Looking for an OS for 128 MB of RAM. Is this article accurate?

[KOOLLAYDTAC]

Is this article accurate? I ran across this looking for an OS that operates around the ball park of 128 megs of ram like Windows XP did back in the day. When I watch the video though it says 2 gigs of ram recommended on the screen. How much RAM does this OS actually use to operate? Also what's the differences between the Bionicpup64 version and all the others ones I've seen on the list? Thanks in advance.

https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/6-lightwe ... ease-life/

[nic007]

You will have to go back to a very old Puppy 32-bit if you only have 128MB RAM (Pup431 or maybe Wary Puppy if you are lucky) probably. That article also states that the Puppy ISO is around 100MB. That's way off the size of the new Puppys.

[cobaka]

What hardware do you have (CPU).
What RAM is installed. What is the most RAM you can install?
Can you afford to buy more RAM?

собака

[KOOLLAYDTAC]

My CPU is Intel (R) Core (TM)2 Quad CPU Q9550 @ 2.83 Ghz. in a Dell Optiplex 755MT. The video card is a AMD Radeon HD5450 with 1 GB of Vram. I originally had Windows 7 Ultimate that is upgraded to Windows 10 Pro. now along with Ubuntu 18.04 LTS installed on my rig as well. The original hard drive I have is disable because I installed a 2 TB drive in it and my original copy of Windows 7 pooed the bed. I was thinking of bringing that drive back online and adding back a clean copy of Windows 7 and thought I'd add another distro.. I could buy more RAM as I am at 7 GB's atm, but the PC maxes out at 8 GB's anyway so probably wouldn't be that much of a real difference and the reason I was looking at a light weight distro. was because I felt Windows XP back in the day was excellent for gaming given it only required 128 megs of RAM for the OS freeing up most of your RAM for other stuff.

That having been said now days it's not so easy to set up given how it's been phased out. So it made more sense to me to look at Linux distros. and even though it's not Linux I did read up on ReactOS since it was similar to XP, but they are not even out of the Alpha stages and only really have 32 bit as an option unless you compile a 64 bit OS yourself. Plus it's hit or miss if it will even work on your actual hardware and to my understanding not a very stable OS in the first place.

So when I was running a search in Google in order to try and find an OS that would fit the bill I ran across that article and Puppy Linux caught my eye. So naturally I was curious because if I can't upgrade past 8 GB's of RAM then the next logical solution to me was to find an OS that could run updated software with scaled down requirements in order to give me more free RAM to play around with if that makes sense.

Basically when all was said and done I was looking at having the option of booting in to 4 different OS'es. I was looking at Windows 7, Windows 10, and 2 Linux distros. in order to cover all my bases. That's why I was wondering how much actual RAM this OS took to run because out of all the ones on the list of options this one caught my eye the most. lol Thanks mates.

[nic007]

You can easily run the newest Puppys with that specs. I can run the newest 64-bit Puppy on my 2GB ram laptop which is 15 years old.

[KOOLLAYDTAC]

Thanks mate, but how much RAM does the OS take to use though? I basically want to know how much extra RAM I'd have on top of what is used for the OS itself that will be freed up using this OS for certain things. Because I am getting different answers in my searches.

[Moose On The Loose]

I have VirtualBox and a fair collection of puppy ISOs.
I just tried ScPup-32 at 128 Meg and it boots and sort of runs but is much too slow to use.
The need to keep the SFS files on disk appears to be its undoing

I may be coming back to this post later
I intend to try a few before I give up.

Puppy 421 doesn't bring up GUI

[thinkpadfreak]

how much RAM does the OS take to use

for your reference:
tahrpup 605 32bit
Recommended: 1000MHz processor (p4), 768MB RAM

xenialpup 7.5 32bit
Recommended: 1000MHz 1gb RAM

Bionicpup64 is compatible with ubuntu bionic 18.04 (64bit).
I have run bionicpup64 on a machine with 1GHz dual core CPU and 4GB RAM. (frugal install to a hard drive)
When you use Chrome on bionicpup64, the required RAM will be over 1.2GB. (Before Chrome was started, about 580MB was used.)
So I think at least 1.5 ~ 2GB of RAM will be necessary in order to use the OS comfortably.

[nic007]

Thanks mate, but how much RAM does the OS take to use though? I basically want to know how much extra RAM I'd have on top of what is used for the OS itself that will be freed up using this OS for certain things. Because I am getting different answers in my searches.

It depends on your boot parameters but generally the new puppys will use about 600MB for bootup (ie. Running the OS itself). As soon as you start to use applications though, additional RAM will be used. Use a swap file like with Windows if you think you will run short of RAM. Best to run the Puppy and your preferred applications to see the results of your own usage. Difficult to speculate.

