The Cozy Win7 Thread

[Nosteru]

Hello Again Fellow Community!

This Thread is about Win7. You can free talk anything about that OS.
Be technical issues you need help, the future and past of the OS, some fun story you want to share, your opinion about it, your advice, useful apps and such.

This is the place for everyone interrested or against Win7.

Just please be polite and try to respect eachother.

To Moderators: On this forum OFF-Topic comments are allowed for polite and healthy discussion.

Thanks
Eru

[andreasaspenberg575]

windows 8 works, it is just that its interface is complicated to use.

[Nosteru]

尺.ㄥ丨几ᗪ乇尺 eredeti hozzászólása:

snip

Im having an old hardware i5-3470, RX 580 (4GB), 16GB RAM.
I also have an i5-4690 haswell build ready if this actualy die or something.

Why Mint worst in performance? I wonder how bad could be in percent?
Im having AMD GPU what should work well because of native Vulcan.

Also note I can sacrifice some performance for an all around good OS distro like Mint.

[andreasaspenberg575]

i just found out that in order to watch the paralympics closing ceremony i need windows 11.

[Thermal Lance]

Nosteru eredeti hozzászólása:

尺.ㄥ丨几ᗪ乇尺 eredeti hozzászólása:

snip

Im having an old hardware i5-3470, RX 580 (4GB), 16GB RAM.
I also have an i5-4690 haswell build ready if this actualy die or something.

Why Mint worst in performance? I wonder how bad could be in percent?
Im having AMD GPU what should work well because of native Vulcan.

Also note I can sacrifice some performance for an all around good OS distro like Mint.

Mint is worst in performance because it relies on older packages that might not be the best available version for your specific hardware.

[A&A]

But there is a Debian based edition with rolling release updates.

idk, Mint compared to other distros seems overrated.

[r.linder]

Nosteru eredeti hozzászólása:

尺.ㄥ丨几ᗪ乇尺 eredeti hozzászólása:

snip

Im having an old hardware i5-3470, RX 580 (4GB), 16GB RAM.
I also have an i5-4690 haswell build ready if this actualy die or something.

Why Mint worst in performance? I wonder how bad could be in percent?
Im having AMD GPU what should work well because of native Vulcan.

Also note I can sacrifice some performance for an all around good OS distro like Mint.

Mint has less performance due to it being intentionally held back, as it's an LTS release and not a rolling release like the Debian edition of Mint. Rolling releases get newer drivers and packages which can bring better performance, which is why Arch outperforms Windows and Mint.

It's not much of a difference, mind you, with your hardware the performance won't be noticeable because you'll already be limited by the CPU and/or GPU, a few frames at worst compared to Windows.

For Vulkan it doesn't really matter whether you have an NVIDIA GPU or AMD GPU unless it's REALLY old, Vulkan works well on both, and as of the latest Linux drivers, NVIDIA is pretty much back on top, more-so if RT settings are used (though not relevant in your case) as AMD's RT performance in Linux is considerably worse than it is on Windows according to Phoronix's benchmarks. For standard raster performance, the gaps are basically the same as they are on Windows, with GeForce nominally ahead where it usually is. Vulkan was based on an AMD API but NVIDIA supports it well enough that it doesn't matter anymore.

A&A eredeti hozzászólása:

But there is a Debian based edition with rolling release updates.

idk, Mint compared to other distros seems overrated.

It kind of is, I started on Mint because everyone recommended it but I didn't really like it, I moved on to Pop!_OS within 48 hours and had better performance, and then moved onto Arch after a few months.

[Nosteru]

Thermal Lance eredeti hozzászólása:

Nosteru eredeti hozzászólása:

Im having an old hardware i5-3470, RX 580 (4GB), 16GB RAM.
I also have an i5-4690 haswell build ready if this actualy die or something.

Why Mint worst in performance? I wonder how bad could be in percent?
Im having AMD GPU what should work well because of native Vulcan.

