You are not logged in.

#26 2009-06-11 20:06:23

Wra!th
Member
Registered: 2009-03-31
Posts: 342

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

wonder wrote:

well this thread is about archlinux and others in virtualbox in which archlinux is slower. don't hijack the thread. open a new thread and discuss there about how fast is ubuntu.

You aiming for TU or something? chill...
Just to comply to the "rules", I have installed Arch and Ubuntu desktop under Virtualbox (OSX).
Arch boots to login in around 20 seconds (no aditional daemons)
Ubuntu 9.04 is at GDM in 14(and as we all know Ubuntu starts a ton of daemons before GDM). Overall WM  speed is the same. so basically Arch == Ubuntu in WM's lately. Arch  <<<<< Ubuntu at boot times. BITCHIN' !


MacGregor DESPITE THEM!
7f 45 4c 46 01 01 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

Offline

#27 2009-06-11 20:09:13

wonder
Developer
From: Bucharest, Romania
Registered: 2006-07-05
Posts: 5,941
Website

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

i subscribed to this thread because i wanted to see if somebody find a solution for this issue and all i see is discussion about how fast is ubuntu 9.04. this will be my last message about this offtopic discussion

Last edited by wonder (2009-06-11 20:09:42)


Give what you have. To someone, it may be better than you dare to think.

Offline

#28 2009-06-11 20:18:09

japetto
Member
From: Chicago, IL US
Registered: 2006-07-02
Posts: 183

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

Wra!th wrote:
wonder wrote:

well this thread is about archlinux and others in virtualbox in which archlinux is slower. don't hijack the thread. open a new thread and discuss there about how fast is ubuntu.

You aiming for TU or something? chill...

I think he already aimed and hit the target wink

Offline

#29 2009-06-11 20:40:29

Wra!th
Member
Registered: 2009-03-31
Posts: 342

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

japetto wrote:
Wra!th wrote:
wonder wrote:

well this thread is about archlinux and others in virtualbox in which archlinux is slower. don't hijack the thread. open a new thread and discuss there about how fast is ubuntu.

You aiming for TU or something? chill...

I think he already aimed and hit the target wink

Sarcasm is obviouslly not your strong point.
wonder, you want this issue get fixed? make a better product. In the quest of "having the latest" you guys forgot about "having the best"..or the "stable"..or the "ATLEAST IT WORKS!". Arch has went downhill ever since the first Xorg problems(actually before that but that's when people started asking questions). And now this alarm. Problem with Arch is that stuff needs to be fixed all the time. Who has the time anymore? I sure don't. I have officially moved back to Ubuntu on my desktops, and OpenBSD for everything else. Arch is just not worth it anymore...sad...but painfully true.

Last edited by Wra!th (2009-06-11 20:41:41)


MacGregor DESPITE THEM!
7f 45 4c 46 01 01 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

Offline

#30 2009-06-11 21:11:12

arkham
Member
From: Stockholm
Registered: 2008-10-26
Posts: 516
Website

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

<offtopic>

Wra!th wrote:

Who has the time anymore? I sure don't. I have officially moved back to Ubuntu on my desktops, and OpenBSD for everything else. Arch is just not worth it anymore...sad...but painfully true.

If you don't use Arch anymore, then why do you keep posting in this forum? kthxbai
</offtopic>

I've tried ubuntu 9.04 and archlinux on virtualbox on mac os x and the differences in boot time and general performace are barely noticeable.


"I'm Winston Wolfe. I solve problems."

~ Need moar games? [arch-games] ~ [aurcheck] AUR haz updates? ~

Offline

#31 2009-06-11 21:33:03

Wra!th
Member
Registered: 2009-03-31
Posts: 342

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

arkham wrote:

<offtopic>

Wra!th wrote:

Who has the time anymore? I sure don't. I have officially moved back to Ubuntu on my desktops, and OpenBSD for everything else. Arch is just not worth it anymore...sad...but painfully true.

If you don't use Arch anymore, then why do you keep posting in this forum? kthxbai
</offtopic>

I've tried ubuntu 9.04 and archlinux on virtualbox on mac os x and the differences in boot time and general performace are barely noticeable.

