Long-lost Click: 64 MB to 144 MB — will it make a difference?

(This post was originally written on May 22, 2008; since that time, I’ve added the RAM, and it does indeed make a difference. It’s still not easy to live with 144 MB of RAM and 233 MHz of CPU, but it’s easier than having less than half of that M. What I can say is that 500 MHz of CPU and 256 MB of RAM is positively picnic-ish. Also, I finally did the OpenBSD 4.2-to-4.3 upgrade on the VIA box. It wasn’t easy, but I did get it done.)

If the question is “how low can you go” in terms of computer memory, it’s all about applications.

If you stayed in the Linux console and never ran X, just about anybody could be happy with 32 MB of RAM. It might be hard to actually run Linux or a BSD in 16 MB, but I’ve heard of Linux distributions that will do it, Damn Small Linux, Tom’s RtBt (is that the right spelling?) and DeLi Linux among them.

But as much as the hard-core users talk about how they stay at the command line all the time, it’s hard to get much done strictly in a console when you’re a regular person. Sure you can use Lynx for text-only Web browsing, you can set up Mutt (and Postfix/Sendmail/msmtp/esmtp, Procmail and whatever other helper apps are needed) with highly customized configuration files designed to handle and filter multiple mail accounts, use Vi or Emacs for text editing and all that.

But the bottom line for me is that I need a Web browser. A “real” Web browser, something that works with Movable Type and Google Docs, and that pretty much means Firefox or some Iceweaselish derivative.

I don’t tend to use OpenOffice very much (although it runs better in Debian with 64 MB that you’d think), I barely even use AbiWord these days. I’m not saying that I won’t need OpenOffice in the future, but at present I’m most comfortable using various X text editors, including Geany in most Linuxes and BSDs, Gedit when I’m in GNOME, and Google Docs half the time just for the easy portability of my copy.

And while Geany doesn’t load super quickly from a “traditionally” installed distribution (but is quite quick when loaded into memory as it is in Puppy Linux, once it’s loaded it runs very well indeed.

And the Dillo Web browser — which looks better in its OpenBSD incarnation than it does anywhere else — performs quite well in 64 MB of RAM. The only problem is that Dillo can’t do everything I need to do on the Web. At least the Dillo in Puppy and DSL has https support. That’s not turned on in OpenBSD, and the app needs to be recompiled to add it. I can manage to turn on cookies in OpenBSD, which helps me with some sites, but for anything remotely complicated, Firefox is essential.

And while Firefox will run in 64 MB of RAM, it does so very poorly. There just isn’t enough memory to keep the program from swapping to the drive incessantly whenever doing just about anything.

In this very 64 MB, I’ve run just about everything that will load on this Compaq laptop: Puppy, DSL, Debian (the Xfce install, plus a “standard” install with Fluxbox), Slackware (without KDE) and OpenBSD.

Truth be told, Almost all of these OSes run just about the same. Damn Small Linux has a bit of an edge, and if DSL 4.3 ran as well as 4.0, its inclusion of Firefox 2 would put it over the top. As it is, I’ve lost my desktop wallpaper, and I can’t figure out how to display the menu in Fluxbox (even though I prefer to run JWM).

Puppy definitely needs more memory, especially to run the Mozilla-derived Seamonkey Web suite.

Debian Etch was OK. While the Xfce install is odd in many ways, as I say, I was surprised to see OpenOffice run at all — and not too badly at that. Iceweasel was, again, an exercise in frustration. But Debian remains a distinct possibility for this machine.

It’s main OS for awhile has been OpenBSD, with a partition set aside for the Linux files generated by the Puppy and DSL live CDs.

OpenBSD runs pretty well, but as I said, Firefox remains an issue.

The question: Will things improve with the boost of RAM from 64 MB to the Compaq Armada 7770dmt’s maximum 144 MB? From my past experience, I know that Puppy can run in 128 MB if you have swap space, and DSL is certainly comfortable with 128 MB.

To answer the question, I could reduce the memory in my Via test box from 256 MB to 128 MB and see how OpenBSD (now version 4.3) runs in that configuration. But I’d have to pull the cover from my converted thin client and find a 128 MB SIMM. I’ve probably got one … somewhere.

Better to just wait for my Compaq memory to come in the mail (luckily it’s cheap).

I’ve know for awhile that 256 MB is a significant sweet spot for Linux, but I’d love for 144 MB to be just sweet enough to give this laptop a new lease on open-source life.

And while I managed to upgrade my VIA box from OpenBSD 4.2 to 4.3, it takes a lot more work than a simple apt-get, and I’m reluctant to do it

$15 Laptop sees huge performance leap with 144MB of RAM

What I’m saying, basically is that if you’re running anywhere near 64MB of RAM and you, say, want to run Firefox, you need more memory.

The $15 Laptop — a Compaq Armada 7770dmt with 233 MHz Pentium II MMX CPU — ran a Linux console with no problem and even did an X session, provided no “heavy” apps like Firefox were used.

But how can you get along with just Dillo as a Web browser?

It’s not easy if you want to do any kind of blogging, which a) uses the more-memory-intense Firefox and b) demands much more out of Firefox and the whole system as well.

Well, I can safely say that a 233 MHz CPU and 144MB of RAM are enough to run Puppy Linux (currently version 2.13, for which I continue to have a soft spot), Damn Small Linux 4.3 and even OpenBSD 4.2.

I’m going to reboot into OpenBSD right now to see just how well the Compaq is doing with it.

(I’m now back with OpenBSD 4.2)

Things appear to work pretty well with OpenBSD as well. Though certainly more secure than almost every other operating system out there (though I miss Debian and now also Ubuntu’s ability to encrypt an entire drive with LVM) and as stable as anything out there, OpenBSD is in no way faster than the fastest Linux distributions.

And speed is a bit of a problem on hardware this old.

I’d have to try Debian again. Puppy and DSL are quite a bit quicker when it comes to screen refresh time in Firefox (and generally in X). I don’t remember Debian Etch as being all that sprightly in comparison.

(Changing to DSL 4.3)

There’s no doubt that DSL runs the graphics in X faster than OpenBSD. The screen does a much better job of keeping up with my keystrokes in Movable Type, and if the main purpose of this laptop is to crank out blog entries, that is an important consideration.

Of course, before I pull OpenBSD off of this drive, I’ll have to make sure I have the xorg.conf saved, as well as a number of other configuration files as well as the output of pkg_info so I can remember all the software I have in this install.

I should probably just get a few swappable hard drives for the Compaq. Maybe even something bigger than 3GB. Just a thought.

Other problems with using DSL as the sole distro: no Flash (but OpenBSD doesn’t have it either).

… (two weeks later)

I’ve been running the $15 Laptop a bit more. Having a good wireless connection helps immensely. I’ve been most happy with Puppy 2.13 thus far, since it has Seamonkey — a very acceptable Mozilla-based browser — and all the graphics work as they should.

I still have OpenBSD 4.2 on the hard drive, and as I say above, I’m reluctant to remove it, even though I can and will save the various configuration files in case I want to do a reinstall.

I’d like to try Wolvix again, just to see if the additional memory makes any difference in loading it. I could — and probably should — try Debian again. I don’t know if it’ll be as fast as Puppy or DSL, but it is worth trying.

What I’ll probably end up with: I might leave OpenBSD on the laptop for awhile, but I can see myself ending up with a hard drive or Compact Flash chip with IDE converter completely devoted to storage and either running Puppy Linux off of the Live CD or as a frugal install on the hard drive or CF card.

Fresh DeLi Linux

It’s nice — really nice — to see via Distrowatch that development is continuing on low-spec favorite DeLi Linux. Here’s the release announcement.

I’ve been able to install DeLi on my VIA C3 Samuel converted thin client, but not without a few tricks that I picked up from the forums (here and here). And I also recently did an entry on some good DeLi-related blog entries from others.

I never was able to get my static IP configured in DeLi, but I think I could do it now.

According to the DeLi site, you need 32 MB of RAM to run the GUI version. The Web browser is Dillo, I believe, and that runs great in 64 MB and looks like it can run about as well in 32 MB.

Probably the biggest change is a shift from GTK+1 to GTK+2, which accounts for the memory requirements rising for this release of DeLi.

When you’re trying to resurrect and make an old computer useful, DeLI is a great distro to have in your arsenal, along with Puppy, DSL and even Debian (the Standard install with X and a lightweight window manager and your favorite apps added manually).

I just upgraded the $15 Laptop from 64 MB to 144 MB of RAM, and before the upgrade, OpenBSD, Puppy and Debian ran well on it with X … unless you try to run a “big” application like Firefox. That’s where Damn Small Linux leaped ahead of the pack for that low amount of memory.

Now with 144 MB, I hope that I will have more choices as to what will run on that Compaq Armada 7770dmt, but if you do have a box stuck with 32 MB (I used to run Windows 98 in that amount of RAM, and let me tell you, it was pure hell), DeLi is a great distro to try out.