[01101001b]

Thanks mate, but how much RAM does the OS take to use though? I basically want to know how much extra RAM I'd have on top of what is used for the OS itself that will be freed up using this OS for certain things. Because I am getting different answers in my searches.

Hi @KOOLLAYDTAC!

IF you ONLY use CLI: 40MB
IF you run graphical support, with a lightweight window manager (like Openbox) and a panel bar (like Lxpanel): 150MB
IF you need to add graphical drivers (let's say, nvidia): 250MB

(Needless to say, the above applies when running a 32bit "Puppy"-derivative SO. With a 64bit "Puppy"-derivative OS, numbers increase. Also, those figures come from personal experience. Your experience may vary).

In ANY case, it's absolutely a must you know what you are doing. 'Cause if you don't...
Besides those amounts of ram can only be achieved when you are running NO user app at all, so if you need to run something... well, you can imagine.

By the way, take into account that when you read "Wind*ws XP/Xubuntu run in 128MB", that's a half truth. That amount of ram is the absolute minimum to make the system run, but not to make the system fit for the common user

On the other hand, any 32bit puppy SO runs pretty good in a 1GB ram system but you won't be to able to run comfortably a bunch a programs at once, only a browser plus a light app at the same time, for example

Hope you find what you need!

[user1111]

Thanks mate, but how much RAM does the OS take to use though? I basically want to know how much extra RAM I'd have on top of what is used for the OS itself that will be freed up using this OS for certain things. Because I am getting different answers in my searches.

IF you ONLY use CLI: 40MB

I have a initrd that's around 5MB, CLI/TUI (text user interface) i.e. tmux with mc for editor and file manager (I also use mc's user-menu function as a form of 'graphical' (TUI) program launcher), full ssh/sshfs, lynx web browser, calcurse ...etc. Boots near instantly and once booted I ssh into (and sshfs mount) hashbang from where I can access IRC ...etc. Initial wifi connection (automated at bootup) causes the most lag (few seconds before wifi internet access is available).

Linux as in the kernel with busybox is very small, most of the rest is for gui/web browser/libreoffice ...etc. And modules. I build that kernel with localyesconfig so it's all integral, including the specific modules for my wifi connection/hardware, otherwise modules/firmware covering a vast expanse of hardware possibilities do take up a considerable amount of space.

I can mount my android phone using that (I also build in simple-mtpfs), transfer files between them ...etc.

I don't bother with zooming/unzooming panes (windows) in tmux, I just use multiple full screen windows for each different thing and flip between those.

I do have a HDD partition set to be linux swap that I initiate to use in encrypted form, sized to 26GB, so on top of available RAM ... more than enough.

[mikeslr]

IIRC, jamesbond was able to boot dpup-stretch to desktop using only 68 Mbs RAM, employing a 256 Mb Swap and the boot argument "no-copy". On a Asus 701SD with only 418 Mbs RAM and a 377 Mb Swap, I was able to boot a slightly stripped BusterPup 32-bit to desktop using only 88 Mbs of RAM without having to use the "no-copy" argument. viewtopic.php?p=4070#p4070. But if you read that post what you should notice is that on a computer with more resources and a larger monitor, more RAM was used by the same Puppy; and as soon as you start opening applications, the actual amount of RAM you need is determined by the needs of those applications and how you use the applications.

My experience is that the RAM demands of a 64-bit operating system are only slightly more than those of 32-bit operating system; maybe 10 Mbs on bootup; then slightly more for each 64-bit application over its 32-bit equivalent. Of course, if you are running a 64-bit system in order to run applications under 32-bit Wine, (or a dos-emulator, or similar) you'll need to run the 32-bit compatibility application (almost an entire operating system, itself). You might think that such arrangement might result in almost three times the RAM demands, but my impression --untested-- is that the only apparent delay has to do with how quickly getting everything necessary into RAM takes.
As an example, there's no noticeable difference in the amount of time it takes 64-bit avidemux to render an edited video and 32-bit avidemux running under Wine on the same 64-bit Puppy.

[bigpup]

The latest versions of Puppy Linux run with 2GB of RAM with no problem.
Even 1GB of RAM if you only run one program at a time.

The average amount of RAM needed to boot to a working desktop is around 300MB.

Start a big RAM demanding program and RAM use will go to around 400MB to 700MB.

Keep in mind some programs grab some RAM as cache for the program.
Cache is set aside RAM and is still available to the system if it really needs it.

You are making too much out of how much RAM is Puppy going to use.

