With Windows, a hypothetical "average user" who doesn't care to set up his system has the opportunity not to think about what's going on in his computer (in practice - until his credit card is hacked, his personal data exposed and his work lost or, if he's lucky, until his system is crippled by unnecessary services and bloated registry). He however has no opportunity to learn exactly what's going on in his computer, what's wrong with it and how that can be fixed. It's not his business.
Windows: Download a program, skip trough a lot of spyware/other crap, install it, discover that it is a trail version and you have to buy it to have the full version, search for another 30mins to find a working program, works.
Linux: Open terminal, type ifconfig commands, works.
Installing updates:
Windows: Clicking on the postpone button every 10 minutes, installs updates, restart 3 times.
Linux: Don't fucking care, it goes automatically. No need to restart.
@sebbeks I've been using it for 6 months now. The binary repository is much smaller than Debian's which leads us to ABS (Gentoo-style installation). Most packages are packed "as is" which means they have to be configured manually. I like the process but I wanted to warn people who read "simple" as "easy". Arch is always simple but not always easy.
@aleclitvinov I've been using Gentoo for three years and I can tell you that ABS is not at all like portage. Portage has so many features which ABS lack such as USE flags, masking packages, installing different versions of the same package in slot. Most packages come with a default configuration which works for most people. Hell you don't even need to configure Xorg anymore. You can compile your own .deb and install them, just like with PKGBUILDs in Arch. Gentoo bears no similarity with Arch.
The only feature I would like added to ABS is USE flags. I have to run ./configure everytime I need this level of customization.
2) defaul configuration that works for most people.
I wish I was one of most people...
3) no similarity.
Tons of it actually. Building the system from small base installation, editing configuration files manually, excellent wiki documentation - everything except binary/source approach and initscripts.
@aleclitvinov Those similarities can be applied to any distro which does not come with X installed, such as Debian, Slackware, etc. There are no real similarities because Arch does not follow the Gentoo design principles therefore Arch is unflexible and uncustomizable. To customize you have to hack A LOT of PKGBUILDS and do that EVERY time Arch forces you to upgrade a package. In Gentoo you use USE flags and you can mask packages you don't want to upgrade without breaking the system.
@sebbeks debian and slackware don't have the wiki encyclopedias arch and gentoo have. masking packages in arch is as easy as blacklisting them in pacman.conf. you're right about the complicated package customization. i call it "binary penalty". with i686 packages however it's not as critical as it can seem. i do use gentoo on my desktop machine, and i know the pros of it. but my lifestyle (backpack and netbook) makes me like arch better.
@aleclitvinov The wikis avaible for each OS is irrelavant to the discussion because none is official documentation. From experience blacklisting packages in arch breaks the system eventually because the libraries and dependencies change. Anybody who stares at GCC output is crazy. Sure if you like Arch then use it, but 90% of Arch users who say Gentoo is the same thing but source based don't know what they are talking about. The way the system is managed in Gentoo is very different from Arch.
@sebbeks linux is usually quite... unofficial. as for editing PKGBUILDS everytime, i store them and usually only have to change the links and checksums. anyway i can edit them and upgrade arch in one coffee cup time in a wi-fi cafe. i don't wanna try to emerge world on battery. i don't have such battery. that's the main reason. i like to only have what i use, my whole system is 1.5GB large - only 3 times the portage tree. still both systems have more in common than any of them and say mandriva.
@aleclitvinov Yes but there is official documentation aswell, there is some on the Gentoo website. I don't see the point in updating software at all if you are on battery or at a wifi cafe. i've already told you that the way gentoo is designed is very different from arch. You can slap KDE on gentoo or on arch or on mandriva and it will look the same with the exception of some branding. 1.5 GB is nothing, if you really save need to that much disk space you should get a new laptop.
@sebbeks it's not about KDE. i mean mandriva is managed with mcc. it does "everything most people need", and when it fails to help you you just don't know what to do because the way it works is not very transparent. mandriva has "everything most people will ever need" so besides installing the programs you will use you will have to clean things up because you don't need them.
for there is a point in updating software in unusual places because i travel a lot.
@sebbeks i have had a lot of laptops, the one i use now (asus eeepc 901) is pretty old but i like it, it's reliable, its hardware is 100% supported and it (still) has 6 hours battery life. there's a problem about finding a modern durable 9" netbook now. it has 12GB SSD storage and 4-5GB is usually free. but if it had 500GB i would still try to make the system that small. entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
@aleclitvinov doesn't the 901 have 1gb of ram? it's almost nothing these days when trying to surf the web with more than 4 tabs, from experience. remember, less is not always better.
@sebbeks i have some spare 2gb cards so it's a question of 5 minutes, but why? i have 10 tabs and a skype chat open right now, memory usage is 287mb (no, no swap). it's around 72mb after boot.
@sebbeks by the way, there's a slang word in Russian, "krasnoglazik" (red-eyed guy). it's sometimes referred to any *nix user but usually means "gentoo, arch or freebsd user who spends sleepless nights optimizing his software instead of using it, whose eyes are red from staring into his terminal where something is being compiled".
"What's the point having a fast booting OS that hasn't anything installed on it ?"
Hmm. Howcome my OS has a lot of things installed on it?
I understand that Linux isn't the easiest OS. It took me about a year to learn to work with Linux, and still I'm learning. But that's the great side of Linux. You always learn new stuff and a way to make your experience better.
If you don't agree with that, then you are either stupid or lazy.
What's wrong with Banshee? "Hahaha" is not an argument. It's the only music player that fits my needs (including all music players on Windows). I've tried iTunes, Windows Media Player, MediaMonkey, ... They all had a disadvantage.
BTW: What has OpenOffice to do with Linux? You can install M$ Office on Linux without any problems.
"Linux Games : homebrew quality"
That's what they said about games for Mac. Now most games are made for Mac too. And they will for Linux. Yesterday Postal III came out and it runs on Linux (yes it's a commersial game).
Ofcourse Open Office is behind on MS Office. That's not the discussion. If you want the latest of the latest, well pay your $100 to be maybe 1 year ahead of the OpenOffice users.
"Oo or LibreOffice are no good, all of my customer who had a netbook with Oo wanted and bought an Office to replace it."
Sorry to hear that your customers have your IQ. Most problems with LibreOffice are compatibility issues. And that's M$'s fault.
I'd like to clear something about piracy. Most of Windows users aren't using a pirated copy. And for those who use pirate copies, why would you do that ? Did you steal your PC ? No of course, you bought it ? Then why would you steal the OS ? Cause it's M$ ? Well your PC is either Intel or AMD, as your graphic card is either NVIDIA or ATI(AMD)... Why not hating them too ? I have to admit that Microsoft should sell Windows cheaper, but still, it is good work, and ALL work deserve salary.
not just pirated copies of windows-that's pre-installed usually - but pirated copies of commercial packages (apps,games), thats' what i'm talking about.
Open Office : definitely behind Office, have you used Office 2010 yet ? And you don't have to crack it, you can buy it, I did (student version !)
Linux Games : homebrew quality
Banshee : hahaha...
