Jump to content

[How-to] MicrowinX Project


gdogg
 Share

Recommended Posts


gdogg say:

I am not sure what caused this, was this made with nlite rc8 or rc7?

try remaking the cd, from a clean source too.

if none of this helps, please let me know.

also, if the bluescreen, appeared in vmware, after running shrinkdown.exe , that is perfectly normal, due to the fact, that actually video drivers being installed, would fix that error.

also, if you can attach, your last_session.ini , dont include the last_session_u.ini.

@gdogg

I use nlite rc8. I follow the guide exactly and after the process the iso size is 94 Mb

My source is a WIN XP professional edition (without any SP)

I don't use shrinkdown.exe.... really I don't know what is this!

I attached the last_session.ini

Thanks!!!!

Last_Session.ini

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how would I test if it was supported.

Right click on My Computer -> properties -> Computer Name -> Change button. Then see if you can choose Domain: under the Member of box. Type something in, even if it is bogus. At least it will try to join a domain. Under the current MicrowinX, I could not even get that far.

-John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can change computer name under that.

just not workgroup name.

i guess, workground name , will show me AD is working?

@jftuga

I will try to get AD working for you, asap then. Probbally, beta 3.0, will support it, from a start menu entry, at the users request.

also, do you have a router lying around, cause that would make it so, you can join a domain (workgroup), if thats all you need AD support for. If you need it for other reasons, what might those be, so I can test them out for you too.

if your main goal, is like file and printer sharing, and windows networking, ftp and so on, are far better choices. enabling networking may very well cause a secuirty issue.

@gczobel

I cannot reproduce your error even under rc8.

did you use a clean install.

if all else fails, try intergrating sp2, and see if it works then.

if sp0, I have not had access to, only sp1, and sp1 worked fine.

Edited by gdogg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@gczobel

I cannot reproduce your error even under rc8.

did you use a clean install.

if all else fails, try intergrating sp2, and see if it works then.

if sp0, I have not had access to, only sp1, and sp1 worked fine.

To determine if the problem is in the source cd or in the last_session.ini I made the following. Using the same source CD, instead of use your last_session.ini I made only a little change... (see the MyPC on desktop)

The iso produced with nLite works ok...

So... isn't a problem in the source or nLite...

Maybe I can "undelete" things in your last_sessions addings things to Windows to determine what is the necessary component that fails???

what do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, but its sp0 causing the issue with the last_session.ini

I dont know what to say, why arn't you using sp2?

I dont think, sp0 really has any benifit over sp2, in a microwinX state.

you can get sp2 here

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...45-9e368d3cdb5a

intergate this, with nlite, to the service pack sections (first)

Ok I found the issue, it is easy to fix, beta 3.0 will incorperate it.

for non-sp2 windows xp's or 2k3 probbally too. You will need to get ntoskrnl.ex_ from the origional, and ntkrnlmp.ex_ if multi-proc, from the origional disk, and throw it in the folder, before making image with nlite.

Edited by gdogg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I found the issue, it is easy to fix, beta 3.0 will incorperate it.

for non-sp2 windows xp's or 2k3 probbally too. You will need to get ntoskrnl.ex_ from the origional, and ntkrnlmp.ex_ if multi-proc, from the origional disk, and throw it in the folder, before making image with nlite.

Yeahh! work! You're great!

BTW, I added the SP2 :blushing: and work without any manual fix

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@gczobel

cool glad to hear it.

I just installed microwinX on a pentium 3 650 Mhz laptop with 128MB ram.

works better than windows me or 98 ever did.

Edited by gdogg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gdogg, I've been following the MicrowinX project every now and then since its conception and have wanted to address a few concerns:

From what I gather, the name of the game is simply stripping out everything and then adding back dependencies as necessary. While I find this tactic to be fairly promising, it came to my attention that mWinX doesn't add the dlls back into the system directory, but rather into the individual applications' directories, which to me seems counterproductive.

Why have the dlls in multiple places when you only need it in one?

Second, due to the fact that you have deemed the project completely closed source(despite the fact that the source can be extracted fairly easily), you have since chosen to maintain project entirely on your behalf.

My question to you is, when is enough, enough? If you release patches for every application requested, isn't the project simply going to turn into the "one size fits all" package we know Windows as today?

I'd like to express the fact that I'm not trying to rock the boat here... I just think that this project is headed in somewhat of the wrong direction and if left to continue will end up in a dead end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

first, closed source and rules are only to prevent the theft and sale of microwinX or its source code, and to also make sure users abide by the rule of nlite, which states personal use only.

All users are free to make application patchs in the form found in he rest of the application patches found in microwinX, and to post them here in this thread, the support forums found in my signature, or to send them to me to add to beta 3.0.

you dont understand the reasons behind standalone applications.

windows laods a whole bunch on uneeded crud, why load it all with windows, when you can load it when you load the programs that actually need it.

also, putting file back into system32, is the easiest way to make windows insecure and allow virus' to pray on it.