If you have 1GB or more of RAM.
Just pick a Puppy version and use it.

If you have Windows 10 on the computer.
Run Puppy from an install on USB stick or CD/DVD.

If you want to put Puppy on the internal drive along side Windows 10.
Best to do it using this installer program.
Lick
https://github.com/noryb009/lick
It is a program that runs in Windows to install Puppy.
Have Windows installed and running. Install Puppy.

Puppy is designed to be installed as a frugal install.
Frugal is the name used, it is still the complete Puppy OS, just installed a special way.

Keep in mind that other OS's you may install on the internal drive are not going to know how to boot Puppy Linux.
Each OS wants to install it's own boot loader.
If you are going to mix up OS's, all on the same drive.
You may need to make a manual entry to boot Puppy.

The OS's you talk about.
Install in this order to internal drive.
Windows XP
Windows 7
Windows 10
Puppy Linux using Lick installer. (makes Puppy boot entry in Windows boot loader)
At this point Windows boot loader is booting the computer.
Ubuntu, but be careful about what it wants to install for a boot loader. Hopefully it will offer to just make entry in Windows boot loader to boot Ubuntu.

[nic007]

IIRC, jamesbond was able to boot dpup-stretch to desktop using only 68 Mbs RAM, employing a 256 Mb Swap and the boot argument "no-copy". On a Asus 701SD with only 418 Mbs RAM and a 377 Mb Swap, I was able to boot a slightly stripped BusterPup 32-bit to desktop using only 88 Mbs of RAM without having to use the "no-copy" argument. viewtopic.php?p=4070#p4070. But if you read that post what you should notice is that on a computer with more resources and a larger monitor, more RAM was used by the same Puppy; and as soon as you start opening applications, the actual amount of RAM you need is determined by the needs of those applications and how you use the applications.

My experience is that the RAM demands of a 64-bit operating system are only slightly more than those of 32-bit operating system; maybe 10 Mbs on bootup; then slightly more for each 64-bit application over its 32-bit equivalent. Of course, if you are running a 64-bit system in order to run applications under 32-bit Wine, (or a dos-emulator, or similar) you'll need to run the 32-bit compatibility application (almost an entire operating system, itself). You might think that such arrangement might result in almost three times the RAM demands, but my impression --untested-- is that the only apparent delay has to do with how quickly getting everything necessary into RAM takes.
As an example, there's no noticeable difference in the amount of time it takes 64-bit avidemux to render an edited video and 32-bit avidemux running under Wine on the same 64-bit Puppy.

DPup-stretch just reports the allocation of memory differently as I see it. Although it reports very little RAM used, you'll find that lots of memory are actually reported as cached and also shared. I reckon same can be said of Buster. The important figure is actually how much memory is reported as FREE.

[ozsouth]

I just did a quick check using stock bionicpup64-8.0.
1. Boot up to graphical interface & run free in terminal, which uses about 22mb - 137mb used.
2. Boot up to graphical interface & then ctrl-alt-bkspc to exit X, run free - 87mb used.

[nic007]

I just did a quick check using stock bionicpup64-8.0.
1. Boot up to graphical interface & run free in terminal, which uses about 22mb - 137mb used.
2. Boot up to graphical interface & then ctrl-alt-bkspc to exit X, run free - 87mb used.

It's all sitting as cached. What is reported as FREE compared to the total RAM?

[ozsouth]

And this is the problem. Using pfix=nocopy,nox could further reduce usage, but linux is designed to use whatever ram is available for caching. I should have pointed that out, as others have noted with very low ram installs that whilst you can boot, you can't do much if anything at all. As others have also noted, 2gb or 1gb + 1gb swap suffices.

[Moose On The Loose]

I have puppy precise lite running in VirtualBox on 128Meg right now.
It is slow but so far has worked.
I installed the Opera browser.

Opera is extra slow to run. When you start typing the URL it starts doing about a zillion network transactions to try to guess what you are going to type. It doesn't wait for you to pause typing.
About 3 minutes ago, I put in www.youtube.com
I am typing this while it churns away.
5:13 typed and pressed enter
5:19 1st evidence of youtube displaying
5:23 still thrashing away with a slightly different pattern to the "drive access" indications
5:25 Opera crashed

[taersh]

TahrPup seems to be a good start.

I used it for years on an AMD 2 Core CPU computer with 4GB of RAM.
Even done lots of video editing with that machine using TahrPup.

BionicPup64 is also good on this AMD 2 Core CPU computer.
Though, video editing is not possible.
When rendering a video even moving the mouse pointer takes minutes to see it moving.