Gnome : looks like Windows, wannabe Windows, but it's NOT Windows (Unity is just UNUSABLE)
All right, I'll have to admit that Linux boots faster, I always knew that :) BUT ! What's the point having a fast booting OS that hasn't anything installed on it ?
what about all the software piracy. what if all the people who didn't want to pay money for software gave linux extra user-base instead and learned to program to contribute. If there's something it doesn't do that you want, you can add it, unlike with windows. it is inherently set up for ultimate customization. Look at OSX where there's a controversy over 'mission-control' .. in linux you just pick the variation you like, or make it if it doesn't exist.
All my windows are genuine, oem versions that came with my computers.
There are things SOME linux users (NOT ALL OF THEM) need to understand : some people are willing to pay for software. Some people don't give a damn about programming, underlying OS mechanics... They just need their computer for internet, game, office and don't have time or interest in the rest. Our job as IT pro is to make it easier for them, as Windows does.
Linux is power user oriented : I use it, and it's sure a nice OS, better than Windows for almost anything server-related. But as a desktop OS, Windows is definitely the best. Linux needs to make a lot of improvement on its user interface, be it aesthetical or functionnal. In general, Linux needs to improve its user-friendly side, Ubuntu is doing good, but needs lot more improvement.
And Linux is free, not the support !! Just check how much costs Linu$ support for companies.
Oo or LibreOffice are no good, all of my customer who had a netbook with Oo wanted and bought an Office to replace it. Sorry but it's the best office suite out there.
I don't fish nor hunt (you murderer) but I do like concerts and playing bass with my little garage band.
VLC needs improvement on image and sound processing - Or else I would have used it instead of MPC
Already gave my point about speed.
And when I remember dependency hell, driver bugs... it's STILL a nightmare.
@Ironstringz Some people (Like me for Example) enjoy NOT having a system flooded with apps you'll never use (Such as gCalcTool). Mint (And ubuntu, and any other *Easy to use*) is simply flooded with apps most users won't even touch. ArchLinux Fixes that problem. When you install Arch, you end up at the command line. And then you install ann what you need. Nothing more. I prefer a cleaner system than a overflow.
@Ironstringz You really have no idea what you're talking about. In all honesty, OS X will never be this fast. Simply because you can't choose what you install in OS X. You can do that in Arch. If you think its faster then post a video response, shouldn't be too hard right? I'd like to see you do the same things he does but faster. I seriously doubt you can launch a full text editor equal to openoffice faster than that.
Yeah it's impressive but I just can't be bothered with this distro. If you want fast open source I couldn't recommend Lubuntu highly enough. I can't really tell the difference between the speed of them on half-decent specs (like yours).
Also, it's a lot friendlier to newbies, and as of v11.10 (just 5 days now), it will be officially recognised as part of the Ubuntu family, getting all the support and attention that comes with it.
@naryanr I've recently discovered Lubuntu and installed it on two systems for my family here. I absolutely agree it's a great distribution that compares in speed to the most minimal ones, although offering all the functionality and ease of use as regular ubuntu. Xubuntu, that we used before, was a resource hog and barely faster then ubuntu.
On my personal computer I will continue to run and love Arch!!
@theif519 fast, lightweight, great community, huge software repository and you can make it to what ever you want it to be. The only downside is that its a bit to difficult to set up the first time
Arch is a great distro. I have an XFCE setup as my normal workstation. One thing I like is that if I install XFCE, it installs raw XFCE rather than a bloated Ubuntu-ified version of XFCE. Uses about half the ram.
Also, for those saying Arch is too hard to install, try Gentoo. Arch's installer is a fucking installation wizard compared to that.
that is cool. is ubuntu a windardized version of this? is is slower? I have os X. no complaints. Fast beatiful, etc, but if that is what true linux is like, it's even better. i think I will dual boot to get the hang of it.
@raahr You shouldn't use Arch for it's speed. I LOVE Arch, but for it's freedom to do whatever you want with the system. Ubuntu is kind of restrictive, some things are just too hard to edit. Arch Linux is meant to be your way, and therefor it's easier to change it to your will.
Ubuntu can be just as fast, but you will have to strip it down.
If you come from Windows/Mac OS, DO NOT USE ARCH LINUX! DO NOT DO IT!
Who's to say you didn't just load all those apps a bunch of times first? I *highly* doubt Amarok could *cold* start that fast. Oh well, as long as you convinced some people...
@nortexoid If you have an SSD in raid configuration, it is possible to load up any program super fast from cold. Just depends if you have the money to pay for it......
@joemann797 Suuuuuure. Even so, it's misleading to describe things as if the speed were coming from Arch plus KDEmod alone, as this video's been described. Plus, I don't think this guy is running dual SSD raid.
@nortexoid For anyone to make any kind of tech demo on any OS, it's always important to list the PC specs. Is he running an i7 or a P4...lol I mean, that's a big difference right there. This video doesn't list any specs what so ever, so we have no clue if he is running a raid. Maybe he is, maybe not. Maybe he just edited the video to make it seem that it runs faster than it actually does.
The linux is faster only on slow computers compared to windows. Take a regular 400$ computer. Windows shits on Linux. Sorry to say that. Don't be a knucklehead, if you have a good computer use windows. Don't have the money to buy it? no worries, use it for free. You have torrent.
You think this is about loading open office? Maybe it's faster on your computer. Uses a lot of memory? Try closing services that you don't need. How much RAM do you have? 512? 1GB? RAM is the cheapest part of the computer. I got 4GB at the 30€ price. By the way, try some tests on the hard drive, see the data transfer under linux and under windows. I got 100-180MB/s on the same disk from 1 partition to another. How much do you have under linux?
How fast can you unarchive a 10GB rar archive? If you move a large file from 1 partition to another and copy 2 torrents with 5-10MB/s at the same time can you move your mouse? Don't tell me that linux trasfer rate it's slower because it does not fragment info on hdd, that's horseshit. Try to compare quality of sound windows-linux and see the difference. Try to compare HD playback. Try compare youtube playback full/windowed-screen. I tried all this.
you tried all that on ubuntu no doubt. ubuntu is horrible and I would never even look at it, that it became this thing that everyone is so amazed about astounds me but then again it doesnt considering all the stupid people we have -- like you my friend-- which brings us to the current topic HD playback in ubuntu can be tuned to perfectly run in (up to 100 monitors) at the same time, windows can't do that now can it?
You just won't buy a better computer. You think you are superior if you use Linux. Cunt. If Linux can playback on 100 monitors Windows will also playback on 100. What is your problem with Ubuntu? Too accessible for you ? Why don't you try a 5 year old Slackware you "smart" asshole?
No I'm not a developer. I just enjoy the functionality of Linux... it can do everything windows can without hogging up resources, the need of virus scans, etc. The only disadvantage to Linux, is it isn't as compatible with games as Windows is. Other than that, it's a great OS.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What about adobe studio or cad applications, autocad, 3dmax... and many other softwares? and please don't tell me about gimp, inkscape and blender. what about functionality and quality of clasic winamp or kmplayer or gom player... by the way.. windows 7 works faster than vista wich works faster than windows xp on my machines.
what if we go back in 1999 to pentiu mmx 166, 32 mb sdram, s3trio videoboard and 2gb quantum harddrives? maybe then i will use arch. btw, i use windows but i also installed a linux distro 6 months ago.. linux mint. i don't play games, i "play" with mint. i see and understand your point and you also have to understand mine.
