N00b Qestions

[spystyle]

Hi there!

See bottom for most recent question. (it's always changing)

Thank you

Craig

Edited February 4, 2008 by spystyle

[Ponch]

no matter what I choose, Nlite removes the drivers for Virtual PC 2004

nLite does not remove things "no matter what you choose". If those drivers are not in, either they were not on the CD for a start or you do choose them for removal or you choosed them before and are reusing the files where the drivers have already been removed.

[spystyle]

no matter what I choose, Nlite removes the drivers for Virtual PC 2004

nLite does not remove things "no matter what you choose". If those drivers are not in, either they were not on the CD for a start, or you do choose them for removal, or you choose them before and are reusing the files where the drivers have already been removed.

100% true - in theory.

But in practice: Nlite modifies Windows in some way that makes it so the drivers for "Virtual PC 2004" are not installed.

I am not the only one who has had this problem:

http://www.msfn.org/board/legacy-drivers-S...ter-t81525.html

No matter what - even if I download TinyXP (which is made with Nlite) it does not have the Virtual PC 2004 drivers. Also "XSOS" releases.

I always leave all drivers and hardware support in Nlite:

You can try it :

1. Install virtual PC 2004

2. In VPC, install retail XP, all drivers will be present

3. Nlite that retail XP but do not remove *any* drivers

4. Test the Nlite'd XP in VPC, it will not have the drivers in device manager

Unless both "bigfatroundguy" and myself and the makers of "TinyXP and "XSOS" are all making the exact same mistake, Nlite does in fact modify XP CD to not include some of the drivers.

---------

My problem could be Nlite's "hidden" stuff: Nlite reports that some things are "hidden" - how do I "unhide" these things?

----------

Or, perhaps I could simply "drag and drop" the drivers from the Windows retail CD to the Nlite'd CD files ? Is that possible?

Thank you,

Craig

[El Barry]

In your first image, selected Hardware and Drivers to REMOVE! It's totally normal that nLite removes every drivers and hardware support. If you want to KEEP them, you must NOT select them!

For the hidden components, you must have selected a compatibility preset. A preset will keep the functionality you selected by hiding all the components related. If you want to see all components, don't select a preset (the compatibility tab).

[spystyle]

OOPS!

I'm so retarded... I thought check mark means "keep", when in fact check mark means "remove".

*sigh* I don't get enough coffee...

Thank you,

Craig

Edited February 3, 2008 by spystyle

[spystyle]

OK, thank you. Now that I've made it though that little trial -

I want to strip an XP or 2K CD down to nothing, excluding the bare essentials required to run MAME32, Mala and MAME. So I discovered their dependencies, but I don't know how to reference those dependencies with Nlite's removables, care to give me a clue?

Here are the dependencies:

MAME32's dependencies:

advapi32.dll

Advanced Windows 32 Base API DLL

comctl32.dll

Windows Common Controls Library

comdlg32.dll

Windows Common Dialogs Library

dinput.dll

Microsoft DirectInput DLL

dsound.dll

Microsoft DirectSound DLL

gdi32.dll

Windows GDI Client DLL

kernel32.dll

Microsoft Windows Kernel Process

msvcrt.dll

Microsoft C Runtime Library

shell32.dll

Microsoft Windows Shell Library

user32.dll

Windows User API Client DLL

winmm.dll

Windows Multimedia API

Mala's dependencies (excluding the above):

avifil32.dll

Microsoft AVI File support library

msvfw32.dll

Microsoft Video for Windows DLL

ole32.dll

Microsoft OLE for Windows

oleaut32.dll

Microsoft OLE DLL

version.dll

Version Checking and File Installation

MAME's dependencies (excluding the above):

shlwapi.dll

Microsoft Shell Light-weight Utility

[jaclaz]

If you really want a "bare" XP, ONLY capable of running one (or a few) apps, have a look here:

http://www.boot-land.net/forums/XPSP1-with...0-MB-t3717.html

VERY, and I mean VERY, experimental, but I guess that nothing can be smaller.

The manual method hinted there should work for you too.

Simply re-add the referenced .DLL's to %SystemRoot%\System32\ and try if it works.

If it does not, try using regsrv32.exe to register those .DLL's that require registrations.

jaclaz

[spystyle]

If you really want a "bare" XP, ONLY capable of running one (or a few) apps, have a look here:

http://www.boot-land.net/forums/XPSP1-with...0-MB-t3717.html

VERY, and I mean VERY, experimental, but I guess that nothing can be smaller.

The manual method hinted there should work for you too.

Simply re-add the referenced .DLL's to %SystemRoot%\System32\ and try if it works.

If it does not, try using regsrv32.exe to register those .DLL's that require registrations.

jaclaz

Thanks for the link, I spent an hour on it but as far as I can tell it's a command line only affair - no desktop, no explorer, no CD drives, ect.

Here is a screenshot of that running Qemu (whatever that is, some type of desktop?)

What I'd like is a version of XP that has desktop, CD / DVD reader support (for copying MAME files over), and can run the 3 programs I wrote.

As for placing the dependent files in the program directory - that's a good idea!

As for using regsrv32.exe.... I have never done that, I will give it a try.... I found these instructions:

Register the file using regsrv32.exe.

You can do this by going to the directory where you saved the file and typing

regsvr32 regxplor.dll

After doing this, your desktop will contain a new item named Registry.

You can explore this Registry just like you explore your file system.

Groovy, thanks, anyway now that I have tried that option I still want to make a mega stripped version of XP or 2K that can only run my 3 programs. I don't mind if it is very large as I plan to keep all of XP's drivers and also add "driverpacks" - driver compatibility is important.

