Puppy Linux 4.1.2 runs great on This Old PC

I hadn't fired up This Old PC in quite awhile, and I didn't even know if it would boot (OK ... I knew it would boot, but funny things can happen after many months of inactivity).

I brought a new live CD — Puppy Linux 4.1.2, the latest version of that OS — to boot.

This Old PC (333 MHz Pentium II MMX, 256 MB RAM, 10 GB hard drive with Windows 2000) already had a pup_save file from Puppy 2.13 (the first version of Puppy I ever ran). 

That's the beauty of Puppy: You run it from the live CD and can create a save file in your Windows partition, so you can have a full Linux environment without installing or partitioning anything.

Anyway, I did an "upgrade" from Puppy 3.01 to 4.1.2 on a different PC , and that didn't go so well. A few desktop icons didn't appear after I ran the new CD, which modified the pup_save.

When I booted 4.1.2 on This Old PC, I received the same sets of warnings, and the messages on screen acted as if I was doing a 3-to-4.1.2 upgrade rather than 2.13-to-4.1.2.

However, once the machine finished all its housekeeping, I was in 4.1.2, and everything looked just like it should.

I don't have any networking on This Old PC at the moment, but a check of quite a few apps in Puppy revealed that the OS runs great on what now is a 12-year-old PC.

I can't wait to stuff a couple of wireless cards into the box and/or hook up Ethernet to see how well it performs on the Internet.

I do have a few spare drives, but I'd really consider using my CF-to-IDE adapter and running with a 2-to-4GB CF card instead of a traditional hard drive. Puppy runs fairly well in 256 MB of RAM (although it's always good to have some Linux swap available; a good reason to keep a spinning hard drive).

One thing Puppy IS good at is minimizing writes to flash media and thus extending its life by orders of magnitude, and that makes Puppy a great system both for This Old PC and the Self-Reliant Thin Client (which is now running Debian Etch from CF but would run much better with Puppy). Both have 256 MB of RAM, which is doable with Linux but not ideal. If either of these systems would address 512 MB of RAM, I'd install that much immediately, but since they both max out at 256 MB, that's what I have to work with.

144MB is enough -- not a lot, but enough

I recently upgraded my 1999-era Compaq Armada 7770dmt laptop from 64MB of RAM to the maximum of 144MB (16MB on the motherboard, plus two 64 MB SODIMM EDO modules), and it made the computer run a whole lot better.

I'm using the Puppy Linux 2.13 live CD's Seamonkey browser to write this Blogger post, and it's running extremely well.

I'm also running Damn Small Linux 4.3 from live CD (not at the moment, though), as well as OpenBSD 4.2 on the 3 GB hard drive.

OpenBSD isn't as fast as the live CDs, but it is usable -- and much more so after the memory upgrade.

Memory upgrades make much more of a difference in performance on the low end of the scale. Going from 32MB to 64MB, or 64MB to 128MB will dramatically increase performance.

While another machine performed well with 256MB of RAM, boosting that to 1GB -- in Linux, anyway -- didn't seem to make as much of a difference, mostly because that machine was working very well with 256MB. 1 GB made it bettter, but for a 64MB machine, running the X Window system in Linux was difficult, especially when using Firefox.

But with 144MB, I'm able to run Firefox (or in this case the Mozilla-based Seamonkey) with a whole lot more comfort.

Sure, I love Blogger, but ...

I'm probably going to start a WordPress blog in the near future to focus on open-source operating systems and applications, as well as the hoary, old hardware I run them on.

But first I need to think of a name.

The past eight months

I've written hundreds of entries at Click, which at present is broken and can't be added to. I've done dozens of Linux and BSD installs on various old PCs. Among them:

2001 Maxspeed Maxterm thin client -- built around an ECS VIA C3 Samuel-based, nearly mini-ITX-sized motherboard, maximum of 256 MB RAM, built-in CF-to-IDE adapter (disconnected so I can run extra-long IDE cables to external drives outside the thin-client box), with IDE cable connected to TDK CD-RW drive and one of three 14.4 GB IBM hard drives.

