monohouse

one thing at a time : "way too much work" - is for lamers, I am not that case, and I don't like lazyness in general, you want something good, it always takes work, but you're lucky, I am doing the work and you only get to use it, besides lazyness is what brought us here in the first place, if we were not idiots and ensistsed on our software to be good and not buy until it is good, we would not have a problem now, all those lazy idiots are the reason nLite exists, it might not have had to exist if lazyness could be avoided. I used resource hacker, resource hacker on xp's shell32.dll might (at best) give you around 7 MB instead of 8, while win2k's version gives you just a little over 1 MB so the decision is to use both, resource hacker and win2k's version just as I did.... and nobody really needs to configure network interfaces after they are configured. read what text ?, if you mean the text between the lines, then yeah, BILL MUST DIE !!!, just wait until my site will be up there will be a lote of text there. no I may not revert back to win2k, well at least not entirely because : win2k does not understand that programs are ment to be loaded into memory not back to the hard disk where they came from, and only xp allows disabling swap file completely and properly without out of memory dialogs, so you're only partially right, revert back everything except the kernel to win2k if possible, except for the network stuff which require security (particularly blaster fix) (not that there is much of a problem for the 1337 as they can handle without any of that crap) and because it is smaller. my Deleted Edition is now a little < 50 MB on XP SP1 with only 3 xp's files replaced with win2k's versions. oh yhe and about the winblows question, I am a fan of some software that was programmed to run on winblows (Cubase, Reaktor, Recycle, Nuendo, FM7, Kx Project, Wavelab and some others), not winblows as in itself, and if it is not yet hard for you to think that I am using winblows, wait until I get to 10 MB, it will be getting very hard for you to think that then ?

here is my version of win2k's shell32.dll, it has these changes : 1. deleted almost all icons, only the small directory icon exists, the rest have been replaced with 1-bit transparent icons (4 of them) 3. removed a load of dialogs 6. new size : 1,419,024 bytes, original size : 2,352,400 7. warning may not be compatible with explorer.exe (not tested), only blackbox and windows/total commander 8. drive formatting no longer possible and is not supported, use DOS/Linux to format your FAT/Ext2 file systems 9. some other things may be missing, blackbox/commander users should not have a problem with it 10. please report any bugs. oops forum does not allow uploading of files > 500 Kb ? anyway soon deleted edition site will be up and you will be able to download it from there, one other thing I have discovered, there is an another problem with using the shell components (shell32.dll, comctl32.dll, shlwapi.dll, comdlg32.dll) of win2k in xp : it seems that desk.cpl, sysdm.cpl and network connections do not work, so far I have been able to make the first two to work, simply use desk.cpl and sysdm.cpl win2k versions and everything works, I am still checking into the last problem, I believe it has to do with netshell.dll, unfortunately using win2k version of this file will simply disappear all network connections from that menu, so I recommend, for now, everyone to use this replacement only AFTER your finish configuration of your network interfaces, and you might wanna keep a backup of those replaced files in case you will want to perform configuration again. I have created 2 other files : comctl32.dll which is now 439,056 instead of 553,232 (all other languages removed), and comdlg32.dll which is now 217,872 instead of 242,448 (printing dialogs removed, new open/save dialog, places bar does not exist anymore).

great idea, how do you do that ? resource hacker ? why not both ?

deplhi ? wtf ? I thought you people want to use a smaller shell not bigger. also Pablo Commander and for the 1337, windows commander 5.11 professional, I just don't know where it is, total commander is good but wincmd pro 5.11 is better.

