Netbook Users: NBR vs Arch. Hit me.

Wesman26 · 2009-12-27 05:14:38

(Skip my first paragraph/life story if you feel like it)
I started out with Ubuntu. Then I switched to Arch and absolutely loved it. A recent update sent me back to the dark ages of windows for a bit, but I have Ubuntu again and am debating if I should spend the time to get Arch back to its former glory. But right now I'm on vacation and without my desktop. My netbook (Eee 1000HE) has windows and Ubuntu NBR, but NBR doesn't set well with my eyes (I hate the way it looks) and I crave a "true" distribution. I've used arch on here before but some stuff happened (accidentally installed a virus in windows while trying to find a crack to play morrowind) and in order to reinstall windows I got rid of Arch.

I love Arch, but I'm curious if installing it is really worth the hassle, I'm sure it'll be better than NBR, but I'd like some opinions. I'm sold on repos since I recently got a Neo Freerunner for Christmas and would like NeoTool, and pacman / yaourt are awesome. I'm curious more along the lines of speed, space efficiency, etc....

And so I turn to you my beloved Arch community, what say ye?

jasonwryan · 2009-12-27 05:33:06

Just do it. Given the space & power constraints of a netbook, you would be insane to contemplate running anything but Arch on it. Yes, it takes a little bit longer to set up - but all of that time is spent setting it up exactly the way that you want it: optimised for usability and speed.

tomd123 · 2009-12-27 05:51:24

I'll just say that you should try both, after a while make up your mind.

JohannesSM64 · 2009-12-27 06:40:27

Go for Arch.

der_joachim · 2009-12-27 08:21:29

My EEE900 is quite happy with Arch & LXDE. Startup time is about 6 seconds, whereas Ubuntu 8.04 took about 30. I liked NBR, but the decision to put it on top of Gnome was IMHO utterly insane. I did try NBR on arch, but in the end I installed LXDE and I never moved on.

SoleSoul · 2009-12-27 10:06:51

in order to reinstall windows I got rid of Arch.

Why would you have to get rid of arch in order to reinstall windows? You can wipe the windows partition, reinstall it, and then restore the boot loader through a live (cd) usb.

phar · 2009-12-27 12:07:10

You should think about what features you're looking for in a distribution. If you value ease of use and eyecandy over performance and the ability to customise/fiddle, go with Ubuntu. Personally after using Arch for a few months, any other distro feels too... clumsy.

If you want to have eyecandy while retaining minimal resource usage, have a look at using Arch+KDEmod. It gives you the beautiful KDE 4 environment and allows you to trim it to your needs.

.:B:. · 2009-12-27 14:02:56

jasonwryan wrote:

Just do it. Given the space & power constraints of a netbook, you would be insane to contemplate running anything but Arch on it.

Do you have any facts to back that up? Arch isn't exactly lightweight when it comes to its footprint...

Of course a full-blown Ubuntu install (even UNR) will be bigger than a base Arch install. But then again, that's a rather bare Arch install, and a full-featured Ubuntu install .

tomd123 wrote:

I'll just say that you should try both, after a while make up your mind.

Sanest advice one can give.

brianhanna · 2009-12-27 15:28:15

I think on a netbook Arch is about the best choice out there. You should have plenty of hard drive space. I have about 4gb worth of programs on mine but that's not your most limiting factor. I think those are the processor speed and screen size. With Arch you can at least optimize for those a little easier.

jasonwryan · 2009-12-27 19:11:26

B wrote:

jasonwryan wrote:
Just do it. Given the space & power constraints of a netbook, you would be insane to contemplate running anything but Arch on it.
Do you have any facts to back that up? Arch isn't exactly lightweight when it comes to its footprint...

Facts? ...and the point of facts is? I thought this was about us vs. them. Arch, with dwm and other lightweight applications has a much smaller footprint than UNR. Of course, Arch gives you the freedom to choose to stuff your drives to the very brim as well - should you so desire.

.:B:. · 2009-12-27 19:14:40

jasonwryan wrote:

B wrote:
jasonwryan wrote:
Just do it. Given the space & power constraints of a netbook, you would be insane to contemplate running anything but Arch on it.
Do you have any facts to back that up? Arch isn't exactly lightweight when it comes to its footprint...
Facts? ...and the point of facts is?

Well... What do you think?

Seriously.

