Even though different Linux distros are often fairly close in terms of real-life performance and all of them have a clear advantage over Windows in many use cases, we can’t reject the fact that Arch Linux has undoubtedly won the competition. And now I’m so glad to have another reason to proudly say “I use Arch btw”
::: It was a joke of course :::
Does anyone have a similar video but only for graphics. I want to know more about the floating point ops, OpenGL and DirectX with Wine compared across those 4.
I don’t remember such videos. Though there should be Windows vs Linux benckmarks for popular games that support both operating systems (natively or with Wine)
God damn Arch users. /s
Windows just losing in nearly every metric. Why am I not surprised? However fedora? What’s going on?
selinux probably
Jesus
Installation size:
Fedora - 7.7 GB
Arch - 45 GB
Ubuntu - 49.2 GB
Windows - 72 GB
How the hell is Fedora so small? That’s insane.
What are these sizes from? All my Linux installs start with <20G root disks and end up with some spare.
And Windows at 72G? Whilst it’s more than Linux it’s not that much.
I think the videomaker may be failing to account for swap space. The latest Fedora releases use zram (swap that lives in memory instead of hard disk) by default, while the rest do not. Windows in particular does not take 72G and tends to be aggressive in swap allocation. The fact that he presents this data as “free space available” adds confusions while seemingly burying the simplest answer.
“Swap space that lives in RAM” No… just … no. Swap is for when RAM runs out/low. It literally cannot live in RAM…
Are you familiar with ZRAM ? I do not understand your certainty that I am incorrect.
He just look at how much empty space the file explorer showed… I don’t know how good of an indication that it is. The OS may choose to conserve a decent amount of space for things like swap, hibernation file etc.
Also, preinstalled apps.
I mean, I think it’s fair to lump that all together as space taken by the system, no?
It’s not like you can use that space for storing files
How the hell is arch so large? My laptop is only 27GB and that includes all user data and several years of crap being installed as well as several docker images. A fresh install should rival that fedora install.
Yea I don’t understand either
Ya, I am not going to trust anything coming out of a post that cites that numbers for install size. As others have said, even the Windows one is bonkers.
As an EOS user myself, I love the conclusion but have no faith at all in the methodology.
If you want an article to make Linux look good, a test of the new Damn Small Linux would be interesting. It fits a basic version of practically every program you need into a 700 MB system. It also includes the APT package manager and full access to the Debian 12 stable repos so you can easily add anything you want on top of that.
It would be interesting to know what footprint it would require to run the “tests” he runs here.
FreeBSD’s boot speed is just behind arch a little bit (on HDD).
But Windows 8 (with fast startup) on an core 2 duo machine with 1G of RAM boot faster than any debian, ubuntu. (the boot speed decrease when you upgrade hardware lol :) )
I had a Windows 8 machine (8G of RAM) in the past. It booted in like 15 seconds. But on Windows 10 or Linux it took more than a minute. Why didn’t Microsoft brought this feature to Windows 10?
What feature???
This very fast startup thing. On Windows 10 and 11 it doesn’t really work
No it works. When on my windows 10 machine boots in < 15s. When off it takes a minute (HDD)
You know Arch users can just tattoo it on their forehead. That way they don’t even have to say ‘btw, I use arch’. People can read it on their face.
Nah it’s fun to say it yourself. And it’s even better to say it when there’s an advantage over all the other distros
Isn’t that trope getting a little bit boring?
