Why Somebody Still Use Old Puppy Version?

Message

_MegadetH_ · #1 Post by **_MegadetH_** » Sun 22 Feb 2009, 16:42

Hi There!

I'm (almost) an happy Puppy user. I started using Puppy from 4.0 version. Now I've a full hd installation of Puppy 4.12 retro kernel. I see in this forum there are users running old Puppy version as vers.3. Why people still use it? Do they have an old system?
Do you think an old version could run faster then new one on my old pentium III? I never tried puppy 3 version, so I don't know if there are bigger differences then new one.
I don't care about candy eye stuff, I prefer having a minimal and fast system.

Ps: i said almost happy puppy user, because I hadn't luck running windows games

Thanks

bugman · #2 Post by **bugman** » Sun 22 Feb 2009, 17:31

_MegadetH_ wrote:I see in this forum there are users running old Puppy version as vers.3. Why people still use it? Do they have an old system?

in my case it was an old scanner, that got left behind [by kernel changes?] for a couple of versions

for whatever reason it works in 4.12, it is not recognized correctly, but it does work

go figure . . .

ssme · #3 Post by **ssme** » Sun 22 Feb 2009, 21:51

i can vouch for the fact that older versions sometimes detect hardware better. to get the sound working properly on my (9 year old) laptop i had to run puppy 1.0.8 and then copy the configuration details over to puppy 4.1.2.

and if you don't mind me hijacking the thread, i wonder if anyone could tell me: are older versions of puppy still capable of adding new software? for example, i have another ancient laptop that i suspect is beyond even puppy's help (32mb ram...), but i would like to try puppy 1.0.8 on it, just as an experiment. now i suspect there isn't dotpet handling in puppy 1.0.8, and online repositories only seem to go back to version 2... so does that mean that version 1 is restricted just to the bundled software?

#4 Post by MU » Sun 22 Feb 2009, 22:07

most dotPUPs here should work in Puppy 108:
http://dotpups.de/dotpups/

You might try 109CE, the advanced comunity edition:
http://puppyisos.org/isos/Puppylinux-official/1.0.9-CE/
user: puppy
password: linux

Install PSI (if it is not included yet, the version for Puppy 2):
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=10960
I don't remember exactly, but I think it works in Puppy 1. No guarantee though.

PSI will install the "dotPET"-handler and pkgtool to be able to install pets.
They were first prototypes of the PET system, and still should work fine.
You also could install both without PSI:
http://dotpups.de/auto/

Backup your savefile from time to time, as Puppy 1 is somewhat critical concerning pets/pups that were created later, some might mess it up completely.

In that case the easiest way to "repair" it, is to restore a backup.

Mark

ssme · #5 Post by **ssme** » Mon 23 Feb 2009, 02:57

i'll give 1.0.9 a go. does it have gparted? i've only just realised that i can partition a drive and install puppy through a qemu machine on window, which makes it a bit quicker.

does the save file need to be backed up even for a full install?

also, is 1.0.8/9 necessarily going to be less resource hungry than any of the version 2s (e.g. meanpup) in a full install? with a 90mhz cpu and 32mb ram, it will always run slow, but it'll be fun to see how it copes!

are there any barebones version 1s?

racepres · #6 Post by **racepres** » Mon 23 Feb 2009, 04:11

Just my experience but, White Fang , based on 3.01 Fat Free seems less resource intense, than Mean Pup, based on 2.02 Opera. Using a 586/120 mhz toshiba 550 w/ 80 M of ram. But YMMV.. RP

gerry · #7 Post by **gerry** » Mon 23 Feb 2009, 08:06

Some people use an old version just because they like it, and can't see any need to change.

Gerry

Billwho? · #8 Post by **Billwho?** » Mon 23 Feb 2009, 09:12

Back to the original question there are quite a lot of reasons for using "older" versions of Puppy. As bugman and ssme mentioned hardware is sometimes the reasons. Another reason is why I haven't upgraded from 215CE Alpha yet. l'm lazy, on dial-up and just haven't bothered and it does all I need it to do. Why am I using an Alpha? Because I meant to download the Beta to bug test and got the wrong .iso Then there is the fact that Puppy changed series number to show the point when there was some fundamental change in Puppy's make-up. This meant that sometimes two and I think at one stage three different series of Puppy were being developed at the same time. I may be wrong with the following examples but if I am someone is sure to correct my mistakes. As far as I understand the changes were something like this:

The one series used the Pupget package manager and pup001.sfs save file.

The two series introduced the dotPet package format and package manager as well as the pup_save.sfs save file.

The three series was created with Slackware binary compatibility.

The four series an attempt to return to the ability to use older hardware.

Now my memory really starts to get fuzzy but I believe that 1.0.9 CE came out somewhere around the same time as 2.02. So both series were being developed at the same time.
Then when series three came out there was still some development going on of the two series.
Now we have the four series being developed as well as the three series still in development.
I believe that while Puppy 4.00 was under construction both the two and three series were still active so we had three series being developed at once. The three series is currently at 3.02 which is an Alpha release with 3.10 planned as the finished bug free product.