Also note I can sacrifice some performance for an all around good OS distro like Mint.

Mint is worst in performance because it relies on older packages that might not be the best available version for your specific hardware.

You mean my specific 7+ years old (I count RX 580 GPU as this the youngest) hardware?

[Nosteru]

I dont know. This is why Linux is so scary. I mean all Linux users is even more difficult. You are all recommend distros around the world. Because this good for that, that bad for this, this better than that, but worst as this, but overal welcome on Linux. :D

[r.linder]

Nosteru eredeti hozzászólása:

Thermal Lance eredeti hozzászólása:

Mint is worst in performance because it relies on older packages that might not be the best available version for your specific hardware.

You mean my specific 7+ years old (I count RX 580 GPU as this the youngest) hardware?

The RX 580 is old but still gets more performance with more recent drivers, especially Linux drivers

Not sure how much of a difference it would be as far as numbers but probably not much or enough to really worry about?

[r.linder]

Nosteru eredeti hozzászólása:

I dont know. This is why Linux is so scary. I mean all Linux users is even more difficult. You are all recommend distros around the world. Because this good for that, that bad for this, this better than that, but worst as this, but overal welcome on Linux. :D

It's kind of the beauty of FOSS, because you have so many options, but it's barely controlled chaos as it isn't managed by a single corporation like Windows.

There's hundreds of distributions but the majority flock to less than 50 and the majority of them are (or are based upon) Ubuntu, Debian, or Arch. Or they're standalone and not actually based on anything.

There's also not that many differences between them, you can use any distro for pretty much anything, the differences are mostly what's included with the OS out of the box and what's offered in the installation process, what makes one intrinsically easier from another is how much work goes into the setup and how often you're forced to use a CLI (terminal)

For those that are familiar enough with CLI because they already used it on Windows, they can pretty much jump straight into an Arch distro like Manjaro or CachyOS because the use of CLI isn't really extensive, the difficulty that sets Arch apart from 'easy' distros like Mint is the fact that there aren't GUI package managers by default with Arch, you just run commands instead, which is as simple as:

sudo pacman -Ss [keyword] (to search for packages based on a keyword)
sudo pacman -S [package-name] (to install a package with the exact name)

or

yay -Ss [keyword]
yay -S [package-name]

Personally I found installing packages through pacman or yay to be easier than the defaults used with Ubuntu distros, there's usually more steps involved, the Arch User Repository makes getting packages pretty effortless on Arch, it's just as easy as a GUI, it just looks rudimentary.

[Thermal Lance]

Nosteru eredeti hozzászólása:

Thermal Lance eredeti hozzászólása:

Mint is worst in performance because it relies on older packages that might not be the best available version for your specific hardware.

You mean my specific 7+ years old (I count RX 580 GPU as this the youngest) hardware?

You asked why Mint can have worst performance. I answered.

If it does not apply to you then HURRAY! YAY! YOUPI!

[A&A]

I find the paradox that you have a lot of options, but actually you don't, because whether it's Debian, Fedora or Arch, they work in almost the same way. So if you know how to work with Debian (based), you won't have as much difficulty using the other two types.

[r.linder]

A&A eredeti hozzászólása:

I find the paradox that you have a lot of options, but actually you don't, because whether it's Debian, Fedora or Arch, they work in almost the same way. So if you know how to work with Debian (based), you won't have as much difficulty using the other two types.

Yeah there's 600+ distros but the vast majority are based on something else and have very minor differences, because that's FOSS.

