Running 64-bit on an OLD machine

[amethyst]

We're looking at circa 2005, 2GB RAM, 2GHz duo core processor sort of specs. Would like to have feedback from users who have experience running lots of the available 64-bit Puppies with that sort of specs (Ubuntu, Debian, Slacko based). Which performed best in your opinion?

[tosim]

I'm using a computer that meets those specs, and another that has 4GB RAM but has the other specs. Over quite a few years,I've "played" with
many different Pups (and Dogs), and can't recall having a problem with any. However, my preference is for the "'buntu" type. Presently, FossaPup,
both the 32 and 64 are my main Pups. However, am doing a little "playing" with VoidPup and JammyPup. LOL for whichever you choose.

[amethyst]

I'm using a computer that meets those specs, and another that has 4GB RAM but has the other specs. Over quite a few years,I've "played" with
many different Pups (and Dogs), and can't recall having a problem with any. However, my preference is for the "'buntu" type. Presently, FossaPup,
both the 32 and 64 are my main Pups. However, am doing a little "playing" with VoidPup and JammyPup. LOL for whichever you choose.

I think that Fossa 32-bit version you are using is a "bastardized" version with ubuntu and debian components and so are the newer 32-bit "ubuntu" based Puppys like Jammy. So it has some mongrel to it, not necessarily a bad thing. We know when it comes to real dogs, the mixed breeds often outperform and outlive the thoroughbreds. Just saying. But then again, most people like to brag with their thoroughbreds
So how do the different 64-bit Puppys compare to each other (performance wise) on that old machine ..or don't you really notice a difference?

[tosim]

Truthfully, I've not noticed any differences. They all have run smoothly. BTW-I also have BionicP32 and 64 on a flash drive.
My Pups all, are frugal mounted, and I keep up to date, if necessary.

[mikewalsh]

@amethyst :-

Nothing I've got ATM has any real comparison. The closest would be the recent acquisition back in the summer; Dell Latitude D630, Core2Duo @2 GHz, 4 GB DDR2. 64-bit Puppies are so smooth on it, it's ridiculous. I haven't yet tried 32-bit Pups, cos they're becoming problematic for browsers.....and if I fire any OS up, I want to be able to get online.

64-bit guarantees that nowadays.

The old Compaq desktop; 2005, dual-core 1st-gen Athlon64 X2, 3 GB DDR1. 64-bit Pups ran OK, I guess.....though definitely not as nippy as 32-bit Pups. They would fly.....and out of those, 'Slacko' Puppies just seemed to have the edge in responsiveness. Mind you, that was only AFTER you'd run the gauntlet of whatever lib-chase you got sent on, every time you installed something..!

The generation of CPU makes a huge difference. Successive generations have newer, far more capable instruction sets, will run rings around older models AND use a fraction of the power whilst doing so. It IS noticeable.

(I know you've said you don't want to 'take advantage', but if that was ME I'd let that brother of mine treat me to a new, or at least fairly new refurbished 'puter.....seeing as how he seems to want to help.)

Mike.

[bigpup]

All the 64 bit Puppy versions are going to run about the same on that computer.

Remember Puppy loads into RAM, all the Puppy OS and programs that come in it already installed.

Just figure out what specific 64 bit Puppy version you want to use.

Those specs are double the minimum specs for a good running Puppy install.
viewtopic.php?t=5127

[amethyst]

All the 64 bit Puppy versions are going to run about the same on that computer.

Remember Puppy loads into RAM, all the Puppy OS and programs that come in it already installed.

Just figure out what specific 64 bit Puppy version you want to use.

Those specs are double the minimum specs for a good running Puppy install.
viewtopic.php?t=5127

Not if pfix=nocopy, the preferred way I run Puppy with my limited RAM. The general consensus (also on internet forums) seem to be that there is not really a difference in performance when running ubuntu/debian/slacko based systems but in my personal experience with 32-bit Puppys, Debian Stretch has been the most resource friendly for me. Have never tried Slacko though. 64-bit compared to 32-bit on an old machine - 32-bit definitely runs better in my experience, undoubtedly.

[stevie pup]

I once did a comparison between Bionic32 and Bionic64 on a machine with similar specs. There were no problems with Bionic64, the only thing I noticed was that Bionic32 was only using about half as much RAM to do the same task. To be honest I usually find this sort of thing to be a "suck it and see", as what's on paper doesn't necessarily translate into real life.

Examples: At one time I had two laptops with identical processors, and both had 4Gb RAM. Thing was the RAM in one was DDR2 but in the other it was only DDR. Was there any difference in performance? Not a scrap.