the first step at getting rid of winsxs : common controls 6.0.10.0 : original contents of file : x86_Microsoft.Windows.Common-Controls_6595b64144ccf1df_6.0.10.0_x-ww_f7fb5805.Manifest <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <assembly xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v1" manifestVersion="1.0"> <noInheritable/> <assemblyIdentity type="win32" name="Microsoft.Windows.Common-Controls" version="6.0.10.0" processorArchitecture="x86" publicKeyToken="6595b64144ccf1df"/> <file name="comctl32.dll" hash="1a6b71f5cc9e1d2ec0b648a9309321b96b7bc7a1" hashalg="SHA1"> <windowClass>ToolbarWindow32</windowClass> <windowClass>ComboBoxEx32</windowClass> <windowClass>msctls_trackbar32</windowClass> <windowClass>msctls_updown32</windowClass> <windowClass>msctls_progress32</windowClass> <windowClass>msctls_hotkey32</windowClass> <windowClass>msctls_statusbar32</windowClass> <windowClass>SysHeader32</windowClass> <windowClass>SysListView32</windowClass> <windowClass>SysTreeView32</windowClass> <windowClass>SysTabControl32</windowClass> <windowClass>SysIPAddress32</windowClass> <windowClass>SysPager</windowClass> <windowClass>NativeFontCtl</windowClass> <windowClass>Button</windowClass> <windowClass>Static</windowClass> <windowClass>Listbox</windowClass> <windowClass>ScrollBar</windowClass> <windowClass>SysLink</windowClass> <windowClass>tooltips_class32</windowClass> <windowClass>ButtonListBox</windowClass> <windowClass>SysAnimate32</windowClass> <windowClass>SysMonthCal32</windowClass> <windowClass>SysDateTimePick32</windowClass> <windowClass>ReBarWindow32</windowClass> <windowClass>Edit</windowClass> <windowClass>Combobox</windowClass> <windowClass>ComboLBox</windowClass> </file> </assembly> when modified to : <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <assembly xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v1" manifestVersion="1.0"> <noInheritable/> <assemblyIdentity type="win32" name="Microsoft.Windows.Common-Controls" version="6.0.10.0" processorArchitecture="x86" publicKeyToken="6595b64144ccf1df"/> <file name="" hash="1a6b71f5cc9e1d2ec0b648a9309321b96b7bc7a1" hashalg="SHA1"> </file> </assembly> will apperantly allow software to load the already existing system32 common controls file, and use it, instead of loading 2 different libraries for the same thing which of corse, loads an another 1 MB of crap into memory, not anymore ! as for the rest of the winsxs directory, it is likely to be safe to remove all the libraries and their directories inside it except for the manifests and policies directories, on which I am still working on ways to get rid of.

HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\ComDlg32 To disable the Places bar, create a REG_DWORD value named NoPlacesBar under the ComDlg32 key. Leaving this value as 0 will give you the default behaviour, while setting it to 1 will remove the Places bar from the common dialogs. p.s. nuhi that's for you, this should be in nLite along with NoFileMRU and NoBackButton.

sorry small mistake : you also need to replace shlwapi.dll with win2k's versions, if you want blackbox and it's plugins to be able to execute files, the look may be a problem for some, but if you also replace the shlwapi.dll you get the icons working again in the open/save dialog, my site is going to take a while until it is back, but the new deleted edition version will contain ALOTE of new changes, and I intend to make it smaller than 50 MB on disk, I currently on 60, and that is before I actually started working with winsxs and before I started replacing other files with win2k versions. I have not tried but it *MAY* be possible to replace some of winxp's files with win98 versions, that's quite far away, but most changes in winblows are in kernel not in libraries it just loads them differently, so I would not be surprised that using win98's files is possible.

works ! : replace XP's : shell32.dll, comdlg32.dll and maybe comctl32.dll with 2k's sp0 versions, and you just saved at least another 5 MB of memory, and increased speed, especially when opening the open/save dialogs (which open three times faster than before, because : 2 MB now instead of 8 MB shell32.dll and no icons are displayed). now only left to properly get rid of winsxs and that should do it.

would anyone know if and how it may be possible to reduce/replace with older version the biggest DLL (8MB) file in XP ? I have been able to replace it with a win2000 version but programs have errors and some do not load, and those that do load, will not allow using the "open" dialog box, what loads the shell32.dll ? is it possible to replace the loading file and thus replace this file with it ? like both versions from win2000 ?

