Dedicated gaming machine or dual boot is a way to go.

I played steam on Arch and one update of OS and game stops working.

Despite claims, Windows gets better outcomes. I played a lot of World of Tanks Blitz and the same hardware on Linux was significantly lower graphics quality and FPS compared to Windows.

Windows is better for gaming than Linux.

With Linux you have to be ready to play only what works.

Great illustration.

Check UK stories.

People leaving next to turbines hate them due to noise pollution.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Lol,

Batteries are perfect for load balancing.

Please, know your facts

Total is $398 bundle with lower end fan. It is comparable.

The choice will be driven by hardware characteristics for me. Power vs performance questions. If performance is roughly the same, then I will prefer lower power consumption.

Reaction to this post is quite telling of audience.

A few years from now we may be seeing US tariffs on these just like EVs today.

China is developing fast and it took US trade war seriously.

A couple generations don’t mean much anymore.

Performance gains have been slow.

I’d rather understand where exactly is its performance in comparison to AMD and Intel.

Then I can make a call if it is worth it.

After all there’s plenty of Raspberry Pi level performance and people are happy with it as long as price is right.

Does it run Linux?

Give us some links for combo of motherboard, CPU and fan. I assume it needs a fan.

Russians predicted this before special military operation.

For example, Putin mentions this outcome many years ago, if Russia decides to take on Ukraine.

World is on path of escalation.

Someone explained it to me this way:

If knife is a newest feature, then

• cutting edge has newest features
• bleeding edge bleeds from knife cuts, because it doesn’t have the newest features.

Any snapshot distribution by definition is on bleeding edge.

Any rolling release is by definition on the cutting edge.

I had sluggish experience with SUSE. Updates were slow. Installation was very slow.

Starting apps was not as snappy.

Promise of snapshots was great, but not unique.

Overall slower than my regular distro experience killed it for me.

I simply asked myself: will it bug me every time I use the laptop? The answer was yes, and decided to end it.

Installer is a big part.

2nd biggest part is how system is configured.

Debian is not afraid to create its own version of default configuration. Take some mail software as example.

Arch on the other hand is most likely just going to ship original application configuration.

Debian might be nice and easy, until configuration change is necessary. Suddenly, original application documentation doesn’t apply. Debian documentation may be obsolete or absent. And that is the beginning of reading all of the configuration files. Normally, it is not a problem until something like email system configuration is necessary.

That’s when Arch philosophy of making fewest changes to software comes to shine. Original documentation usually works and applies well.

Years ago major upgrades and to lesser degree even minor upgrades made me to give up trying to keep installation running. I don’t even remember if it was Red Hat or Debian.

Eventually I realized, that I like running newest version of Desktop and I ran into cases of getting frustrated with lack of newer versions, which had fixes for issues I ran into. Then I realized that best wiki was not a snapshot distribution.

In the end I tried rolling distribution and remain happy for years.

Debian or derived distribution is easiest to get google help for and it is the simplest choice for me, when running on the cloud.

Although, Alpine is pushing through containers quite forcefully.

KDE was far less stable for me compared to Gnome. In the end, my patience with KDE lasted for 1 week.

KDE is more exiting and familiar, but it had no tangible advantage in the end for me.