I used linux intermittently in the last 15 or so years, migrating from early Ubuntu versions, to Manjaro, Pop!_OS, Debian, etc. And decided to give Arch a try just recently; with all the memes around its high entry point, I was really expecting to struggle for a long time to set it up just as I want.
Disclaimer: your mileage may vary. I’ve been using some sort of unix CLI since the time I learned to pee standing (last year?), and in case of Arch this prerequisite makes the whole process a lot simpler.
Learning curve
The installation process itself was quite simple. Perhaps the most complicated part was the disk partitioning and setting up the bootloader, as I’ve never done it myself. But then again — on any other OS you kind of have to do the same, except maybe through the GUI and not CLI.
One thing you quickly learn when using Arch — is you always should consult their wiki. Actually, “consult” is an understatement; let me put it this way, on the hierarchy of usefulness: there’s reddit, then stackexchange, then random “how-to” websites, then your logic, and then there is the Arch wiki. Exactly in that order, since your logic may betray you, but not the Wiki. Jokes aside though, they’ve somehow managed to document every minute detail, with specific troubleshooting for almost any combination of hardware out there. This is incredible, and as a person who also spends a lot of time writing documentations — hats off to the devs and the community.
Once you learn how the daemons work, how pacman and AUR packages work — the rest is actually quite similar to any other OS. Except that Arch, even with a bloated DE is frigging fast and eats very little battery. I actually use CLI package installation also in Windows (winget) or MacOS (brew), so learning to use another package manager was not too steep.
Drivers
The main caveats actually come when you want specific drivers for your specific hardware. For instance, the out-of-the-box drivers for my laptop speakers were horrible, with the sound seemingly coming from someone’s redacted (never checked, perhaps it was). But that could quickly be tweaked with the “pipewire/easyeffects” with custom profiles which you may find on the web.
GPU drivers were not really that much of an issue for me (if I actually read the wiki properly). Enabling GPU acceleration in some of the apps (like Blender) required the AMD HIP toolkit installed (they have Arch support) with some minor tweaks in the Blender configs. Similarly, the camera, mic and bluetooth drivers were available as AURs or even native pacman packages.
Caveats
Caveats that come with Arch are actually shared among almost all linux distros (or more specifically — DEs). Support of Wayland, while improving gradually over the years (with a great leap forward in Plasma 6), still sucks majestically. Luckily, for many of the most popular apps (slack, zoom), there are third-party AUR packages supporting Wayland natively (I spent a lot of time looking for exactly that on Debian with no success)! All of the apps I needed I actually found with the Wayland support in AURs, but, again, your mileage may vary.
Takeaways
I’d say if you just bought a fresh out-of-store laptop with no data on it to worry about — you should definitely give Arch a try, even if you’re a beginner. Once you fail a couple of times (like I did), you’ll not only learn a lot more about the behind-the-scenes working of your own computer, but will end up having one of the fastest and efficient OS-es out there, which you will now be able to configure to your exact liking.
Unfortunately, I’ve never been able to really daily-drive Linux (and this Arch experiment is no exception). Don’t get me wrong: I love linux and the idea of having independent open-source and infinitely customizable OS. But unfortunately I professionally rely on some of the apps, that have no viable alternatives for Linux (PowerPoint, Photoshop, Illustrator, Proton Drive).
PS. “but what about GIMP, or Krita, or Inkscape, or OpenOffice, or using rsync for cloud storage, or <YOUR_FAVORITE_TOOL>?” you may ask. Trust me, I tried it all. Every last presentation, raster/vector graphics software out there. Regardless of how much I hate Adobe, their software is top tier, and until GIMP becomes the Blender of graphic design, I can’t really rely use it for most of my purposes :(
If it's that simple to solve every time-sink mentioned in the OP, why isn't that available by default? Or why isn't there a distro flavor that is just that?
