Hello,
I am interested in installing one of two distributions to my older computer. I'd like to have the following abilities: some graphical editing, mp3 capability, a little light programming (C++ in particular), some games, and a fairly robust gui. I have narrowed the selections from about 10 down to these two: Damn Small Linux 3, and Puppy Linux 2.12. I'd like someone to let me know which would be my best bet, and help me decide. I'll give the specs on my system:
Hp Pavillion
Pentium III
96 MB Ram
19 gb Hard Drive
CD, and CD-R Drive
Thank you for your help!
A Request for an honest DSL / Puppy comparison
-
Bruce B
How about 2.14 Puppy - 3.3 DSL?
In either case, I'd do a full hard drive install, because of your low RAM.
One of the reasons I don't like DSL is it doesn't have a root account.
I think Puppy has a much better set of default applications, and much more well thought out.
But either versions have packages which can be installed, so you can put them together about as you want.
DSL still uses the 2.4.xx kernel (but it was a good one)
You have enough hard drive to install both.
If you give them a fair chance, you'll know in short order which you prefer.
Hope I was a little helpful.
In either case, I'd do a full hard drive install, because of your low RAM.
One of the reasons I don't like DSL is it doesn't have a root account.
I think Puppy has a much better set of default applications, and much more well thought out.
But either versions have packages which can be installed, so you can put them together about as you want.
DSL still uses the 2.4.xx kernel (but it was a good one)
You have enough hard drive to install both.
If you give them a fair chance, you'll know in short order which you prefer.
Hope I was a little helpful.
-
veronicathecow
- Posts: 559
- Joined: Sat 21 Oct 2006, 09:41
Hi, I've tried a number of incarnatins of both and Puppy is the one I've installed on all 3 machines. I honestly can't think of a way in which DSL beats Puppy for my uses. (I think DSl is good just Puppy is better.
One thing I would suggest is slapping in a bit more RAM on general principles that it's so cheap and using Rudy Puppy.
All the best
One thing I would suggest is slapping in a bit more RAM on general principles that it's so cheap and using Rudy Puppy.
All the best
I toyed with DSL (very) briefly before settling on Puppy2.14 (or LitePup) for a variety of 64Mb+ RAM machines. But that's because I was (and still am) new to Linux, and found the easy installation wizards in Puppy much more user friendly than DSL. Admittedly, DSL is a lot faster on the sub 128Mb RAM machines, but I decided that speed was no use to me if I couldn't get connected to the internet etc. Additonally, the applications included in Puppy are a lot better than DSL. Nevertheless, if you're more au fait with Linux, then DSL may be the better option.
cute
You ain't gonna be a damn small but be a cute ltttle pup. And there is no roaming good2chow Pizza in DSL. 
OK, seriously now. My feeling is that Puppy is better in delivering applications. Puppy is quite serious at delivering the latest useful applications. I know because I have been a DSL user.
OK, seriously now. My feeling is that Puppy is better in delivering applications. Puppy is quite serious at delivering the latest useful applications. I know because I have been a DSL user.
Puppy user since Oct 2004. Want FreeOffice? [url=http://puppylinux.info/topic/freeoffice-2012-sfs]Get the sfs (English only)[/url].
Size
Both are good in their own places.
While DSL is essentially designed to run on machines with ram as low as 32 mb you will certainly have issues with Puppy on such a machine.
Up to say Puppy 2.12 the download size has been close to around 85 mb, the current avatar of DSL was closer to 300.
Puppy is designed to run fast & in ram DSL is designed to run much more efficiently on lower config machines & that includes 486s.
With puppy Live multi session cd you can save your workplace including customizations & installed software DSL has no such provision.
While I have been able to run DSL live along side of other boot options, such as Bart PE, Win 2k3 installation and Paragon Partition manager & a host of others using BCDW 2.01a from the same CD, you won't have that facility with Puppy.
So depending on what you want do do tour choice will have to be weighed.
While DSL is essentially designed to run on machines with ram as low as 32 mb you will certainly have issues with Puppy on such a machine.
Up to say Puppy 2.12 the download size has been close to around 85 mb, the current avatar of DSL was closer to 300.
Puppy is designed to run fast & in ram DSL is designed to run much more efficiently on lower config machines & that includes 486s.
With puppy Live multi session cd you can save your workplace including customizations & installed software DSL has no such provision.
While I have been able to run DSL live along side of other boot options, such as Bart PE, Win 2k3 installation and Paragon Partition manager & a host of others using BCDW 2.01a from the same CD, you won't have that facility with Puppy.
So depending on what you want do do tour choice will have to be weighed.
I recently played with an old 300mhz laptop with 32mb ram which did surprisingly well with Puppy 2.14 (not the more memory hungry applications like Seamonkey). I then invested $9 in 64mb of edo ram to get it to 96mb which made Puppy (and Seamonkey) quite happy. For some out there suggesting adding ram, some old laptops top out at 96mb or even less. In this particular laptop, I could have used a 128mb chip (only one slot) to get 160mb total, but in edo ram these are rare and run something like $50+ which is twice what the laptop cost. Yea really.
I have used dsl. Its ok if you add rox (any distribution is better with rox), but I have gotten used to puppy which is arranged a bit differently and just works in an acceptable manner out of the box. Sometimes just easier not to have to paddle upstream.
I have used dsl. Its ok if you add rox (any distribution is better with rox), but I have gotten used to puppy which is arranged a bit differently and just works in an acceptable manner out of the box. Sometimes just easier not to have to paddle upstream.
DSL is one of the very few compact distros capable of installing and booting from scsi (unless you've got a PhD in scsi and Linux). Apart from the tiresome extra BIOS overhead during booting, for full installs, the speed of access to the decompressed files is stunning. Furthermore, used scsi stuff is of extremely high quality and reliability and, these days, folks will pay you to take it away. [I made that last bit up, but you get the picture].