I’m not a computer expert or planning to be. I’m just a computer user, a coder, a gamer, and I think I will get the opportunity to afford cheaper PCs if I use the Arch distro from Linux which is very lightweight and fast. I’ve heard Microsoft forces you to bloat your PC with win11.
Just install Debian
I don’t think Arch is the distro I would go for if I just wanted speed. I suppose it depends on speed of what—generally systemd Linux will boot noticeably faster than Windows, and non-systemd Linux boots noticeably faster than systemd Linux—but once you’re booted up, I don’t think there’s a significant performance difference. Arch is a Linux distro that uses systemd so it’d be the middle option if you’re wanting fast boots. There are other minimalist distros too, some of which end up in arguably faster systems, but Arch is probably the easiest of the minimalist distros due to being well-documented and supported. But the reason for going for a minimalist distro is usually customisability, not performance. On modern hardware the performance difference is negligible. On very old hardware, you should be looking for another distro made specifically for old hardware (I don’t think Arch even supports 32-bit).
I switched with barely any knowledge, just an interest in the field, and a lot of free time. I believe that it is possible for everyone who really wants to use it.
I’m not a computer expert or planning to be.
Then don’t use Arch. Seriously, where are you guys even finding out about Arch, much less wanting to try it? Whoever told you Arch would be a good fit, don’t listen to them on anything Linux-related again. Arch is not for beginners, and it’s not for people who don’t want to learn the ins and outs of their computer because they’re having to dig into the guts to fix it whenever an update breaks something. Arch is a fine distro for people who WANT those things, need bleeding edge hardware support, and don’t mind having to fix it whenever it breaks. It doesn’t sound like that’s at all what you’re looking for though.
It’s likely idiots confusing normal arch and things like endeavour or cachy.
Pre built arch distros are legitimately as bullet proof as something like mint. Everything’s guis, everything’s pre done by the distro mainter, and you basically have to do nothing.
This isn’t 2003 anymore. Arch based distros dont just randomly explode any more or less then fedora or Ubuntu or popos at this point.
For heaven sake steamos is arch. Arch is unironically likely the single most commonly used distro for new users of the last few years because of the steamdeck.
A new user shouldn’t be doing arch from scratch, but a distro is a distro they don’t just go boom because of random happenstance.
I don’t know about Steam OS but with EndeavourOS, you still have to keep an eye on the Arch news and make any manual interventions that are required. If you don’t, you can end up with a broken system. If you do that, it’s utterly reliable.
I can second CachyOS. The last time it caused me headaches was kinda my own fault. VirtualBox needed some dependencies which I didn’t read thru, then it installed an older kernel version for some god damn reason and I lost my ethernet driver. Took me quite some time to figure it out, but as I said, not Cachy’s fault!
I wouldn’t say arch and arch-based are the same thing. If someone specifically asks about arch, I’d be inclined to advise them it’s not suitable for people not interested in reading and learning a bit. But I also agree arch-based are pretty solid and much more beginner friendly.
I mean try it if you are curious nobody is holding you back but personally recommend something easier to start with?
I think the whole “XYZ Distro is faster!” arguments are overblown. Most distros will be fast enough on reasonably modern hardware, and any performance gains will usually come with compromises and/or lots of tinkering. Generally speaking a standard arch install (that is, you’ve not manually configured anything) will be roughly the same speed as a more beginner friendly distros like Mint and Fedora (which is still more lightweight than Windows).
To answer the question in the title: Yes you’ll survive the CLI. Just give yourself time to learn the fundamentals and treat it as learning a programming language. More user friendly distros generally don’t expect you to use the CLI, which is part of the reason they are recommended.
Any linux distro is significantly more lightweight than windows. But I’d say that there is not much difference between arch and for example the most bloated distro: ubuntu.
If you are a coder, the CLI will be easy. Most of the time the use of CLI is comparable to a single line in your code where you call a function with some parameters.
But arch is difficult for a beginner. (I wrote some more about my experience with it here: https://lemy.lol/post/61578059/24360161 )
If you have time, interest and discipline to read the documentation and learn a lot, then arch is great.
If you just want to use a Linux OS, install Mint and just use it. It’s no big deal, just a normal OS. It’s very intuitive, low friction and no microslop bloat.
