Tahrpup 6.0.6 not uefi

[WoodLark]

Does anyone know where I can get a tahrpup 6.0.6 (not 6.0.5) iso that is for non uefi boot on older laptop?

[rockedge]

Yes, there is a choice. Both of these will work for you. The labeled version uefi will work with normal BIOS boot with no problems
Tahr 6.0.6 nopae -> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... ktYWHFUMlk

Tahr 6.0.6 uefi -> http://www.mediafire.com/file/cc6m3wc6w ... i.iso/file

This is one I made equipped with a real time kernel. It is also labeled as uefi but will work just as well on a normal BIOS systems as well.

http://rockedge.org/kernels/data/iso/Ta ... 6-uefi.iso

let us know when you're up and running!

[bigpup]

The more important question is why do you want to use that old a Puppy Version?

The newer Puppy versions will work better, have updated and bug fixed Puppy core programs and files, give better support to the newest versions of Browsers, etc.....

Any version of Puppy will work on old legacy bios.
UEFI in the iso name indicates it also has the added stuff to work with UEFI.

[mikewalsh]

The more important question is why do you want to use that old a Puppy Version?

The newer Puppy versions will work better, have updated and bug fixed Puppy core programs and files, give better support to the newest versions of Browsers, etc.....

Any version of Puppy will work on old legacy bios.
UEFI in the iso name indicates it also has the added stuff to work with UEFI.

There you go again. Criticising somebody else's choice....

I know you firmly believe that anybody with a lick of sense should always go for the very newest version of everything. But bigpup - dear bigpup - have some respect for the choices of others, hmm?


Mike.

[rockedge]

I still run some machines that were built in the early to mid 2000's. They run UPUP 3.9.9.2 and Tahr 6.0.5 and 6.0.6 beautifully, with Xenial and onward they began to strain.

[bigpup]

There you go again. Criticising somebody else's choice....

I know you firmly believe that anybody with a lick of sense should always go for the very newest version of everything. But bigpup - dear bigpup - have some respect for the choices of others, hmm?

How do you know they are using the best Puppy version for the computer they have and what they are trying to do????????????

I asked a question!

Sorry you do not like people to ask questions!!!

Yes I see problems all the time caused by someone trying to use the wrong version of Puppy with the software or computer they are using.
Problems with Puppy programs that are fixed in newer versions of Puppy.

All versions of Puppy do not work on all possible computers.

They seem to think going from Tahrpup 6.0.5 to 6.0.6 is going to provide something.
Could be helpful to know what?

Funny how the real issue never is stated in the first couple of posts.
Maybe they want a little newer version of Tahrpup just because there is one or maybe to fix something.
But you can never ask why, I guess!!

We can always assume the person knows all there is to know about the different Puppy versions.

Why is Tahrpup 6.0.6 not an official release of Tahrpup?
There is a reason!

[mikewalsh]

@ bigpup/rockedge:-

I confess - having slept on it! - that this is one of those perennial "issues" that will never go away.

@ rockedge:- I have to agree with this point. I've always found - more so since moving over to Linux, despite that it's always been about keeping older hardware useful - that even on this side of the fence, there's degrees of "useful". So often, it's more beneficial to run an OS that would have been 'current' at the time that machine was on the market; developers do, after all, look around to see what's about when coding stuff, to make sure their offerings will work with what's available. The fact that too many of them decide to always code for 'top-end' gear is neither here nor there, and is out of the end-user's hands.....

Which is why I've settled for radky's DPup Stretch for the anciente Dell lappie.....it being the newest available Puppy (as well as the most stable) which a P4, and a gig-and-a-half of DDR1 RAM can comfortably cope with. Anything newer, and I'm just on a hiding to nothing.....and I know it, too!

It's called "being practical"..!

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

@ bigpup:-

Don't get me wrong, mate. Generally speaking, it does indeed make sense to run as new an OS as you can.....from the security aspect, as well as the fact that 'fixes' for many things are incorporated as well. But this is, of course, why the Puppy community is so well served; Puppians run such a broad range of gear, that it can only help to have as wide a variety of 'spins' available as there are. There really IS something there for just about everybody.

If I'm perfectly honest, I'm a wee bit annoyed with this new HP desktop. Not with the hardware itself; it all runs beautifully, and is a joy to use. My "beef" is with HP's implementation of the UEFI software, and the fact that it simply will NOT allow booting of older Puppies, many of which I used to really enjoy playing around with....

So I'm running mostly new Puppies because I have no choice! Sod's law, innit.....?

(As for Tahrpup, yes; I agree with you there. The only difference between the two is that of the UEFI booltloader-compatibility stuff. Bottom line (bearing in mind what I said above)? 6.0.6 will boot on this machine. 6.0.5 won't.... ("can't find Vesa BIOS extensions..."))