The goal of microwinX is speed, and security. Hard drive space benifit is obviously there too, and those looking to save space, also install very little application/games, and wouldn't be canceling out the less hard drive usage. (like old computers with small hard drives, car comptuers, and computers with ramdrives (like gigabyte iram) I am currently asking for the help of anyone who can help figure out howto run microwinX from a usb key or other types of flash memory with the use of EWF)

The goal of this project, is to help users make there computers run at full potentions, under the newest windows, where all the hardware/software support is, even if there computer cant easily run it otherwise.

and at the same time, leaving there computer in a state where virus' wont be able to attack, cause they simply will not run.

and by making windows so tiny, load so little, and close all open ports in windows, it becomes one of the most secure windows xp's out there.

if you dont see the benifits, even on an FX 62, with ddr 500 2-2-2-5 and 4 sata 2 hard drive in raid 0, and 2-7800 gt's in sli, getting 14K in 3dmark05. I'd have to say your lieing.

since I see the benifts of half pings vs software firewall usage. first in cs source rounds, every game vs every user, no matter what, and since I am the only one playing cs source under microwinX right now, I can say that easily, without hesitation, cause, from a survery performed by me, in 10 servers, with over 100 users, no one gets in the game before me.

Not because of my computers specs, but because of microwinX, I normally have time to spwan, buy weapons, and geto there spawn point before they enter the game, under a normal nlited windows, this is just not the case, as I am normally 3rd to 4th in there server.

this same thing was tested on my friend cs source server, which is also, the second computer with microwinX running cs source, everyones pings got halfed vs sygate personal firewall and a nlited to the bones windows xp. All his format each week-end issues to fix server performance issues are gone, this server changes lvls, in about 1/10 the time it did before.

and even running server, and cs source on this, amd 64 3200+ , with 1 gb ddr 400, and a 9800se, (his computer gaming computer is far better) I beat him loading into the server, along with the rest of his clan, had time to buy weapons, and get to there spawn point before they got into the game.

Not only that, they also called me a cheat, since I won that round on a broken ball mouse. (skills can get you in trouble sometimes with your friends lol)

I know I rambled on and on, but here is the summary.

MicrowinX adds lots of security, virus immunity, lower pings, faster game load times, faster game lvl load times, and takes away that common lag, everyone experiences in FPS games, around lagers.

beta 4.0, will bring, users, extremly fast boot times (world record stuff guys) , registry cleanup, which in essence would further improve load times of everything , so much hardware support, that will also, not affect those who dont want it, cause removal is the name of the game.

beta 3.0 is like half way through june, or later, due to my moving out next saturday.

beta 3.5 might not appear in just a single build, you might see , beta 3.51-3.59 before you see a beta 4.0 release.

oh and beta 4.0 will for sure be out before you can run games on your PS3.

(also did anyone see that Playstation 3 running windows XP at E3 2006) I soo want to do that, but with microwinX, even if just in vmware ...

Edited by gdogg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay.... let me get this straight.....

From your understanding, an application that's "stand alone"(ie; requiring no external operating system files), you would rather package tens upon hundreds of copies of the same dlls in multiple folders(which INCREASES bloat), rather than keep them in the system directory(where they belong)?

First off, a stand alone application simply means that it's portable; it will work on ANY system you run it on. How is such a feat accomplished?

One, the application cannot create numerous registry and user profile entries that need to be accessed(at the very most, it should create a config file that saves user preferences).

Two, the application's working directory should never be its own, but rather the libraries that are inherent in every Windows operating system.

If you look at applications like uTorrent or Media Player Classic, you'll find that this is the case.

Second, I have a better solution that will eliminate all of this additional overhead:

Change the directory that dlls and system executables are stored... and then mount that directory in the EWF loader.

Now, as for these claims you're making...

They seem to be a very tall order that I'm seriously doubting. Sure, you might have lower memory usage and fewer files for viruses(or the user) to fsck up, but lower pings and virus immunity?

Do you have any proof, outside of personal testing, to substantiate these claims?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heres a question for you.

have you even used it. im sure you can test the claims on your own if you did.

I dont know why you feel the need to discredit my project, with all these claims of yours.

and a sharded .dll directory, would eliminate the whole point of this project.

and yes, personal testing, by the creator of the project, who has been using this for over 1 year, tried infected himself with 1000's of virus' and tested under hundreds of games, which all shows similar benfits, but mainly in the first person shooter genre where its easier to tell.

honestly, microwinX will never be a failure, as long as I am using it, which is where it started.

and your idea of bloat, is not my idea of bloat, "bloat to me is files that have no use, whatsoever, like files that arn't needed to boot windows, being loaded"

the time spent, making it easy for other users to use too, has been enormous. Never expected soo much work, and I also expected some users to give back, in the form of application patches.

