I searched and found a few threads from last year about this, but I'm still wondering. I am about to install Slackware 10.2, but I have just read about Minislack, at http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT9660431774.html

I have two goals, one favouring one; one favouring the other. My Celeron 1.7 with its 128 KB L-2 cache is very slow. Windows ME worked noticeably faster than XP on it, even though XP is a faster OS—on a better machine. So I'm wondering whether MiniSlack would be nice and quick, and Slack 10.2 much slower. (479 RAM available)

On the other hand, I prefer learning things in general by having the entire resource at my disposal. Children's questions can address anything in the universe, and beginners' questions can too. I'm a rank beginner in Linux, but I don't want to feel I'm "missing out" by eliminating perhaps some of Slackware's richest potential if I go to MiniSlack. Would I be cheating myself? I do like the sense of being into the genuine article.

I do massive word processing, lots of playing with freeware utilities, and I've done a huge lot of browser testing (Firebird/Fox, K-Meleon). I'll never be a dev. The only thing I might bring to the table in the future is writing for opensource manuals (I enjoy writing)—once I know what I'm talking about in the first place. So, for a tweakgeek I'm pretty experimental; but I'm not at all in the same league with you Slack geniuses. Still, I chose Slack in the first place because everything about its "genuineness" appeals to me. It seems beautifully, artistically "intelligent"—ooops! maybe more so than I am.

Opinions? Thanks, guys.

Slackware will run just fine with those specs. I've never used MiniSlack, so I can't comment on it.

As I was looking for it 6 months ago, the website was closed down so I thought that the project was closed.

It's not dead, it's now called Zenwalk: http://www.zenwalk.org/
I personally only used Slackware and stick to it because I had a lot of choices when I started with a full installation. Then I started stripping the system and now I only have the applications I need/like.

Well, thank you. That's enough for me. I'll stay on course for Slackware 10.2. (What I do feel confident about is adding or subtracting things as time goes by, because my Windows XP is totally customized. I am forever downloading, testing, adding and subtracting. Even my icons in Word 2000 are all home-made—as they will be in OO Writer; I just haven't taken the time yet.)

But if my system sounds OK for the project. as you say, mdarby, then I think I'll be happiest with the real thing.

Right decision, I think. I run Slackware 10.2 on a laptop with a P650, and it is fast and responsive with KDE.

Note: RAM and Swap space and a working DMA for your harddisc is more important than CPU power in Linux.

I used to ran 10.2 on a P120 Classic, too, and with Fluxbox this was really productive. Only problem with that machine is that DMA stopped working, and without a reasonably fast disk access no current OS is fun. BTW, that's the only reason to use old Win9X or even DOS systems: They don't do so much disk grabbing, which makes them suitable for *very* old hardware...).

gargamel

Also a noob but agree with the comments. I started on the Slackware path with Zenwalk - which I found much nicer than the 'easy distros' - on a much slower machine than yours. Have since found that Slackware will install on very slow machines (eg 233MHz/64M) and work very well - so why cut back on all the advantages?

I have heard nothing but good things about Vector linux, which is a slackware based distro that is supposed to be a lot faster than slack. I never had any problems with plain old slack, so I never tried it. Can anyone verify this?