I now have 3 machines, a little Netbook with 1.5Ghz Celeron processor and less than 2Gb RAM, a laptop with 2 Ghz processor and 4Gb RAM, and another laptop with 2.13Ghz processor and 6Gb RAM. So it's obvious which one is going to boot up the quickest and perform the best, isn't it? You must be joking!

In much the same way as you can try something out and it fails miserably, but the next day it works fine despite the fact you've followed the exact same steps and not done anything differently. All part of the great mysteries of computers.

I currently run Fossapup on the Netbook with no issues.

[mistfire]

We're looking at circa 2005, 2GB RAM, 2GHz duo core processor sort of specs. Would like to have feedback from users who have experience running lots of the available 64-bit Puppies with that sort of specs (Ubuntu, Debian, Slacko based). Which performed best in your opinion?

Did you try QuickPup64?

[amethyst]

We're looking at circa 2005, 2GB RAM, 2GHz duo core processor sort of specs. Would like to have feedback from users who have experience running lots of the available 64-bit Puppies with that sort of specs (Ubuntu, Debian, Slacko based). Which performed best in your opinion?

Did you try QuickPup64?

Reasons why this Pup will be faster and less resource consuming. Reports from users that it is actually faster and lighter on resources?

[mouldy]

Havent had any problems with EasyOS, the Dogs, or Puppies on dual core. EasyOS maybe hair faster, but not sure its really any faster than the pups or dogs. More important what you are trying to do with them on old system that affects speed. What I was impressed with it was how stable it was even with lot experimenting. Things that can really trip up regular pups. Though I finally even found limit on it. The version I pushed and pushed and pushed on finally is bit crashy. Puppy family are about as fast as it gets on older computers. Also regularly use MX-19 and the LXDE spin of Fedora 35. MX-19 is little slower than the others but not objectionably slow and super stable. LXDE spin of Fedora is pretty nice and boots little slower than the Puppy family but runs just as fast. I was really surprised how much I liked it, was never much of a Fedora/RedHat person but that was full bloated versions. This LXDE spin is pretty lean and mean though its a traditional full install.

2Ghz is sorta in middle. Not super slow but not fast either. I have some older slower two core down around 1.2Ghz that are truly slow. I have a P4 single core with hyper threading 3Ghz, so it can run 64bit system that is faster than some of those super slow dual core. I had posted about getting win11 running on it in off topic forum. Yea if you plug most of intentional hidden garbage in win11, it is happy enough. Its when it tries to serve two masters and do bunch hidden crap that it requires lot resources. Or when somebody opens dozen browser tabs or something. Older slower systems pretty much one thing at a time. Just depends what you are trying to do.

[dimkr]

It's really hard to measure the relationship between size, resource consumption and perceived responsiveness. Take all the "32 bit is faster" arguments with a grain of salt. I have multiple old laptops (all >= 7 years old), all run Vanilla Dpup (viewtopic.php?t=7656) happily although some work just fine with a 32-bit Puppy. For example, this Puppy uses zstd rather than xz compression for all SFSs, which translates into ~10% increase in size, but applications start so much faster: it's hard not to notice this. Also, this Puppy includes things like drivers for GPU accelerated decoding of videos (and they're big), so YouTube works much better: CPU activity is low and the fan doesn't spin. Also, some workloads are much faster in a 64 bit Puppy, despite the higher RAM consumption and other differences, because operations on big numbers are faster: browsing feels faster because compression, encryption and digital signature verification (among other things) are faster thanks to the use of 64 bit integers and the availability of more SIMD instructions.

[amethyst]

It's really hard to measure the relationship between size, resource consumption and perceived responsiveness. Take all the "32 bit is faster" arguments with a grain of salt. I have multiple old laptops (all >= 7 years old), all run Vanilla Dpup (viewtopic.php?t=7656) happily although some work just fine with a 32-bit Puppy. For example, this Puppy uses zstd rather than xz compression for all SFSs, which translates into ~10% increase in size, but applications start so much faster: it's hard not to notice this. Also, this Puppy includes things like drivers for GPU accelerated decoding of videos (and they're big), so YouTube works much better: CPU activity is low and the fan doesn't spin. Also, some workloads are much faster in a 64 bit Puppy, despite the higher RAM consumption and other differences, because operations on big numbers are faster: browsing feels faster because compression, encryption and digital signature verification (among other things) are faster thanks to the use of 64 bit integers and the availability of more SIMD instructions.

I've re-compressed all my sfs's to gzip which is quite fast and is very resource friendly. Perfect for an old machine. I didn't really notice a difference in performance when comparing gzip decompression to lz4 decompression. Both are notably faster than xz though. lz4 files are huge.