I don’t know how much EOS is helping with the drivers that don’t come with kernel or need proprietary firmware files, but you can easily get them from AUR. Most difficult part is installing yay from AUR because you don’t have yay yet to install yay vom AUR using yay, lol.
With my answer prior I wanted to tell, that you do not have to spend a lot of time installing arch if you use archinstall (it is ready to use in the archISO)
Gotcha. That makes sense
Because a lot of people like setting everything up themselves and having full control over everything they install.
There is, Manjaro or EOS.
Then why wouldn't I just install manjaro?
See the first point.
So then I'm still exactly correct about my assessment of Arch? That is too much of a time investment for me and the closest I will want to get is manjaro?
I love Arch, but I'm an old school nerd who likes fiddling with my computer. If you're the type of person who just wants your shit to work with minimal fuss, then you're probably right that Arch isn't the right distro for you. Someone else said that Manjaro has actually migrated pretty far from Arch over the years, so that may not be right for you either now. If you want to try Arch, but don't want to spend time setting it up then it sounds like EOS is probably a good place to start, but I'm not familiar with EOS at all. That will probably still require some additional configuration for anything special you have going on like custom sound cards, or old printers. I've been using Pop_OS on my gaming desktop for a few years now and it's a really hands-off OS that brings a lot of the cool parts of Linux without requiring much fuss or customization. It is a port of Ubuntu though, so if you want an Arch experience then EOS is the way, or Manjaro for a neutered Arch experience but a little less hands-on. I don't actually have any first-hand experience with Manjaro or EOS though, I've only read about them. If you have a few hours to try them out then you might end up finding a new OS that improves your digital life. Some other people might be able to give you more information, or you can just go for it! Hopefully that helps a little. Sorry I don't have all the answers.
Edit EOS is short for EndeavourOS , so you don't get lost looking at other stuff with the same acronym
I can't tell if you really want to have an argument about Arch or are sincerely curious.
Arch expects you to be pretty involved in deciding what runs on your system and maintaining it. That may or may not be for you. After learning how to use it, I found it really wasn't particularly bad. Having said that, my years spent with Arch were years ago - I've been on derivatives since because I don't really want/need the level of control provided by installing Arch.
If you don't want such a steep learning curve and are OK with some choices being made for you, maybe you want Manjaro, but given your comments so far, I'm not sure whether any Arch derivative is a good choice for you.
Maybe it's just not how you like to do things. Even Manjaro says "hey check our weekly update thread" before you update, to see if you might need to intervene at update time, though IME you rarely do. (Ran Manjaro without a reinstall for years on one laptop.)
Currently I use EOS, and as the other post has said it kinda splits the difference. I had to do a little more setup for myself after an EOS install than a Manjaro install, and maintaining it is closer to maintaining vanilla arch, but I don't consider it a timesink whatsoever. It will be until you know what you are doing.
I guess I take a little umbridge to your use of "timesink" as some kind of pejorative. Everything is a timesink until you know what you are doing with it, and less so when you do.
If you are curious, try them. If you are going to get upset and say they are trash the first time you need some sort of manual intervention, then probably it's better for you to try/stay on some other distro, but it doesn't happen often, and it's usually easy (if you aren't afraid of a wiki and the terminal) when it does.
If you want an argument, I'm not your guy, I'm just trying to answer the questions you seemed to be posing.
I'm genuinely not looking for an argument. My original comment was "yup, this isn't for me, because it's too much time/effort". It only became an argument of sorts when person after person came in to try to tell me why I was wrong for feeling that way?
Like, I get it. There are different variants and options and arch is mostly for people who want to tinker.
But my original comment was literally just "well, this post confirms what I suspected: arch probably isn't for me because I don't have the time". I didn't intend to be pejorative with the term 'timesink'. Just too much for me. But I'll admit I probably got a bit defensive after being told I was wrong for xyz reason by so many people on a matter of personal priorities
Fair enough, I see your point! :)