1998 Compaq Armada 7770dmt laptop (aka the $15 Laptop) -- 233 MHz Pentium II MMX processor, 64 MB RAM (max is 144 MB) no USB, no Ethernet, with swappable CD-ROM and floppy (not working) drives. With Orinco WaveLAN Silver PCMCIA 802.11b wireless card, plus original 3 GB IBM hard drive. Currently running Debian 4.0 Etch and Damn Small Linux 4.0 from CD.

2001-2 Gateway Solo 1450 laptop (aka the $0 Laptop) -- 1.3 GHz Celeron M processor, 256 MB RAM (maximum 1 GB ... if only I had the cash), 2 USB ports, built-in Ethernet, PCMCIA has bent pins and doesn't work, floppy drive and DVD-ROM/CD-RW drive, with 30 GB Toshiba hard drive. Currently running Ubuntu 7.10 Gutsy and Debian 4.0 Etch.

And of course don't forget This Old PC:

1998 generic white-box PC with baby-AT motherboard (??), 333 MHz Pentium II MMX processor, 256 MB RAM (maximum), 10 GB hard drive, CD-ROM (CD-RW was pulled for Maxspeed thin client), 15-inch LCD monitor, USB ZIP drive, Ethernet card (Airlink 101 wireless card doesn't work and has been pulled). Currently running Windows 2000.

You owe it to your geek self to try Linux

I've burned and tried about a dozen Linux distributions that run on live CDs, meaning you don't have to install them on your hard drive until you want to. They boot directly from CD (if your system can handle it). On This Old PC, I had to go into the BIOS settings and change the boot order to look at the CD-ROM drive first, the hard drive second. Actually, it checks the floppy first, but that's another story. On the newer Dell, I can hit F12 and change the boot drive for that session only, or go into the BIOS and make a permanent change in boot order.

Anyhow, in the month that I've been doing this, I've tried:

Knoppix (granddaddy of bootable Linuxes)
Ubuntu
Xubuntu
Fluxbuntu
Puppy
Damn Small Linux
Damn Small Linux-n
MepisLite
Zen Walk

Hey, that's only nine ... but it's still a lot.

So far, my favorites are Puppy Linux and Ubuntu.

Both are wildly popular (Ubuntu being the most popular, according to distrowatch.com) with extremely active user forums -- there's plenty of help available to get started.

The dirty little secret of Linux is that it can be murder to configure your system. They're called "distributions," because they include a bunch of applications along with the operating system -- and the applications are often "tuned" to the type of hardware the distribution is meant for.

For older, smaller systems, the biggies are DSL and Puppy. But when it comes to actually getting things to work, Puppy has been better. On the Dell, which is newish (only about a year or so old), everything works -- sound, Ethernet, printing. At home, I haven't been able to get my old ISA soundcard to work, or wireless, but I can get Ethernet. So it's a mixed bag, even for Puppy. With DSL, I've had trouble getting even Ethernet on the Dell. But either one of these "small" Linux distros can make an older system come alive again, especially Puppy, which is designed to boot from CD and then run entirely in RAM (preferably 128 MB, better with more -- and remember, old RAM is cheap).

I'm going to do my best to make either Puppy or DSL work on This Old PC, but for now, I much prefer Puppy. I can easily save to a Windows directory or a USB flash drive, printer setup is straightforward, as is Ethernet setup. If you're using DSL (as in Digital Subscriber Line, not Damn Small Linux) for your home connection, you'll probably get Internet automatically with just about any Linux disc -- they're set up for DHCP.

As I said, Ubuntu is king of the Linux distributions at present, as it is blessed with financial backing from some South African bigwig, a fast-growing user base and a blissfully easy-to-configure front end. I've been able to get just about everything working on both the Dell and This Old PC. In fact, I've almost got wireless working -- it sees the routers, but I've yet to actually get Internet through the box. Now Ubuntu is a bit too much for a 333 MHz processor, and there are lighter "flavors" of Ubuntu for older PCs -- Xubuntu and Fluxbuntu. I like Xubuntu, especially its Xfce window manager (as opposed to the GNOME used by Ubuntu). But the setup programs are not as easy to use -- Ubuntu is much more accommodating. I think I will try Ubuntu with a Xubuntu-like desktop, switching over after installing (yes, you can do that). Then I can switch at will. That and installing the Abiword word processor and SeaMonkey browser (used in Puppy and DSL) to further lighten the load.

