I finished to install archlinux on my Aspire 1307 LC, after removing a very bad virus: WindowsXP
Everithing went very fine. It was easy to configure the syste as it was a normal PC.
I used some hint found from previous experience found on linux http://www.linux-laptop.net/acer.html
The wonderfull thing is not installing Arch on my laptop, even if it give me a lot of satisfaction.
The particoularity is that, as far as the other says, no one was able to play full screen dvd with other distro. Mainly due to the fact that the S3 savage video card has only a basic hw acceleration support.
So I guess that if I am able to play dvd is because Arch Linux give much better performance compared to other distro.
bingo jackpot but take a look at the services that you started if you instaled .. lets say " mandrake " you get 1001 services on boot depending on wath you install . were we got the oposit
simple efective you install wath you need so it can only be faster than other distros that do not " use " the simple " way to do things
by simple i dont mean easy or bad way its just simple
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
GU/ d- s: a- C L U P+ L+++ E--- W+
N 0+ K- W-- !O !M V-- PS+ PE- V++ PGP T 5 Z+ R* TV+ B+
DI-- D- G-- e-- h! r++ z+ z*
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
you install wath you need so it can only be faster than other distros
For sure this is one of he reason, I personally did not installed mandrake (I tried it once at home and formatted the pc after half our) I tested suse in its early state (when it was almost in german) I used RedHat quite a lot.
I never used them on the laptop, I was just reporting comments from other people experience.
As home experience I can say that Arch is much more faster than other distro and is not only a question o what is running.
My previous RedHat install was very slow compared to it, even if I tweaked it a lot.