@KirbyPwnz13 I use Linux to, but SLR cameras and printers and other hardware manufactures always do nice apps for windows, like Photo editing in cameras, apps to know how much ink is left on a printer, apps for volume and effects on PCI sound boards etc, ect.
Sure, Windows sucks at some things, but Linux is NOT all that,
At the end, ALL operating systems suck.
You may not find Windows problems in Linux, but there are other problems, most motherboards still need Windows to easily upgrade a BIOS,
@KirbyPwnz13 Windows has its own uses. Also many people don't know how to take advantage of the programming capabilities of Windows (such as a terminal, perl scripts, python scripts, servers etc). For everyday use I run Linux but at work I prefer windows as it's no BS - if you need X to work then X will work if you do A, B, C. I linux (due to the customization capabilities) things not always work although they usually do (e.g. Matlab needed some package a few years ago which wasn't installed).
@KirbyPwnz13 This is a pretty old post I noticed, but I'm sure you're still around, viewing comments, and wnat not, have you ever learned how to manually configure a kernel in Arch? Or can you? I run Gentoo Linux, and love it, =). Takes many hours to install a desktop on top of Gentoo though, I have a dual core cpu, and took me about 8 hours to install KDE, =/.
I got an I7 945 and my ubuntu linux is using a lot less resources on ubuntu, and not to mention is alot faster and more responsive, boots quicker, no virus scans, no firewall, no defragmenting, no "Wtf is this shit" errors.
If you say that windows shits on linux, even if you got a performance computer, then you obviously haven't used it yourself, I think I'd even use linux on a 20k computer, windows is shit..
i got a pentium dual core @ 1,8 with 4 gb ram with windows 7. after 40 seconds of boot time i can do anything you do on linux. it works really fine it is responsive as your linux is. i use linux mint on my laptop thou but on my workstation i preffer windows. i also use adobe studio so i cannnot afford to keep linux. and please do not tell me about wine.
Well motherboards these days are upgradeable to about 12-32gb for a normal price, processors these days are 4-6 cores starting at 100 bucks, shouldn't be a problem, we're talking about now, and the past is in the past.
But you got a point, but if adobe is such a serious issue, mac is a nice operating system as well, at it runs adobe like a charm
Linux is the better system for programming geeks like me imo
programming what? c++ and php? i don't like macs. it's the same linux shell with high prices. 100 bucks for 4-6 cores on intel processors? where? how upgradable is one mac? what if you want to change platform from intel to amd? what do they offer?
Yeah, and all kinds of other stuff. I'm not a mac fan either, but from what I seen of designing on it, it looks pretty cool and lightweight.
the 100 bucks is amd, well you can get an i3 or i5 for low prices as well these days. and well mac isn't really that upgradeable i think, but I see alot of professionals use the macbook pro, I think it's an awesome laptop, from what i've heard, seen.
Look into mac I guess, it's expensive though, but some say its worth the money
No I don't think that at all. I'm pretty sure most of the Linux desktop users are techy, geeky and have more knowledge about computers than the average Windows user. Windows sucks for my needs. I'm a geek and I was willing to learn Linux years ago, and now I can't go back anymore.
but it wont be with arch that users will change from windows to it,because its 100x more harder to install arch or slackware than windows,osx or ubuntu,i have never been able to install them.
Yes, windows is faster. Memory access is faster, hard disk access and transfer rate are better, sound is better, all components have dedicated drivers. And the video board... oohhh... that runs like hell... and ai'm not talking about directx and games.. not the case.. i'm talking about opengl and media stuff..
Its kind of hard to put this into context without knowing what the specs are..
I'm more of a Gnome fan myself because I experienced some noticeable slowdown running KDE on Ubuntu on my system, but thats probably just because I have crap hardware.
The only way I ever got mine running anywhere close to as fast as yours was when I ran LXDE or Fluxbox, and both of those kinda look like crap, lol.
yeah, yesterday ive installed arch linux and kdemod3. what can i say? its as fast as in this clip, and my pc is 3000+ amd athlon 64, 1.5gb ram, 120 gb hdd, ati radeon 9600 256mb. kubuntu 8.04 with kde 3.5 works very much slower than arch linux with kdemod 3.5. i think soon i will upload clip with my new arch
Of course xfce will be faster than kde, BUT - if you want to run kde applications, that would mean having both the xfce and kde libraries loaded... that might be a drag if you don't have a lot of RAM. Instead, you can install kde and replace the window manager with xfwm4, etc
KDE 4.x is HUNGRY! Xfce 4.6 uses about 350 RAM to run which is the same as GNOME, KDE 4.x runs fine in 1GB RAM, and by Arch+Openbox run ins mighty 102mb RAM
Here i am runing kde 4.2 from kdemod and i have opera started, using conky i have 264 Mb RAM used 0 swap, so you can run kde 4.2 with 512 RAM , problems appear if you open many programs and they will use swap, then At changing betwen them will take longer. I nver managed to use more then 600 MB RAM
I'ne never used more than 2 GiB of my laptops 3 GiB of RAM, and that was when rendering a 1000*1000, 200 frame animated .gif globe of the earth in the GIMP, this is running on a plain Ubuntu install.
Contrary to the beliefs of some people here, loading apps is dependent on the window manager, OS, and hard drive. Since (unless you have a WD (Veloci)Raptor, or a laptop) all hard drives are quite similar in overall read performance, it is indeed the power of Arch and KDEmod that is propelling his PC. Nice vid! Arch FTW!
I believe you can make it even faster if you load your daemons in background and set it up so udev doesn't have to autedetect modules (looks like it does autodetect to me...)
Arch is my favorite desktop distro. I tried gentoo briefly, but found no discernible performance hit when switching to Arch. No reason to compile everything from source a la Gentoo since Arch is such a fast binary distro. Comparable performance + no time wasted compiling = Arch is faster than Gentoo.
Blinding Raven, arch is based on the minimal install, however looking at his menu, this looks like a full fledged KDEMod, which is defintely not "minimal" in my idea of the definition. Hey does have an impressive machine, however, install ubuntu on the same machine, i guarantee you, loading the same applications will suffer a HUGE performance drop, I have tried multiple linux distrobutions on my laptop: Arch linux, OpenSuse, Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, Sabayon, and some random others.
The arch way...:) i love my arch + fluxbox.
nixdcc 1 month ago
ma jebale vas linux-windows svadje........i jedno i drugo je dobro, ali nije ni priblizno dobro kao pička.
ajesikara 2 months ago
With Windows, a hypothetical "average user" who doesn't care to set up his system has the opportunity not to think about what's going on in his computer (in practice - until his credit card is hacked, his personal data exposed and his work lost or, if he's lucky, until his system is crippled by unnecessary services and bloated registry). He however has no opportunity to learn exactly what's going on in his computer, what's wrong with it and how that can be fixed. It's not his business.
aleclitvinov 2 months ago
@rockinpengiun:
Mac spoofing
Windows: Download a program, skip trough a lot of spyware/other crap, install it, discover that it is a trail version and you have to buy it to have the full version, search for another 30mins to find a working program, works.
