Best looking and Fastest runing Linux Distro

Hey Guys,
I'm currently looking for a new Distro to use on my upcomming XPS M1530 that can run Compiz-Fuzion and of course has support for the 256mb 8600 GT graphics card. I'd like something easily customizable but also something that wont take me over 6 hours to install. I am not so grand at the Console, but I would love to learn . I prefer Gnome for the desktop enviro but then again if anything runs faster and can have a better look I would prefer that! I care alot about the looks of my desktop as I like to have a special theme and everything of that sort because hey its Linux I should be able to!
Any reccomendations will be taken into account.
I'm currently thinking about Slackware or ArchLinux
Both seem pretty fun to mess around with and I'd love to give them a try
But then again anything else could be great too!
I'm currently running Ubuntu, and I've tested Mandriva so neither of those will do
Thanks!

 

Heres a screen shot of kdemod and arch:

 

Looks pretty kool minus the silver/grey firefox
Not a mac fan =P

 

Ubuntu
PCLinuxOS
Fedora
Debian (more for advanced users)

 

Debian (some customization reqd)

What was wrong with Ubuntu ?

Gnome can be customized to hearts content, see eg.
http://www.gnome-look.org/

 

I would say they are all fast and that they are all customizable to look cool. Whats cool about linux is that "the best" is different in everyones eyes, and it doesnt matter because you can customize them all to make it your own.

 

Looks good....Prol91.....have you run VirtualBox on Arch?

I would say try Arch first....it's fast I'm told, and bleeding edge

 

yeah thats what im thinking about trying
just gonna have to find a good tutorial on it =]
which i think there is one on here somewhere

 

+1 for Arch. Anyone who reads the Linux forums constantly knows I always recommend Arch!

 

And I always back them up

 

Don't mean to start a holy war, but can someone explain in a couple of sentences why Arch is so great? Is it better than Debian? If so, why? Or is it just a matter of personal preference?

 

LostDestiny: I tried SuSE, Debian, Ubuntu, Slackware, and Gentoo, and I think Debian-based distros are superior with all the advanced package management, and thousands of thousands of ready to use software.

Slackware is not even close regarding the above: No package management per se, few software packages available. Plus, if you're into GNOME, you should know Slackware doesn't even include it. It's all about KDE.

 

Try Sabayon for some eyecandy and KDE. Check out Ultimate Edition 1.7. It is Ubuntu based but loaded with all the goodies a debian based distro can plus its has the largest collection of first-person shooter games for Linux in its repo's. There is even an option once it is installed to choose either gaming or standard setup from the repos. If you can use ubuntu, you can fly this bird.

 

- It lets you build a system from scratch to suite just your needs and just your hardware (where as in other distros like ubuntu, they install tons of drivers for different hardware)

- Consequently it is really fast

- Package management is great, user community has awesome stuff. All the packages are processor optimized so everything is more snappy.

- There is no kde/gnome/XXX version, you decide what you want

- All configuration is kept and done via one file "rc.conf", thats it. No separate files for different functions.

- You learn a lot during the installation process

 

One word. Speed.

 

Other distributions don't "install" the drivers, the kernel just doesn't load them as modules. What you may be referring to is the loading of unnecessary services such as Bluetooth.

Any Debian-based distro uses the exact same APT package management; and the user community is applicable to all distributions. Basically, all the other popular distributions have these features.

Again, this is not unique to Arch. Any distribution can do this.

Interestingly. The problem I see though is that this does not follow the traditional modular design of Linux. This is monolithic and unified. What happens if this file becomes corrupted or unusable?

Your points regarding Arch really aren't that convincing in getting a user to invest 2 hours of his/her time. I'm not blasting Arch, but the trouble with recommending certain distros over others is that very few of them offer anything different; that is, features like Ubuntu's Restricted Drivers Manager or upcoming Bulletproof X. Thus I am surprised that you don't find it difficult to recommend a bland distribution like Arch.

 

Anyone know fo a Tut to install arch?
also is arch still being updated?

 

Arch is a great option, and you'll learn a lot about linux when you install it, I'd recommend it to anyone . What was wrong with Ubuntu? Also, Xubuntu + Themes + Compiz would be really great, and very fast.

What the hell are you talking about? Slackware has a lot of stuff behind it, version 8(2000-2001) is still suported, and it does have a package manager, and everything is included.
I'm not saying it's the best, but it's not far from it. Arch is completly your own distro, you can take 100 identical systems with arch and they won't be the sae, and it's fast as hell.

