Hi,

Linux newbie here. I'm wondering whether to use Slack or Zipslack. I would ideally like the following characteristics:

--not cpu-intensive: it's for an old laptop which I'm making into a video/audio client, so could do with using as little of the cpu and ram on running linux, and more on the video, as possible!
--quick to boot: this is important. I don't want to have to wait ages each time I want to listen to my music
--allows me to use videolan
--allows me to set up wired and wireless networks

Thanks

Alt

I think ZipSlack is usable only on DOS-based systems (MS-DOS, Win3.x/95/98/ME). I don't think it'll work on NT-based systems like Win2K or XP.

I don't know how well Slackware works on laptops since I don't own one, but you may have to use that or another distro.

There is no difference in ZipSlack and "standard" Slackware. ZipSlack is just a smaller edition. For your needs, just burn a cd and install the full Slackware thing

If thats what you need I strongly recomend you go for Slackware instead of zipslack. The difference isnt that much except that zipslack is missing alot of stuff that you would probably want.. Also you will probably get more out of the machine with a fullblown slackware..

How old is the machine? How much diskspace, ram etc?

The default slackware boot is pretty slow IMO, but you can speed it up alot by disabling/uninstalling daemons you dont need and rescheduling the non-essential ones that you still need to boot up after initial boot. this will tell you more on that: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...=at+5+min+boot

Thanks for the advice. Think Slackware is the way forward!