Linux: Open terminal, type ifconfig commands, works.
Installing updates:
Windows: Clicking on the postpone button every 10 minutes, installs updates, restart 3 times.
Linux: Don't fucking care, it goes automatically. No need to restart.
...
w29ftw 2 months ago
@w29ftw it's actually quite different with Linux, if you're using for example Gentoo:
Open your browser, surf for 2 hours and learn everything you can about the software.
Open your terminal. Edit the ebuild.
Edit your make.conf USE flags.
start emerging the package and go to cinema.
You'll be back home just in time to see the (hopefully successful) end of the compilation process.
Now the software is installed, configure it.
With Arch Linux, things can be pretty much the same.
aleclitvinov 2 months ago
@aleclitvinov Arch is very different from Gentoo. Debian SID is more similar to Arch than Gentoo.
sebbeks 1 month ago
@sebbeks I've been using it for 6 months now. The binary repository is much smaller than Debian's which leads us to ABS (Gentoo-style installation). Most packages are packed "as is" which means they have to be configured manually. I like the process but I wanted to warn people who read "simple" as "easy". Arch is always simple but not always easy.
aleclitvinov 1 month ago
@aleclitvinov I've been using Gentoo for three years and I can tell you that ABS is not at all like portage. Portage has so many features which ABS lack such as USE flags, masking packages, installing different versions of the same package in slot. Most packages come with a default configuration which works for most people. Hell you don't even need to configure Xorg anymore. You can compile your own .deb and install them, just like with PKGBUILDs in Arch. Gentoo bears no similarity with Arch.
sebbeks 1 month ago
@sebbeks
1) lack of functionality in ABS.
The only feature I would like added to ABS is USE flags. I have to run ./configure everytime I need this level of customization.
2) defaul configuration that works for most people.
I wish I was one of most people...
3) no similarity.
Tons of it actually. Building the system from small base installation, editing configuration files manually, excellent wiki documentation - everything except binary/source approach and initscripts.
aleclitvinov 1 month ago
@aleclitvinov Those similarities can be applied to any distro which does not come with X installed, such as Debian, Slackware, etc. There are no real similarities because Arch does not follow the Gentoo design principles therefore Arch is unflexible and uncustomizable. To customize you have to hack A LOT of PKGBUILDS and do that EVERY time Arch forces you to upgrade a package. In Gentoo you use USE flags and you can mask packages you don't want to upgrade without breaking the system.
sebbeks 1 month ago
@sebbeks debian and slackware don't have the wiki encyclopedias arch and gentoo have. masking packages in arch is as easy as blacklisting them in pacman.conf. you're right about the complicated package customization. i call it "binary penalty". with i686 packages however it's not as critical as it can seem. i do use gentoo on my desktop machine, and i know the pros of it. but my lifestyle (backpack and netbook) makes me like arch better.
aleclitvinov 1 month ago
@aleclitvinov The wikis avaible for each OS is irrelavant to the discussion because none is official documentation. From experience blacklisting packages in arch breaks the system eventually because the libraries and dependencies change. Anybody who stares at GCC output is crazy. Sure if you like Arch then use it, but 90% of Arch users who say Gentoo is the same thing but source based don't know what they are talking about. The way the system is managed in Gentoo is very different from Arch.
sebbeks 1 month ago
@sebbeks linux is usually quite... unofficial. as for editing PKGBUILDS everytime, i store them and usually only have to change the links and checksums. anyway i can edit them and upgrade arch in one coffee cup time in a wi-fi cafe. i don't wanna try to emerge world on battery. i don't have such battery. that's the main reason. i like to only have what i use, my whole system is 1.5GB large - only 3 times the portage tree. still both systems have more in common than any of them and say mandriva.
aleclitvinov 1 month ago
@aleclitvinov Yes but there is official documentation aswell, there is some on the Gentoo website. I don't see the point in updating software at all if you are on battery or at a wifi cafe. i've already told you that the way gentoo is designed is very different from arch. You can slap KDE on gentoo or on arch or on mandriva and it will look the same with the exception of some branding. 1.5 GB is nothing, if you really save need to that much disk space you should get a new laptop.
sebbeks 1 month ago
@sebbeks it's not about KDE. i mean mandriva is managed with mcc. it does "everything most people need", and when it fails to help you you just don't know what to do because the way it works is not very transparent. mandriva has "everything most people will ever need" so besides installing the programs you will use you will have to clean things up because you don't need them.
for there is a point in updating software in unusual places because i travel a lot.
aleclitvinov 1 month ago
@sebbeks i have had a lot of laptops, the one i use now (asus eeepc 901) is pretty old but i like it, it's reliable, its hardware is 100% supported and it (still) has 6 hours battery life. there's a problem about finding a modern durable 9" netbook now. it has 12GB SSD storage and 4-5GB is usually free. but if it had 500GB i would still try to make the system that small. entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
aleclitvinov 1 month ago
@aleclitvinov doesn't the 901 have 1gb of ram? it's almost nothing these days when trying to surf the web with more than 4 tabs, from experience. remember, less is not always better.
sebbeks 1 month ago
@sebbeks i have some spare 2gb cards so it's a question of 5 minutes, but why? i have 10 tabs and a skype chat open right now, memory usage is 287mb (no, no swap). it's around 72mb after boot.
aleclitvinov 1 month ago
@sebbeks by the way, there's a slang word in Russian, "krasnoglazik" (red-eyed guy). it's sometimes referred to any *nix user but usually means "gentoo, arch or freebsd user who spends sleepless nights optimizing his software instead of using it, whose eyes are red from staring into his terminal where something is being compiled".
aleclitvinov 1 month ago
@rockinpengiun:
"What's the point having a fast booting OS that hasn't anything installed on it ?"
Hmm. Howcome my OS has a lot of things installed on it?
I understand that Linux isn't the easiest OS. It took me about a year to learn to work with Linux, and still I'm learning. But that's the great side of Linux. You always learn new stuff and a way to make your experience better.
If you don't agree with that, then you are either stupid or lazy.
w29ftw 2 months ago
@rockinpengiun:
"Gnome : looks like Windows, wannabe Windows, but it's NOT Windows (Unity is just UNUSABLE)"
Gnome does not wannabe Windows. Does Mac wannabe Windows? I don't think so. Does this look like Windows: /watch?v=SSGfS6K7pI0?
Yes, Unity is unusable (and buggy).
w29ftw 2 months ago
@rockinpengiun:
"Banshee : hahaha..."
What's wrong with Banshee? "Hahaha" is not an argument. It's the only music player that fits my needs (including all music players on Windows). I've tried iTunes, Windows Media Player, MediaMonkey, ... They all had a disadvantage.
w29ftw 2 months ago
@rockinpengiun:
BTW: What has OpenOffice to do with Linux? You can install M$ Office on Linux without any problems.
"Linux Games : homebrew quality"
That's what they said about games for Mac. Now most games are made for Mac too. And they will for Linux. Yesterday Postal III came out and it runs on Linux (yes it's a commersial game).
w29ftw 2 months ago
@rockinpenguin:
"Open Office : definitely behind Office"
Ofcourse Open Office is behind on MS Office. That's not the discussion. If you want the latest of the latest, well pay your $100 to be maybe 1 year ahead of the OpenOffice users.
"Oo or LibreOffice are no good, all of my customer who had a netbook with Oo wanted and bought an Office to replace it."
Sorry to hear that your customers have your IQ. Most problems with LibreOffice are compatibility issues. And that's M$'s fault.
w29ftw 2 months ago
Comment removed
w29ftw 2 months ago
I'd like to clear something about piracy. Most of Windows users aren't using a pirated copy. And for those who use pirate copies, why would you do that ? Did you steal your PC ? No of course, you bought it ? Then why would you steal the OS ? Cause it's M$ ? Well your PC is either Intel or AMD, as your graphic card is either NVIDIA or ATI(AMD)... Why not hating them too ? I have to admit that Microsoft should sell Windows cheaper, but still, it is good work, and ALL work deserve salary.
rockinpenguin 2 months ago
@rockinpenguin -
not just pirated copies of windows-that's pre-installed usually - but pirated copies of commercial packages (apps,games), thats' what i'm talking about.
walter0bz 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rockinpenguin
"ms office waaay better" Sure about that? I can do whatever I'm looking for in Open Office. + No need of cracking software.
"no games" Indeed, the only reason for a dual boot (PS there are games, like Postal)
"amarok" Banshee beats them all
"kde" KDE is ugly. Go for Gnome, or maybe Unity
"my Win7 boots faster, runs faster, and shutdown faster" Startup of Ubuntu: ~8-9 seconds. Windows will never do better.
w29ftw 2 months ago
@w29ftw Sorry but,
Open Office : definitely behind Office, have you used Office 2010 yet ? And you don't have to crack it, you can buy it, I did (student version !)
Linux Games : homebrew quality
Banshee : hahaha...
Gnome : looks like Windows, wannabe Windows, but it's NOT Windows (Unity is just UNUSABLE)
All right, I'll have to admit that Linux boots faster, I always knew that :) BUT ! What's the point having a fast booting OS that hasn't anything installed on it ?
rockinpenguin 2 months ago
Comment removed
w29ftw 2 months ago
Sure is fast... but
- open office sucks : ms office waaay better
- no games : dont talk to me about wine, need to struggle to install and play games ? no thx
- amarok : hahaha... mpc rules
- kde : looks like Windows, wannabe Windows, but it's NOT Windows
- my Win7 boots faster, runs faster, and shutdown faster than any Windows wannabe linux (e.g ubuntu)
Sorry guys, but Linux is for companies, geeks, IT pro and wannabe linux freak.
Everybody knows what's best, so stick to Windows foolz
rockinpenguin 3 months ago
@rockinpenguin -
value for money?
what about all the software piracy. what if all the people who didn't want to pay money for software gave linux extra user-base instead and learned to program to contribute. If there's something it doesn't do that you want, you can add it, unlike with windows. it is inherently set up for ultimate customization. Look at OSX where there's a controversy over 'mission-control' .. in linux you just pick the variation you like, or make it if it doesn't exist.
walter0bz 2 months ago
@walter0bz Here we go again, software piracy.
All my windows are genuine, oem versions that came with my computers.
There are things SOME linux users (NOT ALL OF THEM) need to understand : some people are willing to pay for software. Some people don't give a damn about programming, underlying OS mechanics... They just need their computer for internet, game, office and don't have time or interest in the rest. Our job as IT pro is to make it easier for them, as Windows does.
rockinpenguin 2 months ago
@walter0bz
Linux is power user oriented : I use it, and it's sure a nice OS, better than Windows for almost anything server-related. But as a desktop OS, Windows is definitely the best. Linux needs to make a lot of improvement on its user interface, be it aesthetical or functionnal. In general, Linux needs to improve its user-friendly side, Ubuntu is doing good, but needs lot more improvement.
And Linux is free, not the support !! Just check how much costs Linu$ support for companies.
rockinpenguin 2 months ago
@rockinpenguin -
the difference with linux is, you can educate yourself to improve it, that's a good thing.
in a world of technological unemployment, it seems like a good way for people to fill their time
walter0bz 2 months ago
@rockinpenguin
"ms office waaay better" I switched to O_o two years before leaving Windows because MsOffice was unusable.
"no games" maybe. I prefer fishing, hunting, concerts - I just don't like video games.
"mpc rules" I choose VLC, it's the same in both systems.
"kde" compiz!
"my Win7 boots faster..." my ArchLinux boots in about 7 seconds, on EeePC 901. No linux wannabe Windows will ever get close to it.
And when I remember those viruses, BSODs, registry cleaning... it was a nightmare.
aleclitvinov 2 months ago
@aleclitvinov
Oo or LibreOffice are no good, all of my customer who had a netbook with Oo wanted and bought an Office to replace it. Sorry but it's the best office suite out there.
I don't fish nor hunt (you murderer) but I do like concerts and playing bass with my little garage band.
VLC needs improvement on image and sound processing - Or else I would have used it instead of MPC
Already gave my point about speed.
And when I remember dependency hell, driver bugs... it's STILL a nightmare.
rockinpenguin 2 months ago
Hahaha oh wow.
My OS X is faster than this, and Linux Mint rapes this even harder.
Tell me this - What's is the point of a supposedly "lightweight" distro like Arch if all it does is be ass-backwards with no real speed benefits?
Ironstringz 3 months ago
@Ironstringz Some people (Like me for Example) enjoy NOT having a system flooded with apps you'll never use (Such as gCalcTool). Mint (And ubuntu, and any other *Easy to use*) is simply flooded with apps most users won't even touch. ArchLinux Fixes that problem. When you install Arch, you end up at the command line. And then you install ann what you need. Nothing more. I prefer a cleaner system than a overflow.
merkur32123 3 months ago
@merkur32123 So why don't you just remove the apps you don't need from the command line?
Ironstringz 3 months ago
@Ironstringz You really have no idea what you're talking about. In all honesty, OS X will never be this fast. Simply because you can't choose what you install in OS X. You can do that in Arch. If you think its faster then post a video response, shouldn't be too hard right? I'd like to see you do the same things he does but faster. I seriously doubt you can launch a full text editor equal to openoffice faster than that.
Vmt16 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Vmt16 Lol have you ever heard of uninstalling things?
Ironstringz 2 months ago
@Vmt16 /watch?v=S_rU2qf5AcA
Ironstringz 2 months ago
i prefer slackware64
prototype9000 3 months ago
Yeah it's impressive but I just can't be bothered with this distro. If you want fast open source I couldn't recommend Lubuntu highly enough. I can't really tell the difference between the speed of them on half-decent specs (like yours).
Also, it's a lot friendlier to newbies, and as of v11.10 (just 5 days now), it will be officially recognised as part of the Ubuntu family, getting all the support and attention that comes with it.
naryanr 3 months ago
@naryanr I've recently discovered Lubuntu and installed it on two systems for my family here. I absolutely agree it's a great distribution that compares in speed to the most minimal ones, although offering all the functionality and ease of use as regular ubuntu. Xubuntu, that we used before, was a resource hog and barely faster then ubuntu.
