Results 11 to 19 of 19
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
- 07-22-2013 #11
If you want the eye candy out of the box then the KDE or Cinnamon editions are going to be your best bet, however, Xfce can be made to look pretty much how you want it but you have to work at it. My favourite Xfce plugin which has an Arch repository and there is even a way to give it a global menu if that's your thing.
Apparently Manjaro Xfce uses the Whisker menu by default. Nice.[/edit]
Last edited by elija; 07-22-2013 at 09:11 AM."I used to be with it, then they changed what it was.
Now what was it isn't it, and what is it is weird and scary to me.
It'll happen to you too."
The Fifth Continent
- 07-24-2013 #12
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
I moved from Windows to Ubuntu and found the GUI quite easy to use. I have started migrating to Arch because I want a totally cli interface. I used Ubuntu to get the very basics of Linux but have found that each distro does things a bit differently. I support Red Hat at my job so going between yum, apt-get and pacman can take a little to get used to.
But I encourage you to simply try Arch, Ubuntu, Fedora and any other distro out that there sparks your interest. Use these forums to ask questions if you get stuck along the way. I personally prefer Arch so that I can understand what is going on with the system. I would like to learn C so I can actually tweak the source code but have settled for Bash since that is more suited to a sysadmin, as I am.
Don't worry about which disk to use for an install. Just pick one and experiment. And have fun, too.
- 08-15-2013 #13
- Join Date
- Jan 2011
You could also try xfce, KDE, or any of the other desktop environments as well. Arch is what you make of it, and if you want it to be more like Ubuntu there's nothing at all stopping you.
- 09-23-2013 #14
I've tried just about every desktop environment that's offered and really didn't care for any of em' except for MATE. One thing that's keeping me from even thinking about giving Arch a try is that it's gone totally 64 bit and my laptops are only 32 bit machines so no Arch for me, not on these laptops.
So far Point Linux with MATE has been very light on the resources. It only takes around 165MB to run the desktop, which isn't bad IMHO.
- 09-23-2013 #15
FAQ reasons for not using Arch include ...
you require support for an architecture other than x86_64, i686 or ARM.
- 09-23-2013 #16
Just downloaded the latest Distro of Arch and it wouldn't boot to the Live USB. Besides, I'm perfectly happy with Point Linux, no real need to move to Arch or other non-Debian based OS since Debian is what I'm use to and what I enjoy.
- 09-26-2013 #17
- 12-01-2013 #18
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
thank you for all
- 12-17-2013 #19
Arch is bleeding edge, so you must be prepared for things to break sometimes. It's a rolling release, which saves you from having to do major upgrades, but "rolling release" sometimes interacts with "bleeding edge" in unexpected ways.
It's considered an expert's system, so it's excellent for further learning. It's minimalist - no bloat. It doesn't come with a default desktop so you can install the one you want.
It has a very strong community, so you have to be prepared to do things "the Arch way". I couldn't warm to it, but perhaps that's just me!"I'm just a little old lady; don't try to dazzle me with jargon!"