Puppy for ideal performance on Pentium2 laptop with 64MB RAM

Message

VCSkier · #1 Post by **VCSkier** » Sat 05 Apr 2008, 23:09

I'm an Ubuntu user and have very little experience with featherweight distributions like Puppy.

A friend of mine was just given an old Compaq laptop. It's a 300 Mhz Pentium II MMX, with 64 MB of RAM. It has Windows '98 on it, and he's interested in trying a Linux based operating system. Usability (for a Windows user) is top priority. From what I've read, Puppy seems to be the best bet. I want something that is reasonably quick, that will make connecting to wireless networks and web browsing with Flash-like plugins simple, and hopefully something that will let him watch DVD's.

Is all this possible with Puppy on this computer? If so, how should I go about it. I'd like to keep Windows on the laptop for now, and I've already partitioned to make space for Linux, so doing an actual hard drive installation would not be a problem, but would that yield the best performance/most advantages? If so, should I do the frugal or full installation. Or, would it be better to run it off the CD? Keep in mind the computer only has 64 MB of RAM.

Once I've sorted out the best way to use Puppy, are there any recommendations for tweaking performance on this type of computer? Could anyone recommend some replacement programs that might better suit this computer that the preinstalled ones? Thanks in advance!

Dingo · #2 Post by **Dingo** » Sat 05 Apr 2008, 23:41

For PC with RAM less than 128 MB, full install is recommended

you can try latest stable 3.01
http://puppylover.netsons.org/dokupuppy/puppy_releases
or others like 3.02 and the beta release of Puppy 4 (Dingo) having an option

puppy pfix=noram

that prevent loading in RAM, so you can keeping max ram available for other applications

with these last puppy (3.02 and Dingo) you can make a frugal install instead a full install (more quick and simple)

muggins · #3 Post by **muggins** » Sat 05 Apr 2008, 23:44

Hi VCSkier,

As 64M RAM is about the bottom end for puppy, (people have installed puppy on lower RAM, but certain apps are going to be clunkers!), I think your best bet is a full install. But whether you go full or frugal, you'll need a swap partition, or a swap file.

Why not create a swap partition, then boot off the cdrom, and how well puppy performs, with applications like seamonkey, will give an indication of the performance you could expect if you installed frugally.

VCSkier · #4 Post by **VCSkier** » Sun 06 Apr 2008, 01:49

Thanks for the replies.

So if a full install would perform better than a frugal installation, even if it is more complicated or takes more time I think I will use the full install, or am I missing something?

Also, because this is for someone who has never used Linux, I would rather not use an unstable release unless it offered some big advantages. Where can I learn more about Puppy 3.02 and 4? I tried Googleing to no avail.

If I use the full installation method of 3.01 (which sounds like the best option at the moment) is there a way I could prevent it from loading in RAM?

alienjeff · #5 Post by **alienjeff** » Sun 06 Apr 2008, 03:35

Asking a 300-MHz PII with only 64M of RAM to play DVDs is a rather tall order. Time how long it takes for the browser, Seamonkey, to load. Then consider adding as much RAM as you can afford.

If that Compaq has Intel i810 video, you're in for some disappointment with Puppy versions using the newer Xorg. Mid-2.xx versions should play nicely on that vintage machine.

raffy · #6 Post by **raffy** » Sun 06 Apr 2008, 06:50

Try a full install of minipup, based on version 2.02:

http://minipc.org/pup

VCSkier · #7 Post by **VCSkier** » Sun 06 Apr 2008, 18:05

According to the xorg.conf, the graphics card is a neomagic magicgraph 256av.

Bruce B · #8 Post by **Bruce B** » Sun 06 Apr 2008, 22:43

VCSkier wrote: So if a full install would perform better than a frugal installation, even if it is more complicated or takes more time I think I will use the full install, or am I missing something?

Yes, a lot people will recommend Frugal Installations, even with the tight RAM constraints you have.

In your case the reason for the Frugal recommendation was stated - more quick and simple

If a person knows what they do - ten to fifteen minutes time could be shaved of by not needing to make a Linux partition. Simplicity not an issue.

If a person has no idea what they do - days of frustration could be shaved off by not needing to make a Linux partition. Thus the basis for an argument of speed and simplicity.

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

Boot Manager Considerations

Configuring a boot manager is an other consideration. Could become a matter of confusion and time lost with Frugal, but not as likely to become an issue with Full.

VCSkier · #9 Post by **VCSkier** » Mon 05 May 2008, 02:49

My friend is, and has been moderately content using Puppy 3.01 on the above laptop. Thanks for the advice everyone.

