Pre-installation question

hello all,

I’ve been using vanilla arch for awhile now but will be doing a fresh install on a new SSD in the next few days. I’m really just want to get the system up and running without too much effort and I’m wondering what the difference between Endeavor and Arch is. I’ll be using i3 with btrfs.

  1. Will the packages be coming from Envendor or Arch? When the official arch repos update will I receive them?

2.What is the actual difference between the two distros?


1 Like

The majority of the packages come directly from the Arch repos. EndeavourOS has a small repo containing our packages and tools.

There is no delay of access to the Arch packages since you are connecting directly to the Arch mirrors.

The differences as I see it are as follows:

  • We provide what we feel is a minimal but usable environment for each DE/WM. This includes a set of preinstalled packages.
  • We have a graphical installer that allows to choose the DE and bootloader you prefer as well as change the package section when doing an online install.
  • We provide a set of tools aimed to make the experience a little easier.
  • We have an amazing community of friendly and helpful people.

All that being said, it is Arch that makes up the core of EndeavourOS. Most of what we offer ultimately comes from Arch itself.


not really comparable… as EndeavourOS only have a limited variety of possible ways to install the OS and arch does not have such limitations on its own.
But the main difference is the way EndeavourOS installs the OS by preselecting the install method and giving options like Desktop Environments and Bootloader.
But is limited in other parts to like we do not have options to choose the audio-system on install time or the way it builds ramfs images… these things are decisions w made up for easy maintaining and caused by limitations of a graphical installer :wink:


thanks for the clarification everyone!

1 Like

Perhaps the most significant difference between vanilla Arch and EndeavorOS is that EOS has a small but friendly community that won’t dismiss seemingly silly questions from the inexperienced, whereas on the Arch forum you’ll get RTFM answers at best.

You can also choose to install with “no desktop”, and then build from there. Which I guess is welcome for an Arch + WM user.

I also guess that this base system is already sensibly configured and with sensible packages, and saves you from a lot of the minutia of Arch + WM configuring in detail.

1 Like

hey all,

I ended up going with EOS. I had problems booting into the live USB with ventoy, finally managed to get the live environment running. It would of been nice to preview the i3 environment first without installing but it wasn’t a deal breaker. I went through the install but when my machine rebooted I didn’t see any boot manager. It may of been because I had a boot manager deselected? I’m not 100% sure regardless I removed ventoy from my USB stick and transferred the iso using the DD method and it worked. I was able to boot into the live environment, install and see the bootloader.

If I would go through the install process again I would most likely deselect a lot of the custom theming and customizations to i3 as I would rather have it close to stock i3 without having to revert the custom edits to the config.

Overall the experience is good and it seems like it’s close to vanilla arch. Hopefully I don’t have to do another system OS re-install for another 4 years or so!


1 Like

Glad to hear you were able to get it installed!

If you want to use ventoy you either need to update the USB device to the latest version of ventoy or boot in grub mode.

Probably. If you have Intel 12th gen graphics or newer, that page doesn’t display properly due to a driver issue. That will be fixed in the next ISO.

This topic was automatically closed 2 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.