I don't see why Arch would be the nec plus ultra on netbooks. You could easily install Ubuntu on it and replace Gnome with something lighter, throw out everything you don't need. Yes, it's the other way around.

eldragon · 2009-12-27 19:17:32

B wrote:

jasonwryan wrote:
B wrote:
Do you have any facts to back that up? Arch isn't exactly lightweight when it comes to its footprint...
Facts? ...and the point of facts is?
Well... What do you think?
Seriously.

keeping old packages might be convenient in the event of a broken upgrade. but it takes up space.

other than that, an arch install is as big as you want it to be.

jasonwryan · 2009-12-27 20:57:28

B wrote:

jasonwryan wrote:
B wrote:
Do you have any facts to back that up? Arch isn't exactly lightweight when it comes to its footprint...
Facts? ...and the point of facts is?
Well... What do you think?
Seriously.
I don't see why Arch would be the nec plus ultra on netbooks. You could easily install Ubuntu on it and replace Gnome with something lighter, throw out everything you don't need. Yes, it's the other way around.

Yes, you could. My posts were intended to suggest that, either way, it is a moot point. Without specifiying exactly what sort of set-up (thus providing the basis for legitimate -or fact based- comparison), this thread is just about opinion. I originally had Easy-Peasy on my EeePC and, while it is a good choice, ultimately I felt that it offered me less choice about how I could configure the machine.

You could run any distro on a netbook and be satisfied with it because it is so subjective. If the OP had asked for benchmarking stats etc, then this would have been a very different thread. As they did not, I advocated for Arch (semi-seriously) because it works for me and because I am well aware that whatever choice the OP makes, it is certainly not irrevocable. Hence, "Just do it."

Last edited by jasonwryan (2009-12-27 20:58:34)

Lexion · 2009-12-27 21:42:23

I have a Dell mini 10v (not the same as an eee, but still a netbook). I can't run anything other than arch (or maybe moblin) on it.

Wesman26 · 2009-12-28 02:40:46

SoleSoul wrote:

in order to reinstall windows I got rid of Arch.
Why would you have to get rid of arch in order to reinstall windows? You can wipe the windows partition, reinstall it, and then restore the boot loader through a live (cd) usb.

Yes, I know now. It was my own foolish mistake.

Oh, and I've decided to go with Arch. I feel I now have sufficient experience with NBR to say that I very much dislike it as opposed to my old Arch setup that I loved dearly. I think it's time to download another iso...:P

Thank you all for your opinions, what it really came down to was the customization and my own ability/desire to fiddle with my distribution. I've been away from Arch so long I'm afraid I had forgotten what it was all about.

Last edited by Wesman26 (2009-12-28 02:49:02)

Bolts · 2009-12-28 23:41:20

No need for an ISO. Try this: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ins … ting_Linux
That's how I got arch on my desktop, from a Fedora live usb.

barzam · 2009-12-29 06:14:58

You know it's very easy to get rid of the netbook UI in Ubuntu, just google it. you'll end up with the normal Gnome desktop.

Regarding the Ubuntu-Arch debate: I tried both on my Eee 900 and found Arch to be much more responsive. Everything worked without major hassle as well (and has for the last year). Also it's easier to add the stuff you need than to remove the stuff you don't, but ubuntu comes with a barebone install as well so you can achieve the same in Ubuntu if you really want to.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-12-27 05:14:38

Netbook Users: NBR vs Arch. Hit me.

#2 2009-12-27 05:33:06

Re: Netbook Users: NBR vs Arch. Hit me.

#3 2009-12-27 05:51:24

Re: Netbook Users: NBR vs Arch. Hit me.

#4 2009-12-27 06:40:27

Re: Netbook Users: NBR vs Arch. Hit me.

#5 2009-12-27 08:21:29

Re: Netbook Users: NBR vs Arch. Hit me.

#6 2009-12-27 10:06:51

Re: Netbook Users: NBR vs Arch. Hit me.

#7 2009-12-27 12:07:10

Re: Netbook Users: NBR vs Arch. Hit me.

#8 2009-12-27 14:02:56

Re: Netbook Users: NBR vs Arch. Hit me.

#9 2009-12-27 15:28:15

Re: Netbook Users: NBR vs Arch. Hit me.

#10 2009-12-27 19:11:26

Re: Netbook Users: NBR vs Arch. Hit me.

#11 2009-12-27 19:14:40

Re: Netbook Users: NBR vs Arch. Hit me.

#12 2009-12-27 19:17:32

Re: Netbook Users: NBR vs Arch. Hit me.

#13 2009-12-27 20:57:28

Re: Netbook Users: NBR vs Arch. Hit me.

#14 2009-12-27 21:42:23

Re: Netbook Users: NBR vs Arch. Hit me.

#15 2009-12-28 02:40:46

Re: Netbook Users: NBR vs Arch. Hit me.

#16 2009-12-28 23:41:20

Re: Netbook Users: NBR vs Arch. Hit me.

#17 2009-12-29 06:14:58

Re: Netbook Users: NBR vs Arch. Hit me.

Board footer