1. Because I can smile
2. Did you actually time those boot times?
Seems likely that you're the only one to have similar boot times.


MacGregor DESPITE THEM!
7f 45 4c 46 01 01 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

Offline

#32 2009-06-11 21:54:26

Misfit138
Misfit Emeritus
From: USA
Registered: 2006-11-27
Posts: 4,189

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

*Sigh*
Wra!th, I strongly suggest you improve the quality of your posts, no matter what distribution you choose to use.
Also, please review the forum rules.

Offline

#33 2009-06-11 22:05:57

Wra!th
Member
Registered: 2009-03-31
Posts: 342

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

Misfit138 wrote:

*Sigh*
Wra!th, I strongly suggest you improve the quality of your posts, no matter what distribution you choose to use.
Also, please review the forum rules.

I have broken no rule.


MacGregor DESPITE THEM!
7f 45 4c 46 01 01 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

Offline

#34 2009-06-11 22:06:59

bwh1969
Member
Registered: 2008-01-05
Posts: 151

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

I suppose there are reasons for running Arch in XP.  I can't seem to figure out what one would be.

I do the reverse, and XP is much more snappy in VirtualBox running on Arch than XP is when running natively off the same disk (partition). 

I mean I like linux a lot, but if I have to deal with XP at work, then I just deal.   I was never impressed with anything I ran from VirtualBox in XP.

Offline

#35 2009-06-11 22:26:47

Wra!th
Member
Registered: 2009-03-31
Posts: 342

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

bwh1969 wrote:

I suppose there are reasons for running Arch in XP.  I can't seem to figure out what one would be.

I do the reverse, and XP is much more snappy in VirtualBox running on Arch than XP is when running natively off the same disk (partition). 

I mean I like linux a lot, but if I have to deal with XP at work, then I just deal.   I was never impressed with anything I ran from VirtualBox in XP.

There are people that really can't make a dualboot system (like people who share the same computer with a cranky sister etc...). Those ones usually install Linux using some kind of virtualization software. I for example can't install Linux at work, so I just run Virtualbox/Q(emu) on OSX (plus I always have my laptop with me). A day without any type of Linux would be murder...so I take anything I can get.
Also a lot of people first test Linux inside a virtual machine before attempting their first HDD install (this is ok). That was not the case when I first started and I lost everything (mostly games but still..they were rare at the time).

@Misfit: out of respect to that band you wear so proudly and the fact that you are a moderator I will apologize for my "behaviour". In no way is my anger directed at Arch in general, but only the latest stuff that keeps going wrong. Sheathe thy ban sword tongue


MacGregor DESPITE THEM!
7f 45 4c 46 01 01 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

Offline

#36 2009-06-11 22:50:55

jeff story
Member
Registered: 2009-05-31
Posts: 237
Website

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

Although I'm fairly new to Linux (1+ yr) and Arch (2+ wks) ......I ask myself......Why?

Why would anyone bother to waste their time setting up any Linux distro in a windows virtual machine other than just a quick "check it out"
of a beginner oriented distro before moving on to a real install??

So in that context, I say to myself....."So what and who cares" if Arch is supposedly not as fast running in such an oddball environment as something else.

From what I understand, arch is optimized for i686 and x86-64 environments, which is one of the reasons I chose it.

Most of the time, something trying to do anything or everything, is not as effective or efficient as a product designed for a more narrowly defined task.

Analogy:

[ARCH in designed for environment] An NHRA pro stock drag racing car is "best" at drag racing and not practical or even capable to use daily as transportation. Do the engineers and builders of a half million dollar racing engine care about  "but it sucks and has poor fuel economy on the street"? ....Mmmm,  probably not!

[Ubuntu on most designed for hardware] A new factory V8 "hot rod" is easier to drive , faster than most cars (windows) on the road in a drag race, and is fairly peasant and economical (compared to a pro stocker) to  drive on the streets as daily transportation. Do the designers and engineers at Ford care that a new Mustang is not as fast in a drag race as an NHRA pro stock Chevy? Mmmmm, probably not!

Last edited by jeff story (2009-06-12 06:02:00)


Check out my website for info on the Arch Linux Installer

Offline

#37 2009-06-11 23:33:00

göteborg-johan
Member
Registered: 2009-02-27
Posts: 36

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

So, you don't have the time to set up arch, but you do have the time to post useless bullshit on a forum about a dist you don't even use anymore? Interesting.

Offline

#38 2009-06-12 03:15:23

bwh1969
Member
Registered: 2008-01-05
Posts: 151

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

I guess, but most "Linuxes" have a live distro CD so I guess I always used that as a test drive on my actual hardware.  Setting it up in VirtualBox (I did this with Kubuntu once) on XP seemed somewhat pointless.  I mean, XP pretty much does everything, although as a matter as aesthetics I prefer kde4 on my desktop:-)

I use Linux/Arch for speed and for security, so running it in MS Windows kind of kills the fun for me.

Offline

#39 2009-06-12 05:11:30

Wra!th
Member
Registered: 2009-03-31
Posts: 342

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

bwh1969 wrote:

I guess, but most "Linuxes" have a live distro CD so I guess I always used that as a test drive on my actual hardware.  Setting it up in VirtualBox (I did this with Kubuntu once) on XP seemed somewhat pointless.  I mean, XP pretty much does everything, although as a matter as aesthetics I prefer kde4 on my desktop:-)

I use Linux/Arch for speed and for security, so running it in MS Windows kind of kills the fun for me.

As I said..some don't really have a choice smile


MacGregor DESPITE THEM!
7f 45 4c 46 01 01 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

Offline

#40 2009-06-13 14:52:49

keerthi
Member
Registered: 2007-11-18
Posts: 95

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

Wra!th wrote:

Screw Virtualbox, real live install..Arch fails at boot speed compared to Ubuntu 9.04.
One of the 9.04 release goals was uber fast boot ups and they did it..I get between 12 and 16 seconds compared to like 40-50 with Arch (and Ubuntu also starts GDM, I get the Arch time to login only)
Thank God people don't actually restart computers that often..otherwise Arch would be teh failure

Damn Spammers! You keep your ideologies yourself. I'm a very experienced user and I know what I'm doing. You don't have any idea why I need Arch on VirtualBox. I found this thread googling and saw that the OP had the problem of Arch running slow on XP host. My host is, however, is Ubuntu and I chimed in looking for constructive help. If you don't have any help to offer stay away! Don't bullshit.

Offline

#41 2009-06-16 13:37:55

arkham
Member
From: Stockholm
Registered: 2008-10-26
Posts: 516
Website

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

<offtopic>
Something funny I have found here
screenshotarchlinuxforu.png

I mean Wra!th, you are complaining that the arch boot is slow, but when you find a thread which explains how to improve dramatically the boot time you mark it as "quite useless"? LOL
</offtopic>


"I'm Winston Wolfe. I solve problems."

~ Need moar games? [arch-games] ~ [aurcheck] AUR haz updates? ~

Offline

#42 2009-06-16 14:22:26

R00KIE
Forum Fellow
From: Between a computer and a chair
Registered: 2008-09-14
Posts: 4,734

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

@wonder
I don't have a fix (maybe it is some bug in virtualbox and a new version will help) but I have reported that for the same kernel version arch64 runs at "normal" speed inside virtualbox while arch32 drags itself, not much help I know.

@jeff story
There are many uses for a virtual machine install besides just checking things out. Like testing if some 3rd party program install will break your system or running untrusted but needed software among other uses. Immutable disks are great, I'm using one for a windows install to test those "nice" email attachments and then discard all changes made by them, the same can go for linux.

Edit: Spelling

Last edited by R00KIE (2009-06-16 14:23:08)


R00KIE
Tm90aGluZyB0byBzZWUgaGVyZSwgbW92ZSBhbG9uZy4K

Offline

#43 2009-06-16 19:26:50

Maki
Member
From: Skopje, Macedonia
Registered: 2007-10-16
Posts: 353
Website

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

OK kids, back to topic now smile
I would guess that ubuntu's speed could be in a wm could be cause of patches they made to the kernel, maybe something regarding ubuntu's jeos ?!
Also a good way to test would be to take another distro and compare it. BTW arch is a simple, not lightweight distro


If it ain't broke, broke it then fix it.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB