Windows vs Linux: A Year of Using Both Operating Systems
arch linux gaming on linux linux daily driver linux performance linux vs windows gaming operating systems comparison windows windows vs linux
After using a dual-boot setup with Linux and Windows 11 for a year, I tested both operating systems for tasks ranging from gaming to content creation, software testing, and running virtual machines. Windows excels at letting you plug-and-run anything you want, but when it comes to complex setups or technical workflows like GPU passthrough, Linux offers superior speed, flexibility, and reliability.
Installing Windows vs Arch Linux: A Direct Comparison
At the start of 2025, I began tweaking my Windows 11 setup to reduce background services and gain more control over the system. Some tweaks helped, while others broke tools I used daily, which pushed me to look for alternatives. I was already familiar with Linux from development and brief Ubuntu use, but this time Arch Linux stood out because of its philosophy. With an Intel i5 system, an AMD RX 580, and two separate drives, I set up a dual-boot and used both Windows and Linux side by side for a full year.
Here’s a side-by-side view of how Arch Linux and Windows 11 appear out of the box:
These initial screens already reflect how much control each operating system expects from the user right from the start.
When comparing Windows and Arch Linux, the installation process itself highlights a fundamental difference in philosophy. In this article, I’m using Arch Linux as a reference point, not because it represents every Linux distribution, but because it exposes nearly every decision to the user. From disk layout to system behavior, nothing is hidden, which makes it a strong contrast to how Windows approaches installation.
Installing Windows was largely a guided experience. After accepting the license agreement and creating custom partitions, the installer automatically handled hardware detection, bootloader configuration, and system setup. Within minutes, I was greeted with a working graphical desktop, essential drivers, and default services already running. This streamlined flow is one of Windows’ biggest strengths, especially for users who want to get up and running with minimal involvement.
Installing Arch Linux, on the other hand, felt more intentional. There was no graphical installer to abstract those decisions away. I manually configured disk partitions, selected the filesystem, and decided which components should exist on the system at all. While the process took more time, it made every part of the system understandable and predictable.
I documented this entire workflow in my complete Arch Linux installation guide , and also covered how the same setup works alongside Windows in my Arch Linux and Windows dual-boot guide .
One thing I noticed while experimenting with different Linux distributions like Arch Linux, Ubuntu, NixOS, and Fedora is how transparent the installation process is. Most Linux setups clearly show the core partitions involved: a boot partition, an optional swap, and a root partition, usually formatted as ext4. Nothing is hidden, and you are fully aware of how your disk is structured.
Windows also relies on multiple partitions, but it creates them silently during installation. You rarely see the EFI, reserved, or recovery partitions unless you open Disk Management. Linux doesn’t hide this complexity. Instead, it puts you in control, which can feel overwhelming at first, but it also teaches you how your system actually works.
Installation Comparison: Windows vs Arch Linux
| Aspect | Windows 11 | Arch Linux |
|---|---|---|
| Installation Style | Guided, mostly automated | Manual and user-driven |
| Disk Partitioning | Created automatically with minimal visibility | Manually defined and fully visible |
| User Control | Limited during setup | Complete control over system layout |
| Learning Curve | Low and beginner-friendly | High, but educational |
| Time Required | Fast for most users | Slower, depends on user choices |
Transforming Arch Linux: From CLI to a Windows-Like Desktop
So how do you go from a black, CLI-only environment to a desktop that feels much closer to Windows in daily use?
One thing Windows clearly excels at is convenience. I could open Edge, download Chrome, and have my tools ready within minutes. In contrast, Arch Linux required more hands-on customization, from configuring the desktop layout to adjusting the audio backend and selecting fonts. Since I was already accustomed to Windows, I wanted my Linux environment to feel familiar. That’s why I chose KDE Plasma, which offers both flexibility and a Windows-like interface. This approach gave me full control while making the transition smooth, turning a blank CLI into a familiar and powerful workspace.
Of course, KDE Plasma isn’t the only option on Arch Linux, and that’s part of its appeal. On Arch, you decide exactly what kind of desktop experience you want. You can opt for GNOME or XFCE if you prefer a more traditional Linux workflow. Personally, GNOME feels more natural to me on Ubuntu, where it aligns better with the overall system design. XFCE, on the other hand, shines on older or low-spec hardware. It’s lightweight, fast, and efficient, though it carries a more system-administrator-oriented feel, which wasn’t what I wanted for my daily driver. There are also distributions like Linux Mint, which focus on delivering a pre-configured, beginner-friendly desktop experience out of the box.
In a nutshell, this is what GNOME and XFCE look like when installed on Arch Linux:
What ultimately kept me on KDE Plasma was its pace of development and flexibility. KDE doesn’t feel like a “set it once and forget it” desktop. New features, performance improvements, and workflow refinements continue to arrive, making it easy to evolve the desktop over time rather than being locked into a static experience.
Convenience vs Control
This is where the difference between Windows and Arch Linux becomes most clear. Windows delivers a polished desktop experience almost immediately, with minimal setup required. Arch Linux can reach a similar level of comfort and usability, but only after you decide exactly how your system should look and behave. The real strength of Linux goes beyond matching Windows. It allows you to customize the desktop far more deeply, shaping everything around your workflow. The result is a system that may feel familiar on the surface, yet remains entirely under your control beneath it.
Daily Use and Workflow: Windows vs Linux
Installation is only part of the story. The real difference shows up after a few hours of real work, when the system is juggling your apps in the background while you are trying to stay productive.
For a fair comparison, I kept the workload similar on both sides. I usually have multiple browser profiles open, Steam running, a hardware monitoring tool in the tray, and sometimes a VM in the background.
What I Run on Daily Basis
Windows 11 (background apps): Upwork, Chrome (2 profiles), Steam, Advanced SystemCare, MSI Afterburner.
Linux (background apps): Steam, Chrome (2 profiles), CoreCtrl, QEMU VM (when needed).
How It Feels in Real Use
On my hardware, Windows feels convenient, but once several apps sit in the background, the whole system starts to feel heavier. Even simple actions can feel slightly delayed, especially when the machine has been running for a while.
On Linux, the same “always running” setup stays more responsive. Even with Steam and multiple Chrome profiles open, the desktop feels smoother, and my workflow is less affected by background activity. Over the year, there were a couple of occasions where a major system update caused minor issues, which is expected with a rolling-release distribution. However, the system remained usable as a daily driver, and the problems were resolved fairly quickly through updates or small configuration fixes.
Workflow Comparison
| Aspect | Windows 11 | Linux (KDE Plasma) |
|---|---|---|
| Idle CPU Usage | ~8–12% | ~2–5% |
| RAM Usage (Idle) | ~45–55% | ~20–30% |
| Background Services Impact | High (≈70%) | Low (≈30%) |
| Responsiveness Under Load | Moderate (≈60%) | High (≈85%) |
| System Overhead | Higher (≈65%) | Lower (≈35%) |
| Overall Workflow Smoothness | Average (≈60%) | Smooth (≈85%) |
Over long-term daily use, the biggest difference wasn’t raw performance, but consistency. On the same hardware, Linux stayed responsive even with multiple apps running in the background, while Windows tended to slow down as services and utilities stacked up. Arch Linux does use a rolling release model, so occasional updates did introduce small breakages, but they were rare and never serious enough to make the system unusable. With basic awareness and regular maintenance, the overall experience remained stable and predictable.
Stability and Updates: Living With Both for a Year
Over a full year of daily use, system updates turned out to be one of the biggest differences between Windows and Linux. Both platforms update frequently, but the way those updates behave in real life feels very different.
- Windows updates and control. On Windows, updates arrive automatically and offer very limited control. On Windows 10, it was still possible to fully block updates through system services, but that approach no longer works reliably on Windows 11. I initially paused updates for the maximum allowed period, yet the system continued to update silently in the background. Over time, these updates started affecting performance on my hardware. As things got worse, I eventually blocked updates at the file level. I do not recommend this approach, as it can introduce security risks, and I was only comfortable doing it because I understand the system well enough to manage those trade-offs myself.
- Arch Linux updates and flexibility. On Arch Linux, updates work very differently. In the beginning, I updated the system almost daily. Over time, I realized that updates were completely under my control. If the system felt stable and responsive, there was no pressure to update immediately. I now update only when I encounter a bug, need a newer application version, or notice performance issues. At one point, I went nearly two and a half months without updating, and the system continued to work reliably as a daily driver.
- Rolling updates and breakage. Being a rolling-release distribution, Arch Linux did experience a couple of minor breakages after major updates. These issues were never severe enough to make the system unusable, and basic functionality always remained intact. In each case, the problems were resolved fairly quickly through follow-up updates or small configuration changes.
After a year, the key difference was not how often updates arrived, but who controlled them. Windows updates felt imposed and often came with performance side effects, while Linux updates felt optional and predictable. That sense of control made the system easier to live with over long periods of daily use.
Software Availability & Daily Apps
Software availability is where Windows still feels effortless. Most mainstream apps are built for Windows first, and installing them usually means downloading an installer and moving on with your work.
On Windows, my daily setup includes Google Chrome, Steam, IDM, Advanced SystemCare, uTorrent, WhatsApp, Oracle VM for testing, and Adobe tools like Premiere Pro and Photoshop. Everything is officially supported and works out of the box.
Linux works differently. Not every Windows app exists in the same form, but most daily needs are covered by open-source tools that are lighter and more focused. Chrome and Steam are natively available, so browsing and gaming workflows transfer without friction.
For downloads, I replaced IDM with JDownloader 2. Torrenting is handled through qBittorrent, which feels cleaner and more stable than uTorrent, without ads or bundled extras.
On Windows, I relied on Advanced SystemCare mainly to clean RAM and temporary files. On Linux, that layer simply is not needed. Memory management behaves differently, and the system stays responsive without constant cleanup.
If a tool is not available in Arch Linux’s official repositories, there is a very high chance it exists in the AUR via YAY, or a solid alternative is already available. In practice, I rarely felt blocked by missing software.
Replacing Adobe software required the biggest adjustment. I eventually moved to DaVinci Resolve on Linux, which covered my video editing needs well enough to stop depending on Premiere after some initial setup.
Some compromises remain. WhatsApp, for example, does not have a native Linux desktop client like Windows. The web version works fine, but it is a reminder that Linux is still not the primary target for every consumer app.
Once everything was configured, Linux stopped feeling like a workaround. Most tools were either available directly or replaced by alternatives that integrated better over time. I documented that process separately in my guide on making Arch Linux a daily driver.
In daily use, the difference came down to mindset. Windows gives you everything upfront. Linux gives you the building blocks and lets you shape the workflow yourself. After that point, software availability becomes a preference, not a limitation.
Gaming on Windows vs Linux
Gaming was one area where I expected Windows to clearly win, and after a full year of using both systems, the differences became very obvious.
-
Windows: true plug-and-play.
Gaming on Windows is straightforward. You install a launcher like Steam, Epic Games, or Battle.net, download your game, and start playing. Drivers, runtimes, and background requirements are handled automatically. If your hardware can run the game, Windows rarely gets in the way. -
Linux: compatibility depends on the game.
Installing Steam on Linux does not mean every game will work out of the box. Many multiplayer titles such as PUBG, Battlefield, and Call of Duty fail to run because of anti-cheat restrictions. This limitation is not strictly caused by Linux itself, but by whether game developers choose to enable Linux support for their anti-cheat systems. -
Some multiplayer games do support Linux.
Not all online titles are blocked. Games like Dota 2 and Apex Legends officially support Linux and run smoothly through Steam, proving that anti-cheat compatibility is possible when developers allow it. -
ProtonDB makes Linux gaming practical.
Before running any game on Linux, I usually check ProtonDB . It contains real user reports showing which distribution, kernel version, GPU drivers, Proton version, and launch options were used to run a game successfully. In most cases, someone has already documented the exact tweaks required. -
Single-player games run extremely well.
Most offline and story-driven games work very well on Linux using Proton, Wine, Bottles, or Lutris. Titles like GTA V, Final Fantasy series, Far Cry 5 and 6, Tekken 7 and 8 (offline), and Red Dead Redemption 2 are fully playable with only minor configuration. -
Performance can favor Linux after tuning.
Once properly configured, Linux can even outperform Windows. I currently play both Red Dead Redemption 2 and Dota 2 on Arch Linux. On the same hardware, RDR2 runs above 60 FPS with mixed high and medium settings on Linux, while Windows struggled to go beyond 40 FPS.
These observations are based on my 2025 experience, Windows was still the easier choice for gaming, especially for multiplayer titles. Linux needed more setup, but for single-player games it often performed just as well or better. Since early 2026, Linux gaming has been improving rapidly, largely due to Valve’s work and the growing popularity of Linux through devices like the Steam Deck.
Gaming Comparison: Windows vs Linux
| Aspect | Windows | Linux |
|---|---|---|
| Game Compatibility | Very high (almost all titles) | High for single-player, limited for some multiplayer |
| Multiplayer Support | Full support (anti-cheat works) | Depends on developer support |
| Setup Effort | Minimal (plug-and-play) | Moderate (Proton, Wine, tweaks) |
| Performance Potential | Stable, consistent | Can outperform Windows after tuning |
| Single-Player Experience | Excellent | Excellent (via Proton) |
| Driver & Runtime Handling | Automatic | Manual but flexible |
| Future Outlook | Stable, mature | Rapidly improving (Valve, Steam Deck) |
Who Should Pick What
After using both Windows and Linux side by side for a full year, one thing became clear: there is no universal winner. The better choice depends entirely on how you use your system and what you expect from it.
Windows is a better fit if you:
- Want a plug-and-play experience with minimal setup
- Primarily play multiplayer or anti-cheat–protected games
- Rely on proprietary software like Adobe tools
- Prefer automatic updates and hands-off system management
- Just want things to work without tweaking
Linux (Arch, in my case) makes more sense if you:
- Care about control, transparency, and system behavior
- Enjoy deep customization, down to workflows and UI details
- Work with development tools, VMs, or scripting daily
- Prefer lightweight performance and long-term consistency
- Want full control over updates and system changes
- Don’t mind a learning curve to shape your own workflow
Windows focuses on convenience, while Linux focuses on flexibility. Neither approach is wrong. Once your priorities are clear, the right choice usually becomes obvious.
Final Verdict
A year of using both Windows and Linux side by side clarified a lot for me. Windows remains the more practical choice for my freelancing work and multiplayer gaming, where compatibility, client tools, and anti-cheat support still matter the most. It does what it promises, even if it comes with trade-offs in performance and control.
Linux, on the other hand, became my first choice whenever I wanted to explore, customize, or really understand my hardware. Whether it was testing system limits, experimenting with tiling window managers like Hyprland, or seeing which games perform better on which platform, Linux consistently gave me more freedom and insight. Today, I don’t see this as choosing one operating system over the other. I use Linux when I want control and flexibility, and Windows when I need reliability for work or competitive gaming. That balance ended up being the most honest result of this one-year experiment.
Final Notes
Thanks for sticking through this article. This wasn’t about proving one operating system better than the other, but about sharing what actually worked for me after using both side by side for a full year.
If this article helped you think more clearly about Windows, Linux, or your own setup, feel free to share it with someone who might be in the same situation. And if you have your own experience, tweaks, or disagreements, drop them in the comments. I read every one and genuinely enjoy those discussions.
See you in the next one.