Any idea where I could find out what the absolute bare essentials that can not be removed are? (when using Nlite)

Thank you,

Craig

[spystyle]

OK, I made a "tinyXP" with Nlite, it runs MAME32 36 but has an error with MAME 109. It installs DirectX just fine. It uses less than 40 MB RAM (out of 256). Here are some pics:

Here is what I did to get that:

(Made with XP SP3)

------------------

Nlite settings

------------------

Application kept:

Wordpad

Drivers:

All are kept except : printers, tape drives, WLAN

Hardware support:

All are kept except : Modem support, Printer support, Smart cards, and Windows CE...

Keyboards kept:

None

Languages kept:

None

Multimedia:

Acm Core Codecs

DirectX

Intel Indeo codecs

OpenGL Support

Network kept:

Map network drives... (needed for saving user password)

MSMail... (needed for desktop search)

Operating System Options kept:

File Syetem...

Format drive...

Internet explorer core

Logon...

MDAC...

Visual...

Visual...

visual...

Services kept:

Background...

Event...

Kerberos...

Network provisioning (removal may cause startup lag?)

Terminal...

Directories kept:

None

"Tweaks"

Services set to automatic:

Cryptographic services

Event log

Plug and play

Remote procedure call (RPC)

Security Accounts Manager

All others are disabled

------------------

Do you Nlite gurus see anything "superfluous" in my settings ?

Thanks,

Craig

[spystyle]

Hey, I see that I have no sound in my Nlite'd install (I hadn't noticed because the speakers were off and the TV was on)

Though the driver is installed correctly, and I have no problems in the device manager, I see this:

But the driver is just fine:

Any idea what I might have removed that could cause this?

Thank you,

Craig

[fdv]

If you really want to cut down overhead, compile your own MAME without the chipsets that run the big games you won't play. In other words, if you're playing DigDug and related 8086 games, you don't need a MAME with the Motorola 68000 core built in.

I compiled one a while back that runs only a few I'm interested in... due to GPL restrictions (as I understand them) I can't offer it for download to anyone without publishing the source I used, and I don't have the source. I believe I am allowed to give it out individually however. So, e-mail me if you want to try out this MAME compile of mine.

[jaclaz]

Here is a screenshot of that running Qemu (whatever that is, some type of desktop?)

FYI, that screenshot is from a very early build, with cmd.exe as shell, last version uses blackbox, and it is runnning IN Qemu, which is a (free, Open Source) Virtual Machine.

jaclaz

[spystyle]

If you really want to cut down overhead, compile your own MAME without the chipsets that run the big games you won't play. In other words, if you're playing DigDug and related 8086 games, you don't need a MAME with the Motorola 68000 core built in.

I compiled one a while back that runs only a few I'm interested in... due to GPL restrictions (as I understand them) I can't offer it for download to anyone without publishing the source I used, and I don't have the source. I believe I am allowed to give it out individually however. So, e-mail me if you want to try out this MAME compile of mine.

Thank you, but I think that is getting ahead. I would first "optimize" the OS, so it uses very little RAM and leaves just the essentials for running MAME stuff. Then maybe after "optimize" the programs.

Also I don't really understand - are you saying that compiling MAME with less drivers results in a faster MAME?

By the way, in my experience running an older version of MAME32 will result in a big speed boost. Also if using MAME.exe, substitute with fastmame.exe of the same version, and you should see a speed boost.

I found that MAME32 ver 36 only uses about 10 MB RAM, and fastmame coupled with Mala front end doesn't use much either.

Cheers,

Craig

Here is a screenshot of that running Qemu (whatever that is, some type of desktop?)

FYI, that screenshot is from a very early build, with cmd.exe as shell, last version uses blackbox, and it is runnning IN Qemu, which is a (free, Open Source) Virtual Machine.

jaclaz

Thank you for the explanation - is that OS able to use explorer.exe ? I took a look at it but it seemed too stripped out for a simple person to use as a project OS.

Cheers,

Craig

I think I discovered the reason that Direct3D doesn't work, according to M$ Virtual PC FAQ, Direct3D isn't supported.

Q: Can I run Direct3D applications inside Virtual PC or Virtual Server 2005 R2?

A: No. Virtual Server 2005 R2 does not support Direct3D. Virtual Server emulates an S3Trio64 video card for 2d video.

Edited February 5, 2008 by spystyle

[jaclaz]

Thank you for the explanation - is that OS able to use explorer.exe ? I took a look at it but it seemed too stripped out for a simple person to use as a project OS.

Hmmm, you seem to fail to see the main point of all the work that fdv a.k.a Fred de Vorck and number of other people (with some little contributions by me) have done in latest years, which is dedicated to the REMOVAL of Internet Explorer and of Explorer, also.

And as said, the idea of a MINIMAL, EXPERIMENTAL anything is to be, well, MINIMAL and EXPERIMENTAL, so it is well suited for a "project OS" but VERY unsuitable for a "final user".

jaclaz

[spystyle]

Thank you for the explanation - is that OS able to use explorer.exe ? I took a look at it but it seemed too stripped out for a simple person to use as a project OS.

Hmmm, you seem to fail to see the main point of all the work that fdv a.k.a Fred de Vorck and number of other people (with some little contributions by me) have done in latest years, which is dedicated to the REMOVAL of Internet Explorer and of Explorer, also.

And as said, the idea of a MINIMAL, EXPERIMENTAL anything is to be, well, MINIMAL and EXPERIMENTAL, so it is well suited for a "project OS" but VERY unsuitable for a "final user".

jaclaz

It's hard for me to see the point of "Windows" without "explorer.exe", I guess I am not hardcore enough!

Cheers,

Craig