Sage · #9 Post by **Sage** » Mon 23 Feb 2009, 10:02

There was also the major kernel switch from the 2.4 series to the 2.6 series, which, later, spawned the sub-genre permitting SATA and stuff. This jump really screwed up a pile of old junk from which we still haven't fully recovered. The acid test is try DSL - it still uses the 2.4 kernel, which, perversely, is still maintained! Frankly, it all comes down to whether you have the lemming gene or are a crafty old codger. Mostly, there is no need for much of the HW released this last half-decade. This especially pertains to SATA which, in practice, is less speedy than the maximum permissible ATA133 spec. achieving 120 at best - and you can ignore the I, II and soon to be released III designators - pure BS unless you're designing bleeding edge servers, in which case SCSI and its successors are the obvious, if expensive, choices. We are, as usual, being conned into believing we need more of everything to surf, play a little music, photos and DVDs, etc. - all very transatlantic. Stick with 1.0.8R1 burnt onto a CD-R (rather than a CD-RW) and it'll run on a 2x CD drive on most junk, although an upgrade 128Mb strip and a 64Mb swap is a useful insurance.

_MegadetH_ · #10 Post by **_MegadetH_** » Mon 23 Feb 2009, 16:55

nobody has replied to the question I was more interested

Do you think old puppy run faster than 4.12 on my machine?

Sage · #11 Post by **Sage** » Mon 23 Feb 2009, 17:15

Uh? Back to English comprehension classes? The question asked was:

Why Somebody Still Use Old Puppy Version?

to which you have an interesting selection of views.
If you wish for a supplementary, maybe an additional request preceded by some gratitude?!

bugman · #12 Post by **bugman** » Mon 23 Feb 2009, 19:03

_MegadetH_ wrote:nobody has replied to the question I was more interested Do you think old puppy run faster than 4.12 on my machine?

a definite maybe!

your machine is not much different than mine and i have not noticed any slowdowns [no benchmarks, just perception] from 1.07 to 4.12

i have lost the ability to use xorg since upgrading, and i loathe cups

upside, i like all the new apps that work with 4.12, maybe not with 1.07?

as long as i can scan and occasionally print and listen to king tubby i am a happy man

racepres · #13 Post by **racepres** » Mon 23 Feb 2009, 19:12

_MegadetH_ wrote:nobody has replied to the question I was more interested Do you think old puppy run faster than 4.12 on my machine?

Faster? Not on the box's I have tried. Less recources? Depends on the build! Howzat? RP

tlchost · #14 Post by **tlchost** » Mon 23 Feb 2009, 20:20

Sage wrote:Uh? Back to English comprehension classes? The question asked was:
Why Somebody Still Use Old Puppy Version?
Speaking of comprehesion....there was a second question asked:

Do you think an old version could run faster then new one on my old pentium III?

So perhaps read comprehension classes may be in order.

Sage wrote: If you wish for a supplementary, maybe an additional request preceded by some gratitude?!

Poor guy.....he asked a second question and was chastised because he mentioned no one answered it....and did that in a fairly neutral way.

Thom

Trobin · #15 Post by **Trobin** » Mon 23 Feb 2009, 23:41

_MegadetH_ wrote:nobody has replied to the question I was more interested Do you think old puppy run faster than 4.12 on my machine?

Only way to know for sure is top try and older version.

raffy · #16 Post by **raffy** » Tue 24 Feb 2009, 02:32

Yes, older Puppies before 2.12 use the older GTK which is very fast.

However, if you want raw speed, just make sure you have the RAM to allow full loading of your Puppy files in RAM. => 256 MB RAM will be fine for the standard Puppy (2.12 and newer).

_MegadetH_ · #17 Post by **_MegadetH_** » Tue 24 Feb 2009, 16:42

@ Sage, as tlchost said I asked it in a fairly neutral way. I'm always kind If you see my responses in other topics and I thank everybody for the help you give me.

@Bugman, it's nice to know from your experience there aren't slowdowns from 1.07 to 4.12. I'd like to try puppy 3.0 to better understand the differences with newer one. Anyway, do you have a full hd install or not?

@raffy, I'm curious to try how old GTK could run on my machine. Yes I tried with full loading from RAM if you mean with Livecd...it is fast if run small apps but when I open "heavier" apps it slowdown, because I don't have much free RAM.

Thanks guys.

bugman · #18 Post by **bugman** » Tue 24 Feb 2009, 23:16

_MegadetH_ wrote: @Bugman, it's nice to know from your experience there aren't slowdowns from 1.07 to 4.12. I'd like to try puppy 3.0 to better understand the differences with newer one. Anyway, do you have a full hd install or not?

full, both times

i cannot swear there is NO slowdown, but if there is i have not noticed it

i take that back--occasionally, if i have a zillion big things going on at once, a new app might open slowly, and i don't seem to remember that in 1.07

overall, nothing i can't live with

`f00 · #19 Post by **`f00** » Wed 25 Feb 2009, 00:22

bon giorno

I'm guessing from your nick you might like the sort of windows games called 'shooters'

, but

since these are pretty much all about the candyeye&ear (and directX and lots of other differences in both soft-and-hardware) .. with some effort you could very likely get a bit of luck playing games on your system - try this thread for a flight sim that may get you into some fun without too much effort. There's lots of puplets and heaps of info and some users who take their fun seriously, but it can get technical to the point of strange and perhaps more learning than mindless fun with a joystick

GL&HF+yvw

Sage · #20 Post by **Sage** » Wed 25 Feb 2009, 06:22

JB4x4 made FlightPup based on FlightGear:
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=25221

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Why Somebody Still Use Old Puppy Version?

Why Somebody Still Use Old Puppy Version?

Re: Why Somebody Still Use Old Puppy Version?

yes