I'm quite newbie for Linux, but not afraid for commandline. It's the way to learn how things works, isn't it? Is that good enough to try Arch? I'll see.
I've had it with Windows and like to get a working, good performing and stable desktop with basic SOHO apps installed and VMware to experiment with other distros and oses without multibooting.
So I need a no nonsense, light weighted OS on top wich is compatible with al my hardware, and is capable to run VMware and.. eh... there was some very good performing whats-it-called program to run any other Linux. So I can use windows in a virtual machine as long as I need it.
Arch and Vector are both famous for speed.
So...how is Arch compared to Vector on speed, compatibilty, stabilty?
And since my computer is 24 hours a day online, security isn't unimportant.
So.... are they... usable for my goal? If not.. does anyone have a better idea?
I find Arch faster than Vector. Vector is actually made for slower machines, while Arch is designed for PIII or AMD-K7 and up.
Vector is more oriented towards the newcomer, more graphic configuration tools and the like, while Arch is aimed towards people more used to editing text configuration files.
Security, well, both enable you to use iptables, which is how I usually secure a machine. There are various other firewall implementations out there, which should work on either distribution.
Vector makes it a ~bit~ (in my opinion, and this could just be because I haven't used it that much and didn't do that much research) harder to get under the hood, so to speak, and edit the various configuration files.
Both are nice distributions, with different target audiences. I think you'll learn more about Linux using Arch, but that could be my opinion. Vector is based on Slackware, which is sort of the classic vanilla Linux.
On a 686 (PIII or K7 and up) I think you'll find Arch to be faster.