Download your favorite Linux distribution at LQ ISO.
Go Back > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Arch
User Name
Arch This Forum is for the discussion of Arch Linux.


  Search this Thread
Old 03-05-2006, 06:44 AM   #16
Senior Member
Registered: May 2004
Location: Australia
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 3,544
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 57

Originally Posted by anti_microsoft
The fastest OS I ever ran is FreeBSD hands down. And I have gentoo among others installed!
I love you. I just got an AMD64 system and I've been hunting for something nice to install alongside Arch32 that is nice and light off the bat that has a binary package manager. You'd be suprised how hard this requirement is to meet (and not be a big name that I need to download 5 CDs for) but I completely forgot about the BSDs!

Old 03-05-2006, 07:06 AM   #17
LQ Guru
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: N. E. England
Distribution: Fedora, CentOS, Debian
Posts: 16,298

Rep: Reputation: 77
Originally Posted by anti_microsoft
The fastest OS I ever ran is FreeBSD hands down. And I have gentoo among others installed!
For me its NetBSD followed by FreeBSD. The only problem with NetBSD is that it does not have as many packages as FreeBSD available using pkgsrc.
Old 03-08-2006, 01:26 PM   #18
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: King George, VA
Distribution: RHEL/CentOS/Scientific/Fedora, LinuxMint
Posts: 370

Rep: Reputation: 44
Gentoo is great if you have lots of free time. Arch is it for me for awhile
Old 03-08-2006, 10:10 PM   #19
Senior Member
Registered: Dec 2003
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 3,178
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 138Reputation: 138
In reality I don't notice much difference between distros except in boot-up time. But that's because each distro is configured differently to run boot up tasks. Some prefer the safer approach by trying to check hardware every time. In reality that's what takes up so much time to boot Linux. Hardware detection as well as hard-disk checking.

But as far as regular performance is concerned, I hardly find a difference between compiling my own packages or using a stock binary package. In reality performance depends much on the way the system is configured, which has nothing to do with x86 optimization or compiler flags. For example, if you use KDE with lots of eye-candy, it's going to be slightly slower than KDE without eye candy and much slower than if you use a lightweight WM. That's what makes the difference. With pure command-line, you hardly notice any kind of performance issues between distros...
Old 03-13-2006, 07:36 PM   #20
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: Santiago, Chile
Distribution: Suse 9.3 ArchLinux
Posts: 40

Rep: Reputation: 16
I mean filesystem also has it's role in speed. Since i'm using reiser4 in Arch i noticed a speed improvement in almost everything that involves reading/writing to HD's
Old 03-27-2006, 07:45 PM   #21
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Austin TX
Distribution: ArchLinux
Posts: 67

Rep: Reputation: 15
Yes. Arch is the best performer. Processing/disk access time + compile time (0) + dependency-resolving time (0) + fiddling with settings and optimizations time = the minimum of any distribution.
Old 03-28-2006, 02:29 AM   #22
Senior Member
Registered: Dec 2003
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 3,178
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 138Reputation: 138
Currently booted into Arch after a long, long time. Arch + Fluxbox is an ideal desktop for lower end machines. Even on newer hardware, Fluxbox is quite a lightweight desktop which simply flies.

The only disadvantage of not having KDE or Gnome is that you miss all those KDE apps that make the DE so productive over a WM.
Old 04-04-2006, 09:24 AM   #23
Registered: Jun 2005
Posts: 73

Rep: Reputation: 15

currently using arch(+garnome-daily), but lfs style debian also good(time saver).

Last edited by llmmix; 04-04-2006 at 09:32 AM.
Old 04-28-2006, 10:22 AM   #24
LQ Newbie
Registered: Apr 2006
Posts: 9

Rep: Reputation: 0
Arch + Ratpoison = ideal desktop.
Old 05-20-2006, 10:34 AM   #25
Registered: Feb 2006
Location: Italy
Distribution: Ubuntu FreeBSD
Posts: 92

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
good solution


Arch is really a good compromise for my oven-laptop anyway maybe ratpoison is good old machine but it's not so usable but if somebody likes minimal WM why don't you use evilWM? Why do you exclude tWM :-))) you only need to install X and it's surely minimal.

Old 06-15-2006, 11:33 PM   #26
Ash Gotham
LQ Newbie
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: India(But mostly in front of my PC)
Distribution: ArchLinux
Posts: 6

Rep: Reputation: 0
Arch is faster than slack, boot time for arch = 12 sec. 16 with cups and hp-lip.
Slack=30 without cups too~
Old 02-26-2007, 06:01 PM   #27
Registered: Jul 2003
Distribution: Slackware 11
Posts: 439

Rep: Reputation: 30
it takes you 30 mins to download and compile ndiswrapper?


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SendMail Optimization? renegade33 Linux - Software 1 10-26-2005 11:29 AM
Something like Digital Performer? microsoft/linux Linux - Software 3 09-12-2005 09:56 PM
firewall optimization canyon289 Linux - Games 0 10-21-2004 08:45 PM
performer+inventor files on linux mghere Linux - Newbie 3 12-27-2003 06:57 PM
kde optimization? alaios Linux - General 2 09-14-2003 02:55 PM > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Arch

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:20 PM.

Main Menu
Write for LQ is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration