some feel-good numbers for Arch vs. Win7

Heller_Barde · 2009-10-11 17:03:39

that whole responsiveness/bloatiness comparison discussion here about "my lightweight barebones setup is much faster than Win7 and KDE4 is bloated" is kinda pointless, because nobody defined what you actually would like to measure.
If you mean "Linux 'Desktop' vs. Win7 'Desktop'", then I would say it would be fairest to use KDE/Gnome vs. full blown Win7 Environment. But of course you could say I want to see which is faster, no matter what, then you can of course use your barebones Environment on Linux, but you would also need to allow the same thing for windows. (For Windows up until XP I think, there was a BlackBox clone/port/fork called bbwin or bblean or something)

just what I think...

schuay · 2009-10-11 17:10:18

z0phi3l wrote:

My base Win7 Ultimate install came to 12gigs[...]

Windows 7 Beta installed without anything else = 5 gigs for me.

And yes, I agree that comparing Win7 to a lightweight WM doesn't make much sense

JesusSuperstar · 2009-10-11 17:44:45

What would make sense would be a clean install of Linux and configuring it with your favorite wm, fm, apps the way you want it to be
compared to a clean install of win7 configured again just the way you like it, that's the way you would actually use it everyday.
That I think would be a sane comparison {execution times, boot times, responsiveness, resource usage, etc}.

So thinking like that, I'd stick with Linux, cause I prefer a kind of minimal environment where I can work.
Someone using eg KDE-4.3.2 might get baffling numbers, as performance might be really close.
So saying "win7 is better" or "linux rulez" is kinda something each one will conclude to for himself.

ah, I just saw this is a 2page topic, I thought it was a 2post topic anyway..

Last edited by JesusSuperstar (2009-10-11 17:51:06)

eDio · 2009-10-11 18:50:18

I've got a CD with Win7 RTM (yeah shame on me, but piracy is everywhere in Ukraine). But I need to say, I still haven't install it. I just don't want even to try it in spite of all good things I've heard about this OS.

So now WinXP drives me insane with it's HDD crackle, with it's lagness, with it's FS structure (configs and executables are scattered everywhere, all these drives...)... (By the way, FS structure — it's another reason, why I don't want to install 7)
Arch is still unusable, because I have no time to handle all problems and tune it. Still have not find normal music player/manager, that is able to play to specified device. For now using [quodlibet, exaile] > integrated sound ALSA > twin-axial cable > ESI Juli@ ALSA > Analog mixer.
Still have no AVR and 8051 IDEs, office, CUPS, SANE and many other stuff. Because I need to work, but not to play with OS.

Now I'm downloading Mint 7 and waiting for Ubuntu 9.10. I guess, I will have two OSes in the future: some out-of-the-box distro for working today and Arch for creating perfect environment for working in the future

Maybe I will do install Win 7 to my girlfriend, if Vista on her notebook can be upgraded to Win7 for free or for some small fee.

Last edited by eDio (2009-10-11 19:03:07)

greenfish · 2009-10-12 16:22:07

eDio wrote:

I've got a CD with Win7 RTM (yeah shame on me, but piracy is everywhere in Ukraine). But I need to say, I still haven't install it. I just don't want even to try it in spite of all good things I've heard about this OS.
So now WinXP drives me insane with it's HDD crackle, with it's lagness, with it's FS structure (configs and executables are scattered everywhere, all these drives...)... (By the way, FS structure — it's another reason, why I don't want to install 7)
Arch is still unusable, because I have no time to handle all problems and tune it. Still have not find normal music player/manager, that is able to play to specified device. For now using [quodlibet, exaile] > integrated sound ALSA > twin-axial cable > ESI Juli@ ALSA > Analog mixer.
Still have no AVR and 8051 IDEs, office, CUPS, SANE and many other stuff. Because I need to work, but not to play with OS.
Now I'm downloading Mint 7 and waiting for Ubuntu 9.10. I guess, I will have two OSes in the future: some out-of-the-box distro for working today and Arch for creating perfect environment for working in the future
Maybe I will do install Win 7 to my girlfriend, if Vista on her notebook can be upgraded to Win7 for free or for some small fee.

You work 24/7?

It's all about priorities and quality time man!

If arch is still unusable then why are you here if you don't mind me asking! What exactly do you mean by how XP and W7 handles your file structure, are you talking about how their fs operates their meta data, inodes?

What issues do you have with your soundcard setup, maybe I can help you.

Mint 7 is the same thing as ubuntu but comes prepacked with proprietary instead.

EDIT: nvm you wish to use arch as your experimental enviroment, that's cool!

thetrivialstuff, wake up!!!

eDio · 2009-10-12 22:05:54

If arch is still unusable

I meant my setup of Arch is still unusable. It is very simple and transparent OS and I like it for this.

What issues do you have with your soundcard setup, maybe I can help you.

This is not soundcard issue, but software issue. There are no music managers rich at functionality and able to play to specified device. BTW I like mpd and even ready to use set of separate programs (it is unix way after all! And before foobar2000 on windows, that was my way): player, encoders, mass tag editor... But mpd lacks a feature to play any file outside library and some other stuff. IMHO of course.

Mint 7 is the same thing as ubuntu but comes prepacked with proprietary instead.

And with some better hardware support AFAIK. Just want to try it, when I get a free time.

You work 24/7?

Nope I'm a student But this term in university is whole hell: we have 5 laboratory courses, 2 termpapers (one of them just called term project, in fact it is the same) and as I want to get master's degree I have to work on my master's paper. And at the same time I have to write some articles and more and more and more... I have a new hobbies: avr, boxing, tango... So there is no time even to sleep, I don't even saying anything about tuning OS Hope the next term will be much easier...
And huh... sorry for that stream of words in not-so-good English

pawels64 · 2009-10-13 08:53:20

@eDio

There are no music managers rich at functionality and able to play to specified device.

Ever heard of Amarok?

eDio · 2009-10-13 14:08:57

@pawels64
As was said on one forum, but about some another software: AmaroK has one big disadvantage - contains K in it's name .
That was said about Krusader originally.
I just don't like KDE.
Players, KDE and others can be discussed in separate threads, but not in this thread, this is offtopic here So lets finish this

dunric29a · 2009-10-28 11:38:40

If I can compare my Arch vs Win7 RC on the same hardware (ThinkPad, one core Pentium-M 1,7GHz, RAM 1GB, HDD 7200rpm, ATI FireGL-T2) then Arch with GNOME desktop significantly outperforms Win7, mostly in boot/shutdown times, apps launching times and UI responsiveness. Win7 running with updated drivers and even disabled "burdening" services like disk-contents indexing. What surprised me the most was UI "slickness" of Arch, when scrolling, resizing and udpdating window contents - compared FF 3.5 Lin&Win, Nautilus vs Explorer - although Linux ATI drivers are famed as poor quality.
Maybe I don't have enough RAM to run Win7 with its full potential, but I really don't care. Linux offers such great values "under the hood" like transparency, simplicity, systematism in design, versatility (from simple router to high-end server or desktop) etc.

my $2

Last edited by dunric29a (2009-10-28 11:45:43)

Rasi · 2009-10-28 12:00:24

eDio wrote:

But mpd lacks a feature to play any file outside library and some other stuff. IMHO of course.

Sigh.. this is not true.. configure mpd that is uses a socket file and it will play files outside of your library just fine. gmpc even supports dragndrop of files.

mpd supports everything foobar2000 supports (playback wise). For the tagging stuff get picard, it even includes foobars scripting language.

iBertus · 2009-10-28 13:41:35

Windows 7 still doesn't have robust software RAID support. You have to buy a server version to get anything but RAID 0 or RAID 1. This makes it pretty useless for me as I'm used to the power of Linux MDRAID+LVM. MS will never support any more than the most basic of RAID on their non-server version.

Also, I've noticed that MS still hasn't managed to get all the GUIs to match up in Windows 7. This has bugged me in XP and Vista and still bugs me now.

Otherwise, Windows 7 seems much less crappy than Vista. It seems to crash less, use less memory and perform overall better. I wouldn't dare say that it outperforms my linux install on either my desktop or my laptop (both using RAID) from a default install.

Arch Linux

#26 2009-10-11 17:03:39

Re: some feel-good numbers for Arch vs. Win7

#27 2009-10-11 17:10:18

Re: some feel-good numbers for Arch vs. Win7

#28 2009-10-11 17:44:45

Re: some feel-good numbers for Arch vs. Win7

#29 2009-10-11 18:50:18

Re: some feel-good numbers for Arch vs. Win7

#30 2009-10-12 16:22:07

Re: some feel-good numbers for Arch vs. Win7

#31 2009-10-12 22:05:54

Re: some feel-good numbers for Arch vs. Win7

#32 2009-10-13 08:53:20

Re: some feel-good numbers for Arch vs. Win7

#33 2009-10-13 14:08:57

Re: some feel-good numbers for Arch vs. Win7

#34 2009-10-28 11:38:40

Re: some feel-good numbers for Arch vs. Win7

#35 2009-10-28 12:00:24

Re: some feel-good numbers for Arch vs. Win7

#36 2009-10-28 13:41:35

Re: some feel-good numbers for Arch vs. Win7

Board footer