[SOLVED] yet another "fastest distro" thread... but different

hello!

i know this is constantly asked: but it always seems to boil down to "hurr durr ubuntu is faster that win7" which is not what i want.

what do i want? all i want is any *NIX distribution that can be installed and is fast.
fast here means: boot time is very good (log-in as well) and very low latency. and fast doesnt just mean low-footprint: my lappy has a dual core 64 bit cpu, not a pent 3

what i need to do? it has to dual boot with windows 7, i must be able to use my broadcom 4312 wifi card, and there shall be no games, little flash and the only essential programs are libreoffice/similar and interwebs browser

not afraid to try odd things: i've done kolibriOS, gentoo, arch, connochaet(lol) and i just downloaded pcbsd

thanks in advance

Originally Posted by origami-sheep i've done kolibriOS, gentoo, arch, connochaet(lol) and i just downloaded pcbsd

What didn't you like about Arch and Gentoo? Those two consistently make the "fastest distro" lists.

Install any normal or light distro (not one of the common bloated derivatives), as minimally as possible, roll your own kernel if you wish and install a lightweight window manager and only the programs you need - done.

Originally Posted by origami-sheep what do i want?[/U][/B] all i want is any *NIX distribution that can be installed and is fast.

Pretty much every distro can be installed; even the ones that are often run from a live CD or a USB drive can usually be installed, so that doesn't help much. 'Fast' mostly depends on how you set things up, and there isn't a night and day difference between one and another, but it is largely up to you, your hardware, and how much work you want to put in.

Originally Posted by origami-sheep fast here means: boot time is very good (log-in as well) and very low latency. and fast doesnt just mean low-footprint: my lappy has a dual core 64 bit cpu, not a pent 3

Boot time is rather variable, but that is default o-o-t-b; time spent optimising with bootchart, and you can get there. Ubuntu with upstart seems to have done quite well; systemd really ought to have the potential to do well, too, but I've just seen a review of the latest Fedora where the boot time doesn't seem to have improved to any significant extent; currently unknown whether systemd hasn't (yet?) achieved its potential, Fed hasn't (yet?) made the most of it, or, in these early days, it works better for some configurations than others.

(Mostly, I suspend-and-resume, which sidesteps the problem.)

Originally Posted by origami-sheep it has to dual boot with windows 7, i must be able to use my broadcom 4312 wifi card, and there shall be no games, little flash and the only essential programs are libreoffice/similar and interwebs browser

Probably, anything will dual boot with win 7, there will be no games if you don't install them (with the 'buntus, you may have to let them install initially and then delete, which seem a bit inefficient, but it is hardly a massive problem), flash; again, why install? and then install an office program and one or more browsers. Not sure about that particular Broadcom card, but if one distro can do it, then, in theory, they all can, if you are prepared to do the work of installing and configuring manually.

Well gentoo I tried on my test machine and was IMMENSLY speedy with the optimisations and custome kernel, but I don't know if I'll notice the same difference on a newer system (the test one is an old celeron/centurion can never remember which)

Arch is great: but it is a gamble every boot if the wifi works

But there really is nothing that's much faster? Maybe I should try LFS some time...

Originally Posted by origami-sheep Well gentoo I tried on my test machine and was IMMENSLY speedy with the optimisations and custome kernel, but I don't know if I'll notice the same difference on a newer system

I doubt Gentoo will be slower on your fast computer... is "IMMENSLY speedy" not fast enough for you?

Originally Posted by origami-sheep Arch is great: but it is a gamble every boot if the wifi works

This is not a typical Arch experience; have you tried searching for your wifi card in the Arch Wiki?

You just inadvertently made my day: I checked the arch wiki (again) only to find that I had the wrong model number for my wifi xD



Anyways I have a good feeling that with the correct driver it will work properly now lol

Thanks: and to others reading this it's true: arch does tend to be very consistent and stable if the person using it is competent * cough *

I am currently dual booting kubuntu and windows 7. I did it with using separate hard drives with each "OS" and I had to install windows 7 without the linux drive installed and I have to remove all other drives when installing a service pack. Other than that I just hooked up my linux drive as the first drive and ran update grub for it to see the windows install. I don't know how it would work on a single drive though since even if you get both to install on one drive you may have issues installing a service pack with windows.