On my personal computer I will continue to run and love Arch!!
smokeyjoe56 3 months ago
That's what KDE looked like back then? Holy shit, it's so clean and beautiful! Wtf happened?!
BrandurJustinussen 4 months ago
amarok need about 2 minutes to open on my KDE 4.7..
shefiroth12 5 months ago
ANOTHER USELESS VIDEO made by some moron.
DupczacyBawol 5 months ago
@DupczacyBawol ANOTHER USELESS COMMENT made by some moron.
rudstrom 4 months ago
For those asking about specs, again:
It is a Core 2 Duo 6300, 1G RAM. Asus p5b-delux.
alvarogd 6 months ago 3
Can you give me instruction how to install KDE in arch linux?
DerGraf1997 7 months ago
@DerGraf1997 sudo pacman -S kde for the entire thing, or then sudo pacman -S kdebase kde-l10n-yourlanguagehere phonon-vlc for the minimal one.
Darkteammadfiz 7 months ago
lol my mom is goin to by us an abunta this week im so excited,
heaheaheaa 8 months ago
What are the benefits of Arch Linux over other distros?
theif519 8 months ago
@theif519 fast, lightweight, great community, huge software repository and you can make it to what ever you want it to be. The only downside is that its a bit to difficult to set up the first time
DavidPlim 8 months ago
@DavidPlim What advantage does it have over Slackware, Gentoo, and LFS?
theif519 8 months ago
@theif519 It would be the larger package selection and dep support, and its a little faster as its optimized for the i686 architechture
DavidPlim 8 months ago
1Gb of RAM? Try 256mb on Slax and see?
sp33dy99 8 months ago
In my world, Arch is the most valuable brand. :)
Juilkca 8 months ago
@Northgtabeast: What did you install? If I recall correctly the base install of Archlinux should be nowhere near 5GB.
LTS1287 9 months ago
Anyone had any bugs with KDEmod?
vrathulram 10 months ago
Arch is a great distro. I have an XFCE setup as my normal workstation. One thing I like is that if I install XFCE, it installs raw XFCE rather than a bloated Ubuntu-ified version of XFCE. Uses about half the ram.
Also, for those saying Arch is too hard to install, try Gentoo. Arch's installer is a fucking installation wizard compared to that.
Deliciousfruit233 1 year ago
The amount of RAM tell you nothing about speed. It's the processor and the type of RAM that matter.
astrocreep51 1 year ago
@astrocreep51 GNU/Linux uses free RAM as cache, so it is a factor.
EmanresuDesrever 1 year ago
cpu specs?
RunningLemonStudios 1 year ago
that is cool. is ubuntu a windardized version of this? is is slower? I have os X. no complaints. Fast beatiful, etc, but if that is what true linux is like, it's even better. i think I will dual boot to get the hang of it.
raahr 1 year ago
@raahr You shouldn't use Arch for it's speed. I LOVE Arch, but for it's freedom to do whatever you want with the system. Ubuntu is kind of restrictive, some things are just too hard to edit. Arch Linux is meant to be your way, and therefor it's easier to change it to your will.
Ubuntu can be just as fast, but you will have to strip it down.
If you come from Windows/Mac OS, DO NOT USE ARCH LINUX! DO NOT DO IT!
really.
LoloftheRings 1 year ago
@LoloftheRings
Thanks for the advice.
raahr 1 year ago
Is that supposed to be KDE 4.4??? It dosn't look like KDE 4.4 at all. Is it just using an old version or somthing?
dudemandude3 1 year ago
@dudemandude3 :it 's funny when you say that. Look at the date he posted, dude
trancaothai 1 year ago
Win app try cedega ;)
Cappeltje 1 year ago
@Cappeltje Cedega is not much better than wine and it ridiculously overpriced.
j800r 1 year ago
Write please the parameters of your PC
jarekMosp 1 year ago
Who's to say you didn't just load all those apps a bunch of times first? I *highly* doubt Amarok could *cold* start that fast. Oh well, as long as you convinced some people...
nortexoid 1 year ago 2
@nortexoid
well, depends, if you have a good enough computer (especially with a sd) then im sure you could load that fast :p
WAJMhome 1 year ago
@WAJMhome
It doesn't matter much how good your
computer is. Load times are going to be
largely determined by disk speed. And no
SSD is going to load Amarok that fast from cold.
nortexoid 1 year ago
@nortexoid If you have an SSD in raid configuration, it is possible to load up any program super fast from cold. Just depends if you have the money to pay for it......
joemann797 1 year ago
@joemann797 Suuuuuure. Even so, it's misleading to describe things as if the speed were coming from Arch plus KDEmod alone, as this video's been described. Plus, I don't think this guy is running dual SSD raid.
nortexoid 1 year ago
@nortexoid For anyone to make any kind of tech demo on any OS, it's always important to list the PC specs. Is he running an i7 or a P4...lol I mean, that's a big difference right there. This video doesn't list any specs what so ever, so we have no clue if he is running a raid. Maybe he is, maybe not. Maybe he just edited the video to make it seem that it runs faster than it actually does.
joemann797 1 year ago
@joemann797
do it without money with preload
capoeiraES 1 year ago
@nortexoid Mine starts nearly that fast, maybe .5 - 1 second longer at most.
obankobi 1 year ago
>KDE
>fast
i just spilled my coffee
Hyperknuck1 2 years ago 54
@Hyperknuck1 3.5
karnathin 6 months ago
@Hyperknuck1 3.5 was
anonix27 5 months ago
@Hyperknuck1
>GNOME
>usable
I lold
ShadowwwLFS 5 months ago
@Hyperknuck1 KDE was imo fast and the best DE until version 4 :(
renegade8164 3 months ago
The best thing about Arch is the wiki and Yaourt.
antisap 2 years ago 7
@antisap Actually, packer is better than yaourt. It's faster
itsbrad212 1 year ago
Impressive. It's like the libraries are already loaded.
This sort of gives me an idea. Create a cramfs image of /lib and mount it as /lib. God knows I have plenty of RAM on my box.
AngeredKabar 2 years ago
win 7 will smoke that crap dude
greenhornet123 2 years ago
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA
spikespeigel 2 years ago
The linux is faster only on slow computers compared to windows. Take a regular 400$ computer. Windows shits on Linux. Sorry to say that. Don't be a knucklehead, if you have a good computer use windows. Don't have the money to buy it? no worries, use it for free. You have torrent.
dnzota 2 years ago
You are very wrong my friend.
Krabats 2 years ago
windows uses up useless memory, arch will always be faster than any windows os that comes out.