[dimkr]

Decompression of zstd is faster than both xz and gzip, but size is very close to the size of xz. It's a win-win situation: faster copying to RAM and reduced RAM usage with pfix=copy, and faster decompression with either copy or nocopy. But anyway, my point is not to convince anyone to switch to zstd, but something more general: sometimes bigger or "heavier" is faster.

[amethyst]

Decompression of zstd is faster than both xz and gzip, but size is very close to the size of xz. It's a win-win situation: faster copying to RAM and reduced RAM usage with pfix=copy, and faster decompression with either copy or nocopy. But anyway, my point is not to convince anyone to switch to zstd, but something more general: sometimes bigger or "heavier" is faster.

I will switch to zstd but older Puppys do not support it. How resource hungry will zstd be on an old machine of close to 20 years? Lots of things to consider.

[mikewalsh]

Decompression of zstd is faster than both xz and gzip, but size is very close to the size of xz. It's a win-win situation: faster copying to RAM and reduced RAM usage with pfix=copy, and faster decompression with either copy or nocopy. But anyway, my point is not to convince anyone to switch to zstd, but something more general: sometimes bigger or "heavier" is faster.

I will switch to zstd but older Puppys do not support it. How resource hungry will zstd be on an old machine of close to 20 years? Lots of things to consider.

.....which is another, roundabout way of "encouraging" users to switch away from older, 32-bit Puppies. It's the "must run everything new all the time" syndrome promulgated by those who are obsessed with safety, security & new features above all else.

(For Windows, I could perhaps understand it. I'm not so sure that the constant, never-ending 'updates' on this side of 'the fence' are really quite so necessary as certain individuals would have you believe; half the time, I get the distinct impression that the dev 'teams' and individual developers are desperately trying to justify their existence...)

Sometimes, older software just works better with older hardware. There comes a tipping-point where older hardware finds it almost impossible to execute much of the modern support that up-to-date packages demand; their devs have an awful habit of thinking to themselves, "Look at all that CPU 'grunt', all that RAM, all that storage.....hell, why bother coding properly any more? Let's just use it ALL..."

(*shrug*)

I advocate neither one way OR t'other. As always, the individual user will do as they wish; it's personal choice, after all.

Mike.

[esos]

While you have only 2Gb of RAM in most cases just running out of memory.
You have to choose OS in my opinion with low ram usage sofar I remember
"DebianDog-Sid-20221106-usr-merged_amd64-UEFI.iso" has low memory usage under 300 MB and after the browser running will be double of usage.
You have still more than 1Gb free for everything else.

[jrb]

Just ran a little test on my oldest (still running) 64bit machine. You can see its modestly endowed, 2Gb one core. I have always run 32bit puppys on it. The best semi-modern puppy preformance-wise has been ScPup32-21.04+4 with rc.sysinit from ScPup32-20.06 (just pop into the savefile at /etc/rc.d). Uses 88Mb afer boot. Since that was the case I set up ScPup64-21.04+4 the same way and am comparing it to the latest S15Pup64. Both after bootup and with the latest Chromium-ungoogled looking at https://www.forum.puppylinux.com. Chromium seems to be the most ram efficient of my browsers, especially if you don't open too many tabs.

• Pup-SysInfo Report (Hardware Summary), Tue 3 Jan 2023
  running Pup-Sysinfo, Geany, Conky, Desk Clock

  Computer Profile:
  Machine eMachines EL1333G (version: NA)
  Mainboard eMachines WMCP61M (version: NA)
  • BIOS Phoenix Technologies, LTD P01-A4 | Date: 12/17/2009 | Type: Legacy
  • CPU AMD Athlon(tm) Processor 2850e (1 cores)
  • RAM Total: 1717 MB
  
  S15Pup64, after boot running Pup-Sysinfo, Geany, Conky, Desk Clock
  Actual Used RAM 154 MB Used - (buffers + cached + reclaimable)
  Actual Free RAM 1563 MB Free + (buffers + cached + reclaimable)
  +Chromium at https://www.forum.puppylinux.com/:
  Actual Used RAM 377 MB Used - (buffers + cached + reclaimable)
  Actual Free RAM 1340 MB Free + (buffers + cached + reclaimable)
  
  
  ScPup64-21.04+4 with 20.06 rc.sysinit
  Actual Used RAM: 138 MB Used - (buffers + cached)
  Actual Free RAM: 1599 MB Free + (buffers + cached)

  +Chromium at https://www.forum.puppylinux.com/:
  Actual Used RAM: 265 MB Used - (buffers + cached)
  Actual Free RAM: 1472 MB Free + (buffers + cached)

BTW: Older ScPups are available at https://archive.org/details/Puppy_Linux_ScPup