSysInfo.
Personal Storage: RAM Disk
Size Used Free Use%
3.3G 132M 3.1G 5%
Memory Allocation:
Total RAM: 502 MB
Used RAM: 411 MB
Free RAM: 91 MB
Buffers: 18 MB
Cached: 207 MB
Total Swap: 6159 MB
Free Swap: 5878 MB
Actual Used RAM: 186 MB Used - (buffers + cached)
Actual Free RAM: 316 MB Free + (buffers + cached)

I'll retest both these PCs with frugal installs of Dpup Stretch-7.5, and report back. The live disc load the entire .iso into RAM, so if that works well, a frugal install should definitely work, but I am curious about any differences in speed.

[mouldy]

I recently got a Dell D420, this has coreduo processor 1.2Ghz and came with 512MB RAM. Slow old 1.8inch hard drive. I installed 32bit LXpup, the coreduo is two core, but can only handle 32bit system.

LXpup had no problems. And came with Light browser which loaded ok, but personally I need either Chromium/Iron or Firefox, something I can add extensions to block ads/scripts, etc. Well I installed latest Iron. It loaded and almost immediately crashed. Modern full browsers are RAM hogs.

The D420 has 512MB built in, and slot where it can take upto 2GB stick RAM. I am waiting on $3 generic Chinese 2GB stick RAM. Coming on slow boat from China. But digging around I found a 1GB stick RAM that fit, leftover when I upgraded some other old laptop. So right now I have 1.5GB. Iron bit slow to load but once loaded if I dont open more than two tabs, its ok. It will crash if you push it too much. Its enough to even watch youtube. But pretty much only one thing at a time.

I am curious difference it makes with the 2GB stick RAM if I ever get it and if it works, its kinda luck of the draw on that generic Chinese RAM, sometimes its fine, sometimes its not. Little confusing, from what I am reading if you put in a 2GB stick RAM, you apparently only get total of 2GB on the D420. Not sure if that was a windows thing or what, seems like should get 2.5GB, but ???? maybe it can only recognize maximum of 2GB for some reason and ignores anything above that.

Also I did boot from SSD via usb as experiment. That was little faster boot to desktop, but otherwise not noticably different.

I havent done a full uncompressed hard drive install of Puppy for lot years, but wouldnt that help some with low RAM? I havent even looked to see if thats still option. I usually just manually move Puppy files then run Grub4dos, last time I tried using the installer to do frugal install, it didnt work.

[rufwoof]

I havent done a full uncompressed hard drive install of Puppy for lot years, but wouldnt that help some with low RAM? I havent even looked to see if thats still option.

Still a option ... Menu, Setup, Puppy Installer, Universal Installer. I've just run that for BionicPup (I actually installed the 64 bit version but the 32 bit would be the same). Not that I did so for ram/pc reasons (running in a 1TB HDD, 4GB ram laptop).

For saving/reverting to a 'clean' setup I create a /snapshot folder in the same partition and use the following code saved to a filename /snapshot/save to create a 'save' (and very similar but with the rsync's folders reversed around for /snapshot/restore that restores the saved copy (that also has a different yad prompt)). I save/restore directly from within the live running system, but do ensure that no programs are running at the time (close browser ...etc.). Being able to revert to your 'clean' version without having to reboot is a nice feature of full install. No initrd either (when I installed I opted for the no initrd choice)

Code: Select all

#!/bin/sh

# synchronise two directories, and in this sense dest/ can be live data
# rsync a copy to/from /snapshot/sda4-sync (assuming installed to sda4)
# a copy of sda4 (excluding the snapshot/sda4-sync folder)

yad --title "Confirm" --text="  Are you sure you want to overwrite the current clean save?  " --text-align=center
[ $? -ne 0 ] && exit

# block device where root is mounted ... i.e. sda4
DEV=`mount | sed -n 's|^/dev/\(.*\) on / .*|\1|p'`

M=0
if [ ! -d /mnt/${DEV}/snapshot ]; then
	mkdir -p /mnt/$DEV >/dev/null 2>&1
	mount /dev/$DEV /mnt/$DEV >/dev/null 2>&1
	mkdir /mnt/${DEV}/snapshot >/dev/null 2>&1
else
	M=1
fi
cd /mnt/${DEV}/snapshot
rsync -a /mnt/${DEV}/ ${DEV}-sync/ --delete --ignore-errors --exclude=/snapshot/${DEV}-sync
if [ $M -eq 0 ]; then
	cd
	sync
	umount /dev/$DEV
fi
yad --splash --no-buttons --text=" Completed " --timeout=2

for /snapshot/restore the rsync command line is reversed i.e.
rsync -a ${DEV}-sync/ /mnt/${DEV}/ --delete --ignore-errors --exclude=/snapshot/${DEV}-sync

With full install to 'load a sfs' you instead extract it, using something like

unsquashfs -f -d /mnt/sda4 some.sfs

Provided you have a saved version that you can restore to that was created before loading sfs(s), then rolling back to that is comparable to unloading the sfs(s).

There are tricks you can do with hard links so you can have multiple rsync saves but that don't involve full copies (just differences) ... but I only mention that here for info (not going to detail that here).

[jamesbond]

@mouldy:
1. Did you use/enable swap?
2. Whether or not D240 can take more than 2GB of RAM really depends on the chipset used. Some lower-end models purposely use a chipset with lower RAM limit so as not to compete with higher-end models.

[mouldy]

@mouldy:
1. Did you use/enable swap?
2. Whether or not D240 can take more than 2GB of RAM really depends on the chipset used. Some lower-end models purposely use a chipset with lower RAM limit so as not to compete with higher-end models.