YeorRecneps 2 years ago 3
You think this is about loading open office? Maybe it's faster on your computer. Uses a lot of memory? Try closing services that you don't need. How much RAM do you have? 512? 1GB? RAM is the cheapest part of the computer. I got 4GB at the 30€ price. By the way, try some tests on the hard drive, see the data transfer under linux and under windows. I got 100-180MB/s on the same disk from 1 partition to another. How much do you have under linux?
dnzota 2 years ago
How fast can you unarchive a 10GB rar archive? If you move a large file from 1 partition to another and copy 2 torrents with 5-10MB/s at the same time can you move your mouse? Don't tell me that linux trasfer rate it's slower because it does not fragment info on hdd, that's horseshit. Try to compare quality of sound windows-linux and see the difference. Try to compare HD playback. Try compare youtube playback full/windowed-screen. I tried all this.
dnzota 2 years ago
you tried all that on ubuntu no doubt. ubuntu is horrible and I would never even look at it, that it became this thing that everyone is so amazed about astounds me but then again it doesnt considering all the stupid people we have -- like you my friend-- which brings us to the current topic HD playback in ubuntu can be tuned to perfectly run in (up to 100 monitors) at the same time, windows can't do that now can it?
YeorRecneps 2 years ago 3
You just won't buy a better computer. You think you are superior if you use Linux. Cunt. If Linux can playback on 100 monitors Windows will also playback on 100. What is your problem with Ubuntu? Too accessible for you ? Why don't you try a 5 year old Slackware you "smart" asshole?
dnzota 2 years ago
@dnzota, even if I bought a $1000 computer.... I would throw a Linux Distro onto there, before even considering Microsoft.
KirbyPwnz13 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why? Tell me what is so important about Arch or Linux Distros in general? Are you a Linux developer?
dnzota 2 years ago
No I'm not a developer. I just enjoy the functionality of Linux... it can do everything windows can without hogging up resources, the need of virus scans, etc. The only disadvantage to Linux, is it isn't as compatible with games as Windows is. Other than that, it's a great OS.
KirbyPwnz13 2 years ago 22
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What about adobe studio or cad applications, autocad, 3dmax... and many other softwares? and please don't tell me about gimp, inkscape and blender. what about functionality and quality of clasic winamp or kmplayer or gom player... by the way.. windows 7 works faster than vista wich works faster than windows xp on my machines.
dnzota 2 years ago
what if we go back in 1999 to pentiu mmx 166, 32 mb sdram, s3trio videoboard and 2gb quantum harddrives? maybe then i will use arch. btw, i use windows but i also installed a linux distro 6 months ago.. linux mint. i don't play games, i "play" with mint. i see and understand your point and you also have to understand mine.
dnzota 2 years ago
@KirbyPwnz13 wine/PlayOnLinux :)
vaibzzz123 11 months ago
@KirbyPwnz13 I use Linux to, but SLR cameras and printers and other hardware manufactures always do nice apps for windows, like Photo editing in cameras, apps to know how much ink is left on a printer, apps for volume and effects on PCI sound boards etc, ect.
Sure, Windows sucks at some things, but Linux is NOT all that,
At the end, ALL operating systems suck.
You may not find Windows problems in Linux, but there are other problems, most motherboards still need Windows to easily upgrade a BIOS,
osmodivs 6 months ago
@KirbyPwnz13 yeah.. isn`t there any game distro?
qsddfasdasdas 5 months ago
@KirbyPwnz13 Windows has its own uses. Also many people don't know how to take advantage of the programming capabilities of Windows (such as a terminal, perl scripts, python scripts, servers etc). For everyday use I run Linux but at work I prefer windows as it's no BS - if you need X to work then X will work if you do A, B, C. I linux (due to the customization capabilities) things not always work although they usually do (e.g. Matlab needed some package a few years ago which wasn't installed).
kotapaka 4 months ago
@KirbyPwnz13 This is a pretty old post I noticed, but I'm sure you're still around, viewing comments, and wnat not, have you ever learned how to manually configure a kernel in Arch? Or can you? I run Gentoo Linux, and love it, =). Takes many hours to install a desktop on top of Gentoo though, I have a dual core cpu, and took me about 8 hours to install KDE, =/.
rick8028 3 months ago
I got an I7 945 and my ubuntu linux is using a lot less resources on ubuntu, and not to mention is alot faster and more responsive, boots quicker, no virus scans, no firewall, no defragmenting, no "Wtf is this shit" errors.
If you say that windows shits on linux, even if you got a performance computer, then you obviously haven't used it yourself, I think I'd even use linux on a 20k computer, windows is shit..
maroon5rule 2 years ago 4
i got a pentium dual core @ 1,8 with 4 gb ram with windows 7. after 40 seconds of boot time i can do anything you do on linux. it works really fine it is responsive as your linux is. i use linux mint on my laptop thou but on my workstation i preffer windows. i also use adobe studio so i cannnot afford to keep linux. and please do not tell me about wine.
dnzota 2 years ago
VMware Workstation. Nuff said.
maroon5rule 2 years ago
wow.. i'm thunderstruck. try working with 1gb tiff under linux in photoshop.
dnzota 2 years ago
Well motherboards these days are upgradeable to about 12-32gb for a normal price, processors these days are 4-6 cores starting at 100 bucks, shouldn't be a problem, we're talking about now, and the past is in the past.
But you got a point, but if adobe is such a serious issue, mac is a nice operating system as well, at it runs adobe like a charm
Linux is the better system for programming geeks like me imo
maroon5rule 2 years ago 2
programming what? c++ and php? i don't like macs. it's the same linux shell with high prices. 100 bucks for 4-6 cores on intel processors? where? how upgradable is one mac? what if you want to change platform from intel to amd? what do they offer?
dnzota 2 years ago
Yeah, and all kinds of other stuff. I'm not a mac fan either, but from what I seen of designing on it, it looks pretty cool and lightweight.
the 100 bucks is amd, well you can get an i3 or i5 for low prices as well these days. and well mac isn't really that upgradeable i think, but I see alot of professionals use the macbook pro, I think it's an awesome laptop, from what i've heard, seen.
Look into mac I guess, it's expensive though, but some say its worth the money
maroon5rule 2 years ago 2
@dnzota
I'd love to be able to see you edit the source code of the windows kernel.
demoflare 2 years ago
@maroon5rule
yeah... and still somehow 89% of people uses windows on desktop (let say that 10% are MacOSX users)- let me guess... they are 'deluded', right?
szymongruszczynski 2 years ago
No I don't think that at all. I'm pretty sure most of the Linux desktop users are techy, geeky and have more knowledge about computers than the average Windows user. Windows sucks for my needs. I'm a geek and I was willing to learn Linux years ago, and now I can't go back anymore.
maroon5rule 2 years ago 4
me too i switched in august 2007. using windows is agony now
zequelll 2 years ago
And I respect Mac OSX, great operating system, great stability and very nice gui.
maroon5rule 2 years ago
@szymongruszczynski
but it wont be with arch that users will change from windows to it,because its 100x more harder to install arch or slackware than windows,osx or ubuntu,i have never been able to install them.
gamealcohol 1 year ago
@maroon5rule no firewall cof... cof... iptables
dbfuentes 1 year ago
My Arch start Openoffice faster than yours :P
Damatelon 2 years ago
your pc is too fast!!
maxteamgraves 2 years ago 3
It go much faster ;)
Damatelon 2 years ago
got tired of the sluggish Ubuntu desktop - my machine is realy good, and I expected to have responsive Desktop linux, but Ubuntu failed for me
I tried a lot of "light" Ubuntu based distros for Desktop - none of them is close to Arch. Currently I am using happily Arch+XFCE
y0gus 2 years ago
it's my same situation. Linux isn't a difficult sistem and it's fantastic but windows, i don't know causes, is more fast.