does anyone know how can I disable WinSxS in XP ? I think that ntdll.dll loads it somewhere but when I try to replace ntdll.dll with a win2000 versions of it, I get a session5_initialization_failed 0x00000071, I have tried to load additional dll's from win2000 but that error does not seem to disappear, I also tried to replace hal.dll even ntoskrnl.exe to make it load, but when trying that, the boot driver stage does not pass and the system gets a dll loading error when replace these two. maybe someone else knows how to get rid of winsxs ?

what is the size of your windows directory and ISO image file if you disable all components for removal in nLite with 2003 ?

yhea duude give mee duude, don't smoke only inject |---|HH=HH>--

yhea the duude does good work, and it is good for him to make it free, but I do think that an open project nLite should be... sayin duude when everyone will be trippin on Vista and whatever there is more that will be created after it, any chance you make nLite with XP support open source or at least give source to some of us duudes so we could do some more with it because you won't have time to work on it be busy with vista and the thing that comes after it ?

no one here except you is making a point about me, this is not about me duude, what point taken ? I don't get it. believe me duude, if everyone was willing to study computers properly, we would not have idiots or lam0rs at all, and companies would try harder on making the software good instead of wasting lots of time making as much bloat as they can, and if you think that me smart or makes you think that I mean that I am smart - you are wrong, there are many things that I do not know, and I don't touch them, but what is different about me and the idiots and lam0rs is that I am willing to study what I don't know and if I am not willing then I just don't touch it, unlike the lam0rs and idiots who are dropping the blame on the people that made the software that they are wrong, while it is the user's fault no to wish to study first, and wanting to know everything without it.

no, those that turn on a TV Player, game console and DVD player are smart because they know not to touch what they don't know. that's why the dude that works uses a DVD player nothing wrong with that, that's the smart way. you don't get it, what I meen is that people who are using computer and don't know something about it want microsuck or others to make them know it without them needing to study it (which is obviously impossible), that what fireinthedawn means, that because of those people microsuck is making their "software" worse, without them software would only need to improve and not mess around too much with id***-proofness. and duude, anything like "me" being "smarter" is not mentioned anywhere, where did you get that from ? not to mention that "I" am entirely irrelevant to the subject...

yhe I know about what to choose, but that is not what fireinthedawn is about, he's claims that people are not willing to study things, and I am trying to claim that he is right because in everything in life, you have to study it because you use it, and computers are not different, you can't expect people to use computers without studying them do you ? isn't that why there are computer studies ? or is that dude gonna claim that I am wrong about that ?

really ? then tell me why some don't know what the caps lock key does ? is that part of computers to be designed for idiots ? if computers were designed for idiots why are there 114 keys on the keyboard which the idiots need so badly that they never even look at them and the only time they use it is when they need to type something, and even when they do, they have hard time finding the keys ?

"idiots are always the problem" but more than that, computers were originally used by the right people and were designed to be operated by those people, they were never intended to be used by those who were not supposed to know them, so like in any subject in life, first go to school then come to work. computers do a wide range of things, you can't simply have one big button on the screen and make it do what you whant, you need several, and when it's several it's no longer id***-proof, so for idiots there will be no computers, idiots do not belong there, computers were not originally made for idiots were they ? so microsuck and lately linux too are trying to turn computers the other way around towards idiots, but that is a problem because there are too many keys on the keyboard for idiots to be able to handle, so they created the mouse for them, soon the idiots will take over and remove the keyboard from computers. and nuhi my size obsession=my processes obsession=my memory obsession if you bothered to look at my site's main page - more stalbe in case of crash ? that's funny ? how does crash ralated to stable ? - new is not good unless it is better than old, better means smaller and faster so it's not - safer would mean less security holes which means less things on the system running so it's not - nicer ? graphics has significantly improved but at what expense ? 350 MB memory use at boot without drivers - more user friendly, and more productive, can't argue with that, although... is there anyone here that cannot accomplish the same tasks without it ? - Dx10, which is what ? I have something better "- no OpenGL support" what do you think of that ? - 32 bit audio processing, that's probably the most irrelevant of all, nobody uses DX/Wave for professional audio and all ASIO interfaces use 32-bit sample processing anyway

if the deletion potential is not good enough, then why would you be willing to work on it ? if there isn't that much to gain from it's deletion then it's not worth investment, unless there is obvious evidence that it's deletion is actually worth investment, but you claim there isn't why develop it anyway ?

