Comparing Slack/Arch linux
I tried Arch linux for a few days, it's a very nice distro, with many good things from Slack, but i still like Slackware much more.
This is my personal experience:
Install was a bit tedious, slower if not familiar with, Slack's install is more time saving and still keeps you in control.
I found arch to be a little too bleeding edge for my taste, and after some bad experiences with fedora i prefer the stable versions of most packages, too bleeding edge == unstable imo.
Then i payed attention to speed: No, it is not faster than my Slackware custmom kernel, some things are the same speed but firefox, xmms and konsole, the ones i use most often load noticeably slower, however i lacked time to compile a custom kernel in arch, seems you need to do some distro specific things, not sure. However, boot time is really faster on arch, if you don't care dhcp not working properly some times, probably my fault anyway.
Then i tried pacman, it's nice, reminded me of the time spent with debian, but also reminded me of trying to trim down the system and deps wanting to remove kdebase.. or installing a package and tons of useless deps.
The real test to me was compiling prboom http://prboom.sourceforge.net/ the program that made me move from debian to slackware. First i tried installing with pacman, it didn't work properly, no sound, no midi, no saving games, lots of bugs. Then i tried compiling it with the abs system, no good, then i tried the old ./configure way and make failed everytime. Tried compiling sdl_mixer and sdl_net the abs way, it went "ok" meaning editing PKGBUILD.proto but after that i really missed installpkg and checkinstall since i didn't want to generate a compressed package database in the /home/pkgs directory so pacman can find it when run with --refresh.
Another thing i didn't like was installing nvidia drivers with pacman -S nvidiasomething (too debian like) yeah, i know you can do it the regular way.
After all i liked it, it's a promising distro, Slackware is the oldest surviving distro, so developers (PV) have lots of years of experience, besides i feel i can learn more "linux" from Slackware.
If there was no Slackware i'd go arch, i could never see myself go back to ubunt,mandrake,fedora,debian,suse, etc.
This is not a "review" or flamewar topic, just my regular user personal opinion, i'd like to hear yours if you wanna share it. Peace

I tried Arch made it to work and all then I formatted the partition, it wasn't bad it's nice distro but I prefer Slackware too.

I agree with you guys, it is a nice distro but I could understand Slackware much more easily. And my one question post in Arch had over a hundred views and 0 replies. So the community for Slackware is very good.

That, and that Slackware package installs are 90% successful (as long as I don't get one that was made with -current or Dropline Gnome).
I still dual boot on one of my boxes w/XP due to games and a few other reasons, but all in all, Slackware has made me understand the "real" functioning of GNU/Linux, as compared to the 'hacked up' versions that remind me of Windows. Too much handholding, too much "You have to have this for this to work", and sometimes, can't even compile your own kernel.

It took awhile to learn the ins-and-outs of Slackware on my laptop, but now, if needed, I get all my hardware working (wireless,ethernet,sound,3D video,wireless mouse,touchpad,sound) all working in 15 minutes from the end of a full , fresh install (my kids are my worst virus...)

I love Slackware. Simple as that.