GianpiV6 2 years ago
Yes, windows is faster. Memory access is faster, hard disk access and transfer rate are better, sound is better, all components have dedicated drivers. And the video board... oohhh... that runs like hell... and ai'm not talking about directx and games.. not the case.. i'm talking about opengl and media stuff..
dnzota 2 years ago
What are your hardware specs?
Its kind of hard to put this into context without knowing what the specs are..
I'm more of a Gnome fan myself because I experienced some noticeable slowdown running KDE on Ubuntu on my system, but thats probably just because I have crap hardware.
The only way I ever got mine running anywhere close to as fast as yours was when I ran LXDE or Fluxbox, and both of those kinda look like crap, lol.
str33nz 2 years ago
I'm agree with you and I like want his hardware to know if it's possible on my pc
GianpiV6 2 years ago
i have 3000+ amd athlon 64 with 1.5gb ram and kdemod3 speed is same as in this clip, believe me.
ubuntu704feistyfawn 2 years ago
Can you describe your hd components , software configuration and where are same specific manual for it??? Great job, it's fantastic
GianpiV6 2 years ago
The best part of Arch is the awesome, revolutionary Arch User Repository.
Natilator3 2 years ago
I think I might put Arch Linux on my laptop. It seems like a great on the go OS. My laptop will be much faster with it.
JackieFuckingChan 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I've thought about trying Arch Linux but I really like the debian package management better.
cyborgtroy 2 years ago
why?
raulnds 2 years ago 3
because he like sucky debian
libed91 2 years ago
yeah, yesterday ive installed arch linux and kdemod3. what can i say? its as fast as in this clip, and my pc is 3000+ amd athlon 64, 1.5gb ram, 120 gb hdd, ati radeon 9600 256mb. kubuntu 8.04 with kde 3.5 works very much slower than arch linux with kdemod 3.5. i think soon i will upload clip with my new arch
ubuntu704feistyfawn 3 years ago
damn, that's fast for kde3 (that's kdemod i presume?)
Guess ill make the effort and try arch after all
AleksandarCovic 3 years ago
not bad, i still think xfce4kills it on speed
sausagenmuff 3 years ago
Of course xfce will be faster than kde, BUT - if you want to run kde applications, that would mean having both the xfce and kde libraries loaded... that might be a drag if you don't have a lot of RAM. Instead, you can install kde and replace the window manager with xfwm4, etc
Heller86 3 years ago
Xfce is faster then KDE 4.x but not KDE 3.5.x. XFCE is getting fat
Gjoellee 3 years ago
and buggy, the panel keeps crashing
randomProgrammer 2 years ago
Actually, i've seen several people with kde 3.5.10 using less ram than latest xfce.
Of course it also has a whole lot more features and functionality.
I think 4.x uses a little more, but still not much more than xfce. 4.2 is just pure awesome.
cheater1092 3 years ago
KDE 4.x is HUNGRY! Xfce 4.6 uses about 350 RAM to run which is the same as GNOME, KDE 4.x runs fine in 1GB RAM, and by Arch+Openbox run ins mighty 102mb RAM
Gjoellee 3 years ago
I just use Fluxbox when I need something lightweight
Steven707 3 years ago 3
LXDE is pretty good, too.
I like how it snaps to windows while resizing, Compiz doesn't want to do that.
cyborgtroy 2 years ago
Here i am runing kde 4.2 from kdemod and i have opera started, using conky i have 264 Mb RAM used 0 swap, so you can run kde 4.2 with 512 RAM , problems appear if you open many programs and they will use swap, then At changing betwen them will take longer. I nver managed to use more then 600 MB RAM
simion314 2 years ago
I'ne never used more than 2 GiB of my laptops 3 GiB of RAM, and that was when rendering a 1000*1000, 200 frame animated .gif globe of the earth in the GIMP, this is running on a plain Ubuntu install.
calrogman 2 years ago
How much ram do you have because it looks like you have a lot
kut77less 3 years ago 2
When I made the video I had 1Gb of RAM.
alvarogd 3 years ago 2
Do you think it will work good on 512mb of ram
kut77less 3 years ago 2
Yes, it will.
alvarogd 3 years ago 12
Is there a live cd available
kut77less 3 years ago 3
Arch, yet again, destroys :D
Contrary to the beliefs of some people here, loading apps is dependent on the window manager, OS, and hard drive. Since (unless you have a WD (Veloci)Raptor, or a laptop) all hard drives are quite similar in overall read performance, it is indeed the power of Arch and KDEmod that is propelling his PC. Nice vid! Arch FTW!
Ranguvar13 3 years ago
yah on a fast computer lol
doonbugie 3 years ago
I SHAT BRIX
thisusernameistaken2 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Hmm my vista box is at least that fast.
cartossin 3 years ago
vista is a very sloooow OS
Salvadorenno 3 years ago 7
I believe you can make it even faster if you load your daemons in background and set it up so udev doesn't have to autedetect modules (looks like it does autodetect to me...)
dante4d 3 years ago
Arch is my favorite desktop distro. I tried gentoo briefly, but found no discernible performance hit when switching to Arch. No reason to compile everything from source a la Gentoo since Arch is such a fast binary distro. Comparable performance + no time wasted compiling = Arch is faster than Gentoo.
Neelo5000 3 years ago
what file system do you use with arch?
I usually use ext3 for / , and xfs for everthing else.
XFS seems about as fast as ntfs, not boggy like ext. so thinking about switching to it for / .
sausagenmuff 3 years ago
What is your hardware spec?
Skatox 3 years ago 4
arch linux ftw
I eat up arch so much, I shit pengiuns
synthead 4 years ago 9
goes quicker with xfce!
sparkybean 4 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
KDE is so big that it is slower than Gnome. Fluxbox is faster than Gnome... your PC could be faster...
steph16th 4 years ago
It's KDEmod, not KDE
raulnds 4 years ago 20
Blinding Raven, arch is based on the minimal install, however looking at his menu, this looks like a full fledged KDEMod, which is defintely not "minimal" in my idea of the definition. Hey does have an impressive machine, however, install ubuntu on the same machine, i guarantee you, loading the same applications will suffer a HUGE performance drop, I have tried multiple linux distrobutions on my laptop: Arch linux, OpenSuse, Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, Sabayon, and some random others.
LordOfZwenx 4 years ago
So do you think linux is good
kut77less 3 years ago
Do you think it is not?
On same hardware, in Arch openoffice opens 3 seconds for me, in vista - ~1/2 minute.
ShadowwwLFS 3 years ago 2
Thats a minimal install and in amarok you have like 10 songs listed.
Blindingraven 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I have 256 mb ram, 2,6 gh and Celeron with old Ati Radeon video card. I can't find a distrubation who is faster than windows Xp.
UBUNTS 4 years ago