BTW, here's a few sources on Slackware.
http://slackbook.org/
http://slackbasics.org/
http://slackbuilds.org/

 

Yeah man, Arch means Fast in Swa-hee-lee Zenwalk is based on Slack, is fast and easy to use....uses Xfce.

 

@zoid
No I havent tried virtualbox on arch since its a slow computer

@lostdestiny
Just go to the wiki they have everything
Heres the beginners guide
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginner%27s_Guide

 

Yeah I printed out the beginners guide
and used one of my binders from school
which is just about over =D
to make it into a book haha
I'll have fun figuring it out
I figure a 20 gb partition will be enough for Arch right?
(200th post!! =])

 

do i download both the core, and FTP install and burn to CD? I'm getting my laptop soon so I figure I should try it out

 

haha well if u want to install over an FTP to download the files during installation which i assume almost noone does then u want the FTP
but if u want a normal install
then get the Core =]

 

lol, wasn't sure...haha

 

hmm, so i want to DL the x86_64 since my comp has a Core 2 Duo...right?

 

Yes that was my understanding

 

yeah, sorry for all the somewhat stupid questions, I'm not the most linux savvy person around, but I figure Arch will be a good learning tool for me, plus its lightweight and fast

 

Yeah did u read over the beginner tutorial?
I printed all 58 pages out to guide me through the install
I suggest u do the same or use your desktop to read off of while installing on your laptop

 

Sidux is faster and better looking. And they have a user freindly wiki on their site.

 

Does debian/sidux use the .rpm files
I really dont like those

 

i haven't looked over all of it yet, but I will be printing it when I get my lappy.

 

i'll probably just stick to Ubuntu, as I won't really have the time to install Arch.

 

I ran back and forth between two desktops to install Arch! Wasn't really too hard.

 

No, both of them use DEB.

 

What's the difference between the Core and FTP installs? Which is 'easier'? And, which filesystem should I choose? Are any of them significantly or noticeably better than ext3?

 

Geez the installation guide for Arch scares me. How long does it take to get thru all that?

 

I guess that's why it's for the 'competent' linux user. I read all 58 pages and in the end I was like... Uh, come again?

 

Yes...very intimidating.

 

Contrary to advice on this thread, Arch is not a beginner-friendly distribution. Whoever is giving this advice might as well also advise the installation of Linux From Scratch. Sure it'll teach you a lot; but chances are that you won't have a running system by the time you've lost patience with the installer.

 

So, Bog, will 64-bit Arch have any significant increase in speed over 64-bit Gnome Hardy Heron?

 

Assuming you use GNOME as your desktop for Arch, there will be a noticeable increase in speed. Its not a major increase, but it is noticeable. Whether this performance gain is worth the sacrifice in ease of use, beginner friendliness, and functionality is up to the user and the level of that user's Linux "skillz".

In my opinion though, Ubuntu is the way to go. You can tweak it for performance and come really close to Arch's performance, without suffering much in other departments. Linux has amazing flexibility, which makes differences between distributions very small. Only distros that come up with their own features are unique. Fedora and Ubuntu are examples of this.

 

I really liked Sidux....a lot, but I insist on OTB support for my wireless so I don't get kicked offline during an upgrade....you can pretty much rely on the 'buntu's and now I think Mandriva for that as well as a few others now incl OpenSolaris (which needs a little maturity but is stable/usable)

 

Is Arch really that much faster than Ubuntu "out of box"?

 

Well, Arch isn't "Out-of-the-box", it is a build it your self type of distro.

 

It is noticeably faster in terms of boot time and opening applications, but this is just because they've gutted the distro and made it lean. Sure its faster than Ubuntu, but it lacks features. In my opinion, this is an unacceptable compromise. Anyone can achieve the advantages that Arch brings. You might as well go for Linux From Scratch if you're interested in speed.

 

What features does Arch lack? As far as i've heard it doesn't lack features, you just have to add it yourself. Sounds like a great learning experience.

 

Out of the box, arch doesn't include much of anything, but your right, you have to add them.

 

im in the same boat as the OP. ive been using ubuntu since gutsy. i was hoping that hardy would make it so my wireless would work (rtl8187b). Well it did, but my system also crashed about 5 times an hour with hardy. So for now im steering away from them until they figure out the pulse audio and flash things. How long is an average Arch install? Does it support my Wireless card? Arch is pretty much all that im hearing people advocate. Speed is nice, and i like gnome. I dont know theres just something about KDE i dont like and ive never used xFace. As long as it doesnt remind me of vista ill be fine with it. Thanks for any help, now to read the arch manual.