I was sure I had included a swap partition, but just ran Gparted and no I hadnt. I had left the XP install but on a very much smaller partion, that came with this laptop just if I ever had some use for it. I must have created the swap partition when I was booting from usb drive. Anyway it has a swap partition now and is using it. See if it makes any difference. With only 1.5GB RAM, sure it will be helpful... LOL

Oh the coreduo on this D420 is super low voltage version, intending to maximize battery life. Probably also why its on slow side compared to version used in larger laptops that runs higher voltage.

I was thinking about last time I ran full install, it was some ancient hardware that only had 80mb RAM. Now that was long time ago. This D420 would sure seem like high performance computer compared to that.

[mouldy]

Looked at yesterdays mail and there was my little 2GB RAM stick from China. Popped it in and it works. The D420 bios only recognizes max of 2GB available, though it shows 2.5GB installed. Puppy only sees 2GB available.

Anyway with 2GB RAM and the swap partition, it does amazingly well from laptop close to 15 years old. Probably an internal SSD to replace the existing mini hard drive would be icing on the cake providing faster boots and loads.

[bigpup]

15 years old

It is your money.
But a computer this old, is taking a big chance, spending a lot of money, adding new parts.
Nothing lasts forever.
There are still a lot of old parts, that will die, at some point.
Those core parts, probably are no longer made.
If they go bad, that is it.

The SSD is probably the only part that could be used in a new computer.
The memory stick, you just got, is probably very old hardware. Would not work in a modern new computer.
New computers use memory way beyond that memory stick and it would not be compatible.

[mouldy]

15 years old

It is your money.
But a computer this old, is taking a big chance, spending a lot of money, adding new parts.
Nothing lasts forever.
There are still a lot of old parts, that will die, at some point.
Those core parts, probably are no longer made.
If they go bad, that is it.

The SSD is probably the only part that could be used in a new computer.
The memory stick, you just got, is probably very old hardware. Would not work in a modern new computer.
New computers use memory way beyond that memory stick and it would not be compatible.

No it wont fit in modern computer, its 2GB RAM 200Pin DDR2 800MHz SODIMM. But it also cost me US$3 SHIPPED. Yea I dont understand how they can sell and ship for the prices they do. Am I worried about wasting $3, not really. Have you priced a cup of coffee lately? The laptop is old but it apparently lived in a time warp, dang thing is pristine and cost seller almost as much to mail it as I paid in ebay auction SHIPPED price of $17. Hey I am happy enough, they could just tossed it in dumpster and been just as well off financially. By way these old D400 series laptops were built like the proverbial brick outhouse. You see lot of them still in functional condition but retired business computers were built like that and sold new for insane amount money too. My "desktop" is an old Latitude 131L that I mounted on wall and run cables to desktop monitor and keyboard. Its specs arent lot better but it is lot faster and can do 64bit and 4GB RAM. I put an SSD in it. The old buisiness laptops (HP and Lenovo fine too) were overbuilt like this, first take them apart, blow out the cobwebs, reseat the heatsink with new thermal goo and fire them up. They last. Lot better than newer low end consumer laptops that arent upgradable nor repairable. Price a battery for one of those little cloudbooks that you have to take completely apart to replace battery. They intentionally made them to be throwaway and not economical to fix/repair.

Be waste of money for my needs to buy some high power modern computer so I could share its more powerful hardware with Microsoft and their spyware and mandatory marketing updates. Same with the cheapie plastic consumer models. They dont last.

[rufwoof]

Fatdog 800 playing music (mp3), browsing the web, viewing reddit, irc (puppy channel), editing a html file, file manager open, mail program open.

... tad under 90MB ram (htop Mem value).

For that, booted with pfix=nox, started up cmus music player, ssh'd into hashbang to run ... lynx web browser, irssi for irc, mutt for mail, mc file manager and mc -e text editor.

Compares to 72MB when using OpenBSD (so pretty much the same when compared to a lightweight cli only based setup)

[RetroTechGuy]

Watchdog's SSE-only build of PaleMoon 27.9.4 with self-contained glibc-219 'tweak' is pretty lightweight, too. It's fine with PIIIs; not sure about PIIs. (I believe they're MMX-only, so probably a no-go.)

I've turned this into a 'portable', following Fred's method with FF-Quantum, so it can be run from a separate flash drive on an old machine with low RAM and perhaps little in the way of storage.

http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 06#1022606

Thanks Mike! I'm planning to tinker with the newer Xenial, and think I'll try this for the browser when I do (suspect that I may experience unpredictable results if I try to jam it into my current system, which already has a slightly older Palemoon installed).

[GusCE6]

As the owner of a 2001 Sony VAIO this interests me.

Basics are: 256MB RAM (maximum), 800MHz Pentium 3 Processor, 1024h x 768v resolution, Intel Integrated chip, no SSE2 instructions (Pentium 3), obviously an antique. USB is 1.0, so no USB stick loading here.

So far the most recent distro that works well on it is Puppy Linux 5.2.5 Lucid. Puppy Linux 5.7.0 simply takes too much.

The Sony is normally an XP system, but with the LICK application it becomes a Dual Operating System.

Puppy Linux 6.0.5 Tahrpup will not install in this way. 7 Xenialpup did, but that was unable to do anything.


You mention "60 MB used," so that seems promising- but after installing it on a 2012 8GB ASUS the readings indicated 420MB. Is this the total, distro + RAM being used? Note that it is installed on the hard drive.

So the question is: taking into account the ancient hardware and limited RAM, how well will this distro run on the Sony, assuming it can be installed?

Is there any distro using the 3.2 kernel that requires no more power than Puppy Linux 5.2.5 Lucid?

Does the 3.2 kernel require more power than 2.6? If it does then there is no point switching kernels with 5.2.5 Lucid; it won't run very well.

Thanks.