wanna know what I experienced ? I experienced not being able to boot because of strange damage to a ntfs partition, get rid of them they suck, use ext3ifs if you need large file support. other than that when a winblows BSOD or a power failure etc happens, it does not get a change to write to the registry all the settings you have chosen in your programs, so it is not possible to save your settings and it is not an exclusive problem of nLite or anything else, and it will always happen when you are not normally rebooting, if you serious problem with that, I recommend you fix your system so it does not BSOD, my system does not, but my system is also very heavily deleted, and that may require of you to be able to know what you are doing. fix BSOD's and power failures, that should be the solution for you, and don't use ntfs, it may mess up your entire drives (It messed up 2 of my partitions) especially with power failures even worse if you chkdsk, don't use chkdsk it will also mess up your files, use ext3ifs with a linux boot disk to repair your ext3 file system and use FAT/32 for your C: drive, it is much faster and less prone to errors.

so what you're sayin is that there is no point in using 64-bit OS or a 64-bit CPU for a 32-bit code ? as the additional memory requirements are just going to be wasted because the 32-bit code does not use the extra registers or the extra memory address space anyway ?

DX10 I don't know, but if I (and I did) managed to make DX9 as big as only one file (d3d9.dll) which is what ? 1,703,936 bytes long ? and some other additions like 253,440 bytes ddraw.dll 338,944 bytes dsound.dll and maybe only a few others with which dx9 games run without needing to install a full version of dx9 AT ALL, maybe there is hope for vista yet ? yes duude I know about your problem, you want user friendly, that is a compromise which I don't have to be bound by that is what my deleted edition is for, those that don't compromise and delete everything possible. but I am not here to discuss really everything possible, if you select ALL components for removal with nLite you still get around 80-100 MB ISO, which is excellent to at the same time maintain user friendly, what if you could do that for vista ? that is what I mean ! let's make a deal, you make < 100MB Vista ISO possible, I make < 100MB Vista C:\windows ? and of corse < 50 MB Vista RAM at boot (with drivers).

well comrade, in your personal opinion, would it be more efficient and faster to execute 32-bit code on a 32-bit xp on a 64-bit cpu or 32-bit code on a 64-bit xp on a 64-bit cpu ? there is no real proper 64-bit code anywhere so 64-bit code can be considered as does not exist, what does exist is a 64-bit winblows and 64-bit cpu, do any of these improve execution of 32-bit code (or 32-bit based code recompiled for 64-bit processor, all the same, as there is no compiler good enough anyway) ?

btw do you know if xp runs on dual-core systems and 64-bit systems in 32-bit mode ? even if it does not know about them ?

I vote for a separate version of nLite is it going to be able to delete Vista, but no, this is beyond ANY limits, no way an 8 GB "OS" on my system, but if you can get it to be around 0.1 GB or maybe like 0.05 I will consider to try it then. it's more crap than I can handle, I am going to make a few versions of xp so that they would be optimal on my site, if you do manage to make vista/2003 etc... smaller or faster than any version of my xp, only then I will be willing to try it. I don't recommend going for development of vista before nLite has been fully capable of deleting everything within xp (and it is only half way there right now). in my opinion deletion of vista is, impossible, and if possible, will take at least a few years to fully delete it like bold fortune did, it appears that we are loosing the battle unfortunately, the people are not able to keep up with the amounts of crap that bill is making all the time, if you really want to delete vista good luck to you, but I think that investment in such a project would be overkill due to the amount of crap to delete, heck I don't know anyone that has achieved a fully deleted version of xp yet, how can you hope to fully delete vista ?