Hello.
As a very young user of tahrpup 6.0 and a long time user of ubuntu, I had to find out for myself how fast puppy is compared to other distributions.
So I installed tahrpup 6.0 in a regular pc (an old one, 10 years old) with 1 GB of ram and an old nvidia card.
Over a period of 5 years I tried crunchbanglinux with openbox, xubuntu, kubuntu. crunchbang was the fastest and kubuntu was the slowest and almost unbearable in the end (but it was the most complete DE that all the others).
Now tahrpup uses just 80 megs of ram idle, and the whole system is very responsive. Browsing is very fast too.
I already new that rox-filer is a very fast file manager, but from what I have read, jwm is not than fast compared to openbox. So I don't quite get why is puppy linux so fast. The reviews only describe puppy, but they don't say how it is build.
why is puppy linux fast?
Well KDE4 is a bit of a sick joke and makes Vista look snappy...simply getting away from that is a good move. I prefer Xfce4...a nice compromise.
Puppy is normally loaded and run from RAM (but saves are not) which also helps a bit and yes far less background stuff going on (Gnome and KDE just live that stuff) so less initial memory. Apps are chosen to be lighter too...again no KDE junk.
that's probably the main reasons
mike
Puppy is normally loaded and run from RAM (but saves are not) which also helps a bit and yes far less background stuff going on (Gnome and KDE just live that stuff) so less initial memory. Apps are chosen to be lighter too...again no KDE junk.
that's probably the main reasons
mike
Thats what I am talking about, less background stuff . But what stuff ?mikeb wrote:Well KDE4 is a bit of a sick joke and makes Vista look snappy...simply getting away from that is a good move. I prefer Xfce4...a nice compromise.
Puppy is normally loaded and run from RAM (but saves are not) which also helps a bit and yes far less background stuff going on (Gnome and KDE just live that stuff) so less initial memory. Apps are chosen to be lighter too...again no KDE junk.
that's probably the main reasons
mike
well all that 'stuff' that the big bunnies feel that are needed...similar really to windows.... daemons monitoring daemons...5 ways of doing the same thing concurrently and so on...no specifics as the closest I get is kde on slax. Check out htop or similar and see what is running and how much it takes. A bit like windows services...you keep killing processes and it just keeps running lol.
Puppy tries to only run what is needed to actually run a system.
Its sort of a good question as I have background services going on here like hal... it looks busy yet is snappy on a pentium 3 and is around 60-70MB at boot and thats with Xfce4. (slax 6 based) What exactly makes ubuntu soooo sluggish... hard to say definitively and why Gnome is so heavy as it looks like basic gtk to me.
Others will drop in here and shed some light I am sure.
And by the way I and others can make puppy considerably lighter/faster than it is.... but thats cos we are slightly obsessed.
mike
Puppy tries to only run what is needed to actually run a system.
Its sort of a good question as I have background services going on here like hal... it looks busy yet is snappy on a pentium 3 and is around 60-70MB at boot and thats with Xfce4. (slax 6 based) What exactly makes ubuntu soooo sluggish... hard to say definitively and why Gnome is so heavy as it looks like basic gtk to me.
Others will drop in here and shed some light I am sure.
And by the way I and others can make puppy considerably lighter/faster than it is.... but thats cos we are slightly obsessed.
mike
yes the kernel appears to be as mean and lean as ever.... and some user space speed ups too..... cut the fluff and you still have a resonsive system...puppy is a good example of that.I hope not. Linus once said that linux is bloated, but puppy proves that linux is very fast. Userspace must be bloated then.
mike
Flash,
The chart shows memory usage when it's running.
edit My apologies, forgot to provide a link to the chart, here it goes:
http://l3net.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/a ... x-desktops
The chart shows memory usage when it's running.
edit My apologies, forgot to provide a link to the chart, here it goes:
http://l3net.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/a ... x-desktops
Why is Puppy so fast?
Have you ever seen a puppy that was not fast?
Those things are constantly moving
Program size is the biggest speed killer.
True Puppy programs are small and coded to do just what they are designed to do and no more.
Over the years I have seen the mayor internet browser programs, get bigger and bigger, and slower and slower.
Other operating systems developers do not write very tight code anymore. Seems the big push is just get it out there and make it work.
The early days of computers, software code was looked at very closely to limit the amount and size needed to accomplish the desired result.
