Lucid Puppy better than Windows XP

Message

LarryHenry · #1 Post by **LarryHenry** » Sat 12 Nov 2011, 14:32

I have an eMachines PC from 2005 that came with Win-XP and 512mb of ram. I upgraded to 2GB of RAM and Windows-xp still ran like it was a 4 cylinder instead of a turbocharged V8. I discovered Puppy and burned a Live CD, installed to a USB drive and started using Puppy. It didn't take me long to use GParted to re-size my Windows NTFS partition and create one for a full install of Puppy Lucid 5.2.8. I did a "full" install and used Grub4Dos to boot it.....I love puppy as it FAST on my PC and I can customize it to what I want/need. I installed some games and Firefox/Flash; IceWm, and assorted Wallpapers I like. The built in utilities are great, and Puppy is the best distro i have tried. I tried Ubuntu and all it's "cousins" and did not like them. I converted my high school buddy David to Lucid Puppy and he used it to revive a couple of old Win-98 PCs laying around his shop, and amazed the "techie" where he works. Their company builds and markets bar code reading systems. I like the fact that I can take puppy with me on a usb stick.

LarryHenry · #2 Post by **LarryHenry** » Sat 12 Nov 2011, 14:37

I found my old 512MB Ram stick yesterday and Monday when I am off I plan on pulling the 2GB of RAM and going back to 512MB just to see how Puppy Runs on 512MB of RAM...on my PC...not a permanent change just an experiment...

majorfoo · #3 Post by **majorfoo** » Sat 12 Nov 2011, 15:09

I have a HP Pentium 4, 2.8ghz cpu, originally had 512mb memory bios dated February 23, 2005

I am currently running Lucid 528-002 on ext4 partition, full install and
luci-529 on ext4 partition, full install

Both boot in less that 45 seconds and are very fast.

I still have another computer with windows xp that i use couple of times a year for application that I have not mastered in puppy, i.e. Excel Spreadsheet graphs

so I am basically 99% linux and very happy camper

majorfoo

pa_mcclamrock · #4 Post by **pa_mcclamrock** » Mon 14 Nov 2011, 10:57

My daughter got a new laptop and I picked up her old Averatec laptop, 512 MB RAM, 2.2 GHz processor, 60 GB HD, Win XP. For a while I booted Puppy from CD and saved to USB when I used the laptop (it wouldn't boot from USB), but it turned out I never had any use for XP. So, I wiped the NTFS partition, substituted a little swap partition and a big ext3 partition, and did a frugal install of Lucid 5.2.8 to the HD. Works great--I don't miss XP a bit!

LarryHenry · #5 Post by **LarryHenry** » Mon 14 Nov 2011, 13:31

Well boys and girls...I pulled both my 1GB sticks of RAM and put my 512MB stick back in to see how Puppy would run on 512MB of RAM...it's unbelievably FAST compared to Windows XP. Running Firefox 8 on Star Trek web site playing a Video, Gmail and Forum open and using less then 310MB of RAM...[img]I%20have%20a%20friend%20with%20an%20old%20Compact%20with%20512%20MB%20of%20RAM...going%20to%20try%20to%20"convert"%20him%20over%20to%20Puppy...he%20wants%20a%20faster%20PC...LOL[/img]

Moose On The Loose · #6 Post by **Moose On The Loose** » Mon 14 Nov 2011, 15:14

Isn't "better than Windows XP" a little like saying "better than a slap in the belly with a wet fish"?

LarryHenry · #7 Post by **LarryHenry** » Mon 14 Nov 2011, 17:33

Doesn't take much to beat Win-DOZE in my book...

Dewbie · #8 Post by **Dewbie** » Tue 15 Nov 2011, 05:12

Related, yet unrelated:
About that first screenshot...

pa_mcclamrock · #9 Post by **pa_mcclamrock** » Tue 15 Nov 2011, 10:02

Moose On The Loose wrote:Isn't "better than Windows XP" a little like saying "better than a slap in the belly with a wet fish"?

No, because XP is actually a comparatively good version of Windows. Compare Vista, or Win ME, for example . . .

If I did really need to use Windows on an older machine, I'd want XP. Fortunately, though, I don't!

russoodle · #10 Post by **russoodle** » Wed 16 Nov 2011, 06:13

Dewbie wrote:Related, yet unrelated:
About that first screenshot...

And....the two characters in the header..

nic007 · #11 Post by **nic007** » Wed 16 Nov 2011, 11:06

Yes, Puppy is a lovely runner just a pity that things eg. many printers do not run along because of lack of drivers. Windws XP is slower and heavier but everything works.

Dewbie · #12 Post by **Dewbie** » Fri 18 Nov 2011, 01:41

russoodle wrote:

And....the two characters in the header..

Ahh, yes...Sparky and Blinky.
Good catch; I totally missed that.

dk60902 · #13 Post by **dk60902** » Mon 28 Nov 2011, 05:08

I have WinXP, Rex Bang and 5.28 triple booting, both puppies frugal installed. I use one of the 2 puppies most of the time. Both are incredibly fast. WinXP is OK, but seems to lag a little and doesn't seem as snappy. It's an older desktop that I bought used cheap. It's an Athlon XP+ 3200 2.2 GHz with 1 GB RAM. The only thing that I have problems with on Puppy is that I can't get the Xscan utility to recognize my printer/scanner. It will recognize the printer on CUPS. Also, it would be nice to have a sleep/hibernate function on Puppy. Finally, I love using dual monitors. On 2 of my laptops, one with Vista and the other XP, I have dual monitor setup, which makes things more productive.

Still, puppy is a joy for web surfing. It's very responsive.

RJARRRPCGP · #14 Post by **RJARRRPCGP** » Tue 13 Mar 2012, 22:39

Windows XP is NOT a bad OS.
The only cons I have with it mostly is WPA and WGA.

I find XP SP3 to use roughly the same amount of RAM as most Linux distros.

I'm afraid it includes Ubuntu and default Debian.

Hibernate and resume are phenomenally fast! (I'm afraid it beats Puppy)

This is coming from a person that's mostly a Linux person now.

And Xubuntu is real slow at coming back from hibernation.

Hibernation still seems to be a WIP in Linux distros.

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Lucid Puppy better than Windows XP

Lucid Puppy better than Windows XP

Lucid Puppy

Puppy on 512MB

Re: Lucid Puppy better than Windows XP

Puppy vs Windows

Re: Lucid Puppy better than Windows XP