Mike.

[mikeslr]

Bigpup asked a fair question: "why do you want to use that old a Puppy Version?"
Assuming that anyone knows which of the 5,000+ puppy versions would be best for a specific computer would be doing him/her a disservice. I would think as a general rule the best Puppy for an 'older computer' would be one capable of running the most current web-browsers but otherwise making use of 'light-weight' applications. As the publisher of Tahr 6.0.6 uefi I doubt that it now meets that criteria. It was an experiment to see if using the same kernel musher0 had used in a remastered Xenialpup would give some use-of-RAM advantage because of tahrpup's lighter applications. http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewt ... p?t=112725. It did, but not by much.
I don't recall including the libraries which will enable it to run current web-browsers OOTB. That, and it's older kernel is not patched against later discovered viruses; and its openssl also is less secure than those of more recent Puppies.

Since its publication both radky has published dpup-stretch and dpup-buster and jrb has published remasters of precise and others any of which I believe better meet the noted criteria.

The most important point, in answer to the probable, unexpressed, reason for the poster's question, was bigpup's statement: "Any version of Puppy will work on old legacy bios. UEFI in the iso name indicates it also has the added stuff to work with UEFI." Again quoting bigpup, "The things you do not tell us, are usually the clue to fixing the problem."

[WoodLark]

I did not mean to start a flame war! Please people, calm down. I needed to use Tahrpup 6.0.6 because I have a Tahrpup 6.0.6 save folder from another computer that contains applications and data that I need to access. I am resurrecting an old laptop to get at this data( I know there are probably other ways to get it). For my day-to-day computing needs, I use either xenialpup64 or bionicpup64.

Rockedge, thank you for your help. As it turns out, uefi was not my problem. I had two USB sticks that turned our to be defective as well as a DVD drive that is either defective or needs cleaning. Frustrated, I finally tried a third USB drive and that worked. Tahrpup 6.0.6 is now installed on the laptop. Next step is to recover the data.

I have always like both Tahrpup and Xenialpup (both 32 bit and 64 bit); they just work on every hardware. Bionicpup64 seems to be good also, but Bionicpup 32 bit has given me some issues.

[bigpup]

I did not mean to start a flame war!

This is not a flame war!

This is a healthy discussion of Puppy Linux and why you may or may not want to use Tahrpup6.0.6.

WE agree to agree or disagree and have fun doing it!!!!


Now that we all know why you wanted Tahrpup 6.0.6, we totally understand your issue(s).

Did you know (in Rox file manager) you can simply left click on any save file/folder and access what is in it.
Does not matter what Puppy version you do this in.
I do not think it would be good to try and uninstall a program, but make small fixes, copy stuff, even paste with limits, etc......
I do it all the time to fix or access stuff in other Puppy version saves.

I recently installed a pet package into Bionicpup64 8.0 that I had stored in the save folder for Xenialpup 7.5

[bigpup]

My "beef" is with HP's implementation of the UEFI software, and the fact that it simply will NOT allow booting of older Puppies, many of which I used to really enjoy playing around with....

I have a very new computer (not HP) with secure boot disabled and CSM enabled in the UEFI.
Basically the UEFI is running as a legacy bios.
Disable Fast Boot or quick start also may be needed.

It will boot a lot a very old Puppy versions.
However, the issue with some of them is they do not support this very new hardware.
Some just never make it to a desktop.
Some boot to a working desktop, but may not have sound, wifi, printer, network, etc...... working.
Probably could work if I took time installing needed support stuff.

Also with the UEFI set this way.
With all Puppy versions and Grub4dos boot loader on a external USB Hard drive.
I am booting using Grub4dos Boot Loader only. No kind of UEFI boot Loader.
It boots the very newest Puppy to the very oldest.

[mikewalsh]

However, the issue with some of them is they do not support this very new hardware.
Some just never make it to a desktop.
Some boot to a working desktop, but may not have sound, wifi, printer, network, etc...... working.
Probably could work if I took time installing needed support stuff.

Yah; I know what you mean.

jrb's lightweight spin of Barry's original Quirky April 7.0.1 - the 64-bit one - is my regular 'daily driver'. A very sweet Puppy, now it 's properly "house-trained".....but I had to replace the original 3-series kernel it came with. I chose Xenialpup's k4.9.58 kernel for the job.

Reason? No audio.....which was hardly surprising, given that the sound chip in this desktop didn't even exist at the time the 3-series kernel was compiled. How COULD it know about it...?? I'm just thankful for the easy-to-use "modular" approach taken by Woof-CE nowadays; makes kernel swaps very simple to implement.


Mike.