Overkill

[fdv]

okay, here's my system.

Abit IT7 Max2, ATI Radeon 7000, 512MB Corsair 4000 memory, Pentium 4 2.0 GHz

4 hard drives for a total of something like 100 gigs

what else. i dunno. anyway, at work:

Abit IC7 G, ATI Radeon 9000, 512MB Corsair 4000 memory, Pentium 4 2.0 GHz

2 hard drives, 60 gigs total

i know most folks here have machines that go way beyond these specs. anyway. i list these because what i want to ask... once you pare down the installed OS, why go further? i know i am asking the wrong crowd but it's least likely to get me flamed here. HFSLIP users i think mostly want to use their machines, not tweak them all day. i understand using nlite, but that's not really what i'm talking about. i am talking about the guys who would re-run nlite just so they can do a complete re-install on a one-week old system just so they can save a hundred and fifty kilobytes. reduction is one thing, i'm talking about extremists.

i personally like a fast windows os, like 2000 (obviously). i don't like overhead i don't use, like fax DLLs in memory, that's just stupid on Microsoft's part. if IE were totally secure and local and internet zones did not leak into each other, i might use it, who knows. as its been said, ya can't un-swiss the cheese.

really small files

but why take out a component that you might use--or even one you don't for argument's sake--just to save 512k on a machine that has a 30 gig drive? why reduce the boot drive to 60 megs? here's why i ask: a good drive-space aware defragger will make the performance of a fairly loaded drive (say, a 170 meg install) about the same in a direct comparison. unused files simply will not cause any delay in load times and use of the operating system (again, the defragger has to use a good drive-space strategy, the built-in windows defragger is questionable in this regard). oh, and those who would talk about cluster-waste, this is NTFS, remember guys? and the kicker? performance geeks (especially XP users) don't even gut the MOST IMPORTANT thing that can increase their speed, the REGISTRY!!! they worry about a few kilobytes of files but their registries are weighing in at 20 megs??!?! WHAT?!?!?

language files

same deal. just because nlite makes the list look long does not mean these files take a lot of space. someone clue me in here please. these files don't amount to diddly. well, in total a few megs. again, as above -- so what? your machine has endless hd space. the os isn't even calling these files or loading them into memory. your defragged drive can let them sit unused without a problem because your defragger can put unused files at the end of the drive. and your swap file is on its own partition anyway, right? right?? (if not, it should be).

boot times

do these guys turn