I'm wondering if I can do anything now, with the advent of Puppy 4, to improve his experience. Things are pretty slow still, and DVD playback is still a no-go. Things are better than Windows 98 would have been, but they could be better.

I was just looking at the release notes of Puppy 4, and by the looks of it (with an upgrade to GTK2), I would suspect that it would not be the best option. BUT Puppy 2.14 Revisited caught my eye. Has anyone tried this? Would it be a possible improvement for this system?

muggins · #10 Post by **muggins** » Mon 05 May 2008, 03:17

You haven't indicated whether you've created a swap file/partition. This is a definite necessity with 64M RAM. Also, as has been mentioned many times on the forum, the moz. browsers can gobble up your RAM. Why not try downloading on of the .iso's which have been stripped of mozilla, then add opera as the browser, as opera is a bit lighter.

Regarding pup4rc, why not just burn a cdrom & try it?

VCSkier · #11 Post by **VCSkier** » Mon 05 May 2008, 03:41

Thanks for the fast reply muggins, and sorry for the lack of details on my part. I do have his system setup with a swap partition. I did a full install with Puppy 3.01 seamonkey, and after seeing the very poor seamonkey performance, installed opera and he's been using it since.

Regarding the try-it-and-see philosophy, on my systems I always do this, but it's not mine, and I don't see this friend very often anymore. It takes a bit of planning to schedule a block of time that I can do some trial and error on his computer. I was hoping to get a relative idea of things ahead of time. Thanks for the tip though.

So... does anyone have an idea of how 2.14R, 3.10, and 4.00 would compare on a system with 64MB of RAM?

bosley · #12 Post by **bosley** » Mon 05 May 2008, 08:39

I'd suggest to only boot from cd with the pfix=noram option for trying out Puppy; create the savefile and install Opera, which will be started then from hd.

As an ubuntu user you can make a frugal install -the grub entry will be given in tmp-, it takes only minutes, and remaster the cd adding pfix=noram to the appendline in isolinux.cfg. (I know that this is possible with Dougal's remaster script.)

After that no installation will be needed for your friend.

For me 2.14, 2.16 and 3.01 are VERY stable.

HTH

VCSkier · #13 Post by **VCSkier** » Mon 05 May 2008, 15:36

I've already partitioned the hdd, and rewritten Windows' MBR with grub, so those issues are already behind me. Unless another method would offer a significant advantage (i.e. performance), I'm planning on sticking with the full installation method that I have already done on the system.

At this point, I'm wondering if there would be a noticeable performance difference among the available releases; namly 4.00, 3.01, and 2.14R. If they are all basically equivalent with regard to speed on a system with this little RAM, I'm planning on asking him if he would be interested in updating to Puppy 4.00 (he's using 3.01 now, but 4.00 looks nice). I'm concerned though, because I know that GTK2 applications are often more resource demanding that GTK1. So if 4.00 would not be ideal, would 2.14 Revisited offer any performance/usability advantages over 3.01? Thanks again.

Dingo · #14 Post by **Dingo** » Mon 05 May 2008, 16:13

if you like still using puppy 3.01 you can download this version of puppy 3.01 having noram option at boot
http://puppylover.netsons.org/dokupuppy ... customized

VCSkier · #15 Post by **VCSkier** » Mon 05 May 2008, 17:08

Thanks Dingo. To make sure I understand correctly, this would offer improved performance for a full installation, by preventing the boot process from coping the system from the HDD to the RAM on each startup. Is that correct?

If indeed Puppy 4.00 would be slower on this system, this looks like my best bet. Thanks.

VCSkier · #16 Post by **VCSkier** » Mon 16 Jun 2008, 16:10

Has anyone tried Puppy 4.00 on a system with specs like these? I'm wondering if it's any heavier or lighter on system resources. Thanks.

alienjeff · #17 Post by **alienjeff** » Mon 16 Jun 2008, 16:21

Other than the amount of RAM, yes. I ran it on my 233-MHz P-II w/288M of RAM. The newer kernel in Puppy v4.00 appears to dictate a heavier memory footprint than earlier versions.

Something to keep in mind: as computers are evolving, so is Puppy. Today what we consider a legacy computer will soon be considered antique and eventually only a curiosity. Only the most foolish (or masochistic) would attempt to run XP on a P133 with 16M of RAM.

Though not easy to ascertain, consider running a version of Puppy which was under development with computers of similar vintage as yours in mind.

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Puppy for ideal performance on Pentium2 laptop with 64MB RAM

Puppy for ideal performance on Pentium2 laptop with 64MB RAM

minipup

update...