Still, when the going gets tough, it's off to the forums for long lists of esoteric things to type into a terminal window ... and I don't like it one bit, but that's often the way with Linux, at least at this point.

I had a pretty good experience with MepisLite, the "lite" version of SimplyMepis, But I tried to load it again, and it wouldn't work at all ... so it's back to the 'Buntus and Puppy for now.

So my recommendation is to figure out how to burn your own ISO images to CD (if you have Nero, it will do it, or you can download one of the free Windows add-ons suggested at the various Linux distro Web sites) and start downloading. I'd get Ubuntu, Puppy and DSL and start playing around. The best news source for Linux is Lxer, which will lead you to any number of other sites at which you can keep up with what's happening in the fast-paced world of Linux, where new distributions crop up like dandelions in spring.

More on eBay laptops -- and a good deal elsewhere

The bidding gets furious as the listings come to a close -- and all that aside, the overbidding I see (or that I perceive, anyway) is testament to the demand for used laptops, and the fact that people are willing to pay. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of these are legitimate transactions and that there are real buyers with real money behind them.

That said, new laptops generally start at $500 to $600. I can't see ever paying MORE than that, but the $1,000 laptop is very common. In fact, Apple doesn't have anything cheaper than that.

One of my favorite places for used gear, Geeks.com, has a good deal on laptops: A Compaq Pentium M 1.4 GHz with 512 MB RAM, 28 GB hard drive, modem and Ethernet, and XP loaded for $389. It's probably a way better deal than a much older 300 MHz laptop for $200 ... but $389 is still more than $100 ... $289 more, in fact. Going down to the Pentium III realm, Geeks has a ThinkPad 900 MHz with 128 MB RAM, 20 GB hd, no OS loaded, for $249. That's more like it ... but it's still not $100. Here's a Dell with better specs for $279.

I love the way that a $75 purchase suddenly jumps to $100 ... then $175 (I've seen some good ones at that price) ... up to $400 ... such is the evil of acquisition, one of the reasons This Old PC and This Old Mac champion making the gear you already have do as much as it can.

Looking for This Old Laptop

I've been looking for a used laptop. I'm OK with something in the 233-350 MHz range, and I'm getting nowhere.

That's because people feel that laptops in this range are worth more than $200. To me, they're not. $100 is my upper limit, maybe $120 with shipping, but people seem to feel that their 7-or-more-year-old laptop, is worth a lot of money. And judging by what's going on with eBay, they might be right.

Go here for all laptops on eBay, and here for the IBM ThinkPads I've been focusing on (for no good reason other than that they're supposed to work well under Linux and there seems to be a lot of them). Ideally, I'd like to score something for $75. After all, there's not a whole lot you can do with a 233 MHz laptop with a 6 GB hard drive, Windows 98 and no built-in Ethernet or wireless ... and often not even USB. But there's quite a market out there. I wish I had a bunch to sell -- it's like printing money.

If you paid $1,000 for your laptop, getting $200 for it 7 years later is a pretty heady feat. You'll get more if you sell earlier. And the beauty of it is that if you buy one of these $200 laptops, the chances of you turning it around for what you paid for it are very, very good.

I just don't want to spend more than $100. I've even tried Craigslist. You wouldn't believe how many people are selling a laptop with posts that offer not nearly enough information on what it is they're selling (not even a model number often) and with prices that are way inflated. I've lowballed a few, and most don't even write back. Are they getting their price? I can't think they are. All I know is that for laptops, it's definitely a seller's market at this point.

One factor is the fact that a laptop is generally one piece (not including the power adapter) and easily shipped ... and people just seem to love laptops, even for home use (they take up less space and are less noisy).

If I do succeed in my quest, I will report here ...