I think that maybe, users will give back, what they can, once they understand the simplicity of making patches, even though its time consuming.

anyway, I dont want to argue, or prove anything to you, because it seems you already arn't using it. Nor would you do anything but try to discredit my claims anyway.

Thanks

gdogg

ps. sorry to the users of microwinX that have to read this, coming to the thread for updates and so on, just to see this.

If anyone needs help, has a request, or anything else please do so, and I will try my best to bring what you need to microwinX as soon as I can.

also as a microwinX user for well over a year. I had 1 microwinX installation, that I used for 1 year + , never had a slowdown, crash, issue what so ever, never needed to format, defrag or anything.

Edited by gdogg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes there is, its rather simple, yet not exactly tested on my end, due to the fact, I have HD Tv's

you'd enable the TV-out before running slimdown.exe from the start menu \microwinX folder.

doing do, I presume, you'd have tv out, for the duration of your microwinX install, without, it changing or disappearing either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heres a question for you.

have you even used it. im sure you can test the claims on your own if you did.

I dont know why you feel the need to discredit my project, with all these claims of yours.

Naturally, the only way I could ever possibly come to any conclusion is through rigorous testing. This is why I felt the need to provide a commentary.

Now don't get me wrong- I'm not trying to discredit your project, just the way you've gone about it.

and a sharded .dll directory, would eliminate the whole point of this project.
So, in turn, the point of the project is to load every other directory up with identical dlls, not only creating unnecessary bloat, but additional ram usage?

How might it increase additional ram usage, might you ask?

Well, say you have two applications that need the same dlls. If application A and B are both working out of their own working set, the dlls will be loaded twice instead of just simply being loaded by the subsystem handler and then accessed in shared memory by both applications.

It would be like putting DirectX in every single directory for every game you have.

and yes, personal testing, by the creator of the project, who has been using this for over 1 year, tried infected himself with 1000's of virus' and tested under hundreds of games, which all shows similar benfits, but mainly in the first person shooter genre where its easier to tell.

I'll believe that when I see it... try doing actual benchmarks and record data for it, rather than just making arbitrary conclusions based on what you percieve to be factual and accurate.

Now, as for infecting the system with viruses, everyone knows that once you remove LSASS, most viruses that would usually have some indication of infection either don't execute or simply don't pop their nasty little heads out.

I don't believe this to be exclusive to your project.

honestly, microwinX will never be a failure, as long as I am using it, which is where it started.
But you see, this is inherently why it has already failed.

You're in complete control of what, in essence, MicrowinX is and will become. Therefore, users simply have to go with the flow or come up with their own version based upon what you have started.

Unlike some of the other projects on MSFN, users have very little control over what goes in and what comes out, because the options are fairly limited to the applications you and the other people capable of making application patches use.

and your idea of bloat, is not my idea of bloat, "bloat to me is files that have no use, whatsoever, like files that arn't needed to boot windows, being loaded"

I believe the term "bloat" to be universal: Unnecessary substance.

This, to me, includes files that are of use, but are proliferated throughout the system.

the time spent, making it easy for other users to use too, has been enormous. Never expected soo much work, and I also expected some users to give back, in the form of application patches.

I think that maybe, users will give back, what they can, once they understand the simplicity of making patches, even though its time consuming.

See, again, the problem is that you're not teaching anyone to fish... you're just handing them the fishing pole and assuming they know how to bait their hook and reel something in for you.

If you wanted a "ground up" approach, you should start with a "ground up" approach.

Instead, you elect to personally do all of the work.... making it your project, instead of an MSFN community project.

At least nuhi and some of the other project developers have the humility to accept criticism and even go as far as to sometimes admit they're wrong.

anyway, I dont want to argue, or prove anything to you, because it seems you already arn't using it. Nor would you do anything but try to discredit my claims anyway.

Well if the shoe fits...

I honestly believe that if someone is passionate about something, they would fight tooth and nail to get their point across.

I'm giving you that opportunity. The ball is in your court.

ps. sorry to the users of microwinX that have to read this, coming to the thread for updates and so on, just to see this.

If anyone needs help, has a request, or anything else please do so, and I will try my best to bring what you need to microwinX as soon as I can.

You act like it's such an inconvinience for someone to read a post or two that isn't full of praise.

If you're egotistical enough to have ever honestly believed you've created perfection here, I think you need to re-evaluate why you even started this project in the first place.

also as a microwinX user for well over a year. I had 1 microwinX installation, that I used for 1 year + , never had a slowdown, crash, issue what so ever, never needed to format, defrag or anything.

While the others might be valid points, you're barking up the wrong tree when you say you've never had to defragment.

Just because you've never done it doesn't mean there isn't fragmentation, nor would I ever recommend that anyone disregard defragmentation, especially with large capacity drives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...