Puppy coding still follows that principle.
The smallest possible program that still gets the desired results.
Have you ever seen a puppy that was not fast?
Those things are constantly moving
Program size is the biggest speed killer.
True Puppy programs are small and coded to do just what they are designed to do and no more.
Over the years I have seen the mayor internet browser programs, get bigger and bigger, and slower and slower.
Other operating systems developers do not write very tight code anymore. Seems the big push is just get it out there and make it work.
The early days of computers, software code was looked at very closely to limit the amount and size needed to accomplish the desired result.
Puppy coding still follows that principle.
The smallest possible program that still gets the desired results.
The things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
I liked KDE3...and some of the earlier releases where fast and slick and the later ones still nice and useable.
Nice chart.... must remember some of the smaller ones such as JWM are incomplete... eg it relies on ROX and third party applets....the big bunnies provide all that is usually needed.... just way more unfortunately.
mike
ps simplepup had a neat combination....xfce 4.2 and rox for the desktop...now that was lean and mean and lite and fast...yet nicely functional and customisable...I use that on all me pups as it in keeping with the minimal approach. The later xfce4 have grown somewhat as eash component appears to be an entirely independent application with duplicate overhead rather than an homogonised lump.
Nice chart.... must remember some of the smaller ones such as JWM are incomplete... eg it relies on ROX and third party applets....the big bunnies provide all that is usually needed.... just way more unfortunately.
mike
ps simplepup had a neat combination....xfce 4.2 and rox for the desktop...now that was lean and mean and lite and fast...yet nicely functional and customisable...I use that on all me pups as it in keeping with the minimal approach. The later xfce4 have grown somewhat as eash component appears to be an entirely independent application with duplicate overhead rather than an homogonised lump.
-
Techtardette
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Sun 26 Oct 2014, 01:13
- Location: Chicago
Puppy is fast because their is no Bill Gates making computers for idiots like me. Billy G is constantly making money off of user-friendly software resource hogs. I can only speculate that his manufacturing friends pay him off for the constant need to upgrade hardware. I know nothing, but this is how I see it. Are monopolies even legal? Anyways, long live open source. Gates should donate to the labor of love developers, in my humble opinion.
[color=violet]echo t{ech,ardette}[/color]
Vista was intended to force new hardware sales...this is pure money driven design and that's what you get.
By the way I get the same performance from windows 2000/XP as me pups....(415 mainly) ie boot times and speed of programs. They behave better when the crud is removed.... they suffered more from bad design than deliberate bloat. NT4 apart from their kernel tinkerings was way faster from an era when MS actually wrote with efficiency in mind (or should I say the work by DEC who wrote NT was relatively unpolluted)...thing is corporations stop being competitive once they get their monopoly...which is the problem with monopolies and if such were truly illegal they would not exist would they.
More fun here...our water supplies are controlled by private monopolies and they sure milk that one At least with computers you still have choices and can do without.
mike
By the way I get the same performance from windows 2000/XP as me pups....(415 mainly) ie boot times and speed of programs. They behave better when the crud is removed.... they suffered more from bad design than deliberate bloat. NT4 apart from their kernel tinkerings was way faster from an era when MS actually wrote with efficiency in mind (or should I say the work by DEC who wrote NT was relatively unpolluted)...thing is corporations stop being competitive once they get their monopoly...which is the problem with monopolies and if such were truly illegal they would not exist would they.
More fun here...our water supplies are controlled by private monopolies and they sure milk that one
At least with computers you still have choices and can do without.mike
The amazing developments of hardware seem to have resulted in sloppy lazy software development becuse there is enough performance to support wasteful code which seems a shame as that does not get the best out of such technology...eg yer latest offering on the shelves of PC world is little better than a machine from 10 years ago in terms of what it actually does...
Another point is programmers of today are usually juggling around or building on code from yesterday.... rarely is a program taken apart and examined for optimum performance and such programmers probably simply don't understand half the code they are using to do so since they did not write it. Yer one man band software bunnies are more likely to produce lean code than corporate meeting driven teams of this weeks university golden children
mike
Another point is programmers of today are usually juggling around or building on code from yesterday.... rarely is a program taken apart and examined for optimum performance and such programmers probably simply don't understand half the code they are using to do so since they did not write it. Yer one man band software bunnies are more likely to produce lean code than corporate meeting driven teams of this weeks university golden children
mike