For example, Arch Linux initially released in 2002, and since then there's been dozens of derivatives, and there are currently around 30 or more active distros based on it, at least in part;

ArchBang, ArchEX, Archman, Arch Linux 32, Arch Linux ARM, ArchStrike, ArcoLInux, Artix Linux, BlackArch Linux, Bluestar Linux, ChimeraOS, CachyOS, Ctlos Linux, Crystal Linux, EndeavourOS, Garuda Linux, Hyperbola, instantOS, KaOS, Manjaro Linux, MSYS2, Obarun, Parabola, Parchlinux, RebornOS, Snal Linux, SteamOS 3, SystemRescue, TeArch Linux, and UBOS

are all active distributions based on Arch Linux and there are a lot of inactive distributions that haven't been mentioned because they aren't being actively developed anymore, easily another 50+ distros. The differences between all of them are usually so minor that only a few become relevant enough to be popular and stay that way, the only reason why some of them like EndeavourOS have been relevant is because vanilla Arch doesn't have a GUI installer and most people find archinstall to be daunting. Because that's the only difference, the installation.

[Thermal Lance]

尺.ㄥ丨几ᗪ乇尺 eredeti hozzászólása:

A&A eredeti hozzászólása:

I find the paradox that you have a lot of options, but actually you don't, because whether it's Debian, Fedora or Arch, they work in almost the same way. So if you know how to work with Debian (based), you won't have as much difficulty using the other two types.

Yeah there's 600+ distros but the vast majority are based on something else and have very minor differences, because that's FOSS.

For example, Arch Linux initially released in 2002, and since then there's been dozens of derivatives, and there are currently around 30 or more active distros based on it, at least in part;

ArchBang, ArchEX, Archman, Arch Linux 32, Arch Linux ARM, ArchStrike, ArcoLInux, Artix Linux, BlackArch Linux, Bluestar Linux, ChimeraOS, CachyOS, Ctlos Linux, Crystal Linux, EndeavourOS, Garuda Linux, Hyperbola, instantOS, KaOS, Manjaro Linux, MSYS2, Obarun, Parabola, Parchlinux, RebornOS, Snal Linux, SteamOS 3, SystemRescue, TeArch Linux, and UBOS

are all active distributions based on Arch Linux and there are a lot of inactive distributions that haven't been mentioned because they aren't being actively developed anymore, easily another 50+ distros. The differences between all of them are usually so minor that only a few become relevant enough to be popular and stay that way, the only reason why some of them like EndeavourOS have been relevant is because vanilla Arch doesn't have a GUI installer and most people find archinstall to be daunting. Because that's the only difference, the installation.

You should actually use Endeavour.

[r.linder]

Thermal Lance eredeti hozzászólása:

尺.ㄥ丨几ᗪ乇尺 eredeti hozzászólása:

Yeah there's 600+ distros but the vast majority are based on something else and have very minor differences, because that's FOSS.

For example, Arch Linux initially released in 2002, and since then there's been dozens of derivatives, and there are currently around 30 or more active distros based on it, at least in part;

ArchBang, ArchEX, Archman, Arch Linux 32, Arch Linux ARM, ArchStrike, ArcoLInux, Artix Linux, BlackArch Linux, Bluestar Linux, ChimeraOS, CachyOS, Ctlos Linux, Crystal Linux, EndeavourOS, Garuda Linux, Hyperbola, instantOS, KaOS, Manjaro Linux, MSYS2, Obarun, Parabola, Parchlinux, RebornOS, Snal Linux, SteamOS 3, SystemRescue, TeArch Linux, and UBOS

are all active distributions based on Arch Linux and there are a lot of inactive distributions that haven't been mentioned because they aren't being actively developed anymore, easily another 50+ distros. The differences between all of them are usually so minor that only a few become relevant enough to be popular and stay that way, the only reason why some of them like EndeavourOS have been relevant is because vanilla Arch doesn't have a GUI installer and most people find archinstall to be daunting. Because that's the only difference, the installation.

You should actually use Endeavour.

I did, I used it for over a year, and everyone that knows vanilla Arch knows that it's just a rebrand of vanilla Arch with a GUI installer to make things easier. There's no other notable key differences other than the fact that EOS is more streamlined, quicker to install and setup.

If Arch had the same installation method then EOS either wouldn't exist, or would've stayed in obscurity like most Arch distros. There's just nothing else to really note about it, it's basically just Arch for beginners and I was a beginner, so I used EOS.