If your main concern is boat, you will likely be fine with any Linux distribution. There are more beginner friendly ones out there.
That said, if you play lots of PC games, even if they’re Linux compatible, switching away from Windows isn’t going to magically double your FPS. Hardware still matters.
My main concern is also boat.
Ahhh look it has windows!!
That does look quite threatening
I’m not a computer expert or planning to be.
I don’t use Arch, but my perception is that it is meant for people who want to be computer experts.
Do you have any reason not to use Linux Mint? As others have mentioned, Mint has 95% of the benefits over Windows that Arch has, and Mint is designed for folks who just want to use their computer.
Arch is for people who want to think they are computer experts.
Debian/Fedora are for the experts that have moved beyond reading release notes.
Linus Torvalds uses Fedora last I heard, LTT built him a beast pc, take that for what it is worth. He likes to test the kernel and he says Fedora is most accommodating for him.
Arch-based I find is a good middle-ground. I use CachyOS and it’s more or less preconfigured, there’s a selection of packages preinstalled, but it’s still pretty baseline so you can build it up to whatever you want. There’s probably enough to get you going out-of-the-box if you’re new.
But yeah if you’re brand new to Linux there’s distros designed for that audience and you can always hop away to something when you’re ready or if your use-case changes.
Arch is not a distro for beginners. One day you’ll wreck it.
If you just want it to work, I would advise you try these and stick with the one you like the most:
- Mint (Cinnamon)
- Zorin (Gnome)
- Fedora Workstation
- Fedora KDE Plasma
- Ubuntu Desktop (Gnome)
- Kubuntu (KDE)
- Aurora (Gnome)
- Bluefin (KDE)
- Bazzite (KDE & Gnome)
All my family’s PCs run linux. We use Bazzite for gaming and Aurora for work. Easier and more reliable than Windows.
OpenSuse Leap (or if you’re adventurous, Tumbleweed) can safely be placed here too.
With Fedora & Ubuntu you can also switch between desktop environments without re-installing
Arch is incredibly user friendly - gets completely out of the way of the user so they can do exactly what they want how they want.
Arch is not very beginner friendly - depending on what you consider a beginner, it will not hold your hand except for the install process where it provides a walkthrough script. If you have configured Linux before it will be familiar but you may have to read documentation. It’s not designed to be difficult, but it is designed for people who know why the choices they are making matter. If you do not understand then there will be a gap and that may feel a bit frustrating, but it is on you to bridge that gap.
Arch isn’t exactly intended for beginners, and the “windows is more bloated than Linux” thing applies for pretty much every Linux distro.
If you’re willing to spend a significant amount of time learning and tinkering, a distro like Arch could provide what you need. However, if you’re just starting out, you might want to start with something easier. Distros like Linux Mint or Fedora are plenty lightweight compared to Windows, and they require much less learning to get started actually using your computer.
As for “which distro allows you to use the cheapest PC”, this mainly comes down to how much effort you’re willing to put in, not necessarily the distro you use. At a certain point, a desktop computer will “just work” for basic desktop tasks, the distro doesn’t change much there.
My son had a netbook with win10 and office. This ate 27 of the 32 GB the thing had. An “important update” of 8 GB did not work, putting the device in a download and fail cycle.
I installed Linux on this machine - Kubuntu, with LibreOffice and a load of extra software. Took only about 4 GB of space.
Are you saying Kubuntu is not as bloated as it looks? And I think Fedora will be smaller than that?
Don’t know about Fedora. And you would have to do odd things to bloat any Linux distribution anywhere near a Winslop system.
Honestly, for any semi-modern hardware, the different amount of “bloat” between any two distros is small enough to be irrelevent for most everything you would do on a computer up to and including gaming, especially compared against Windows. Yes, Arch may be less bloated than, say, Ubuntu, but are you really going to notice or care that your system is idling at 1.2 GB of RAM usage instead of 800 MB?
I have an old netbook that ran win10 poorly. I have since put Debian on it and it’s been great.
If you want to lessen the barrier of entry to Arch, maybe try CachyOS. It’s Arch based and very close to normal Arch, but has some conveniences. Might be worth a look. It’s also got it’s own CPU specific repositories (same content as Arch), giving even more performance.
Thanks, I will look into that distro!
no you wont. if your a normal human wanting to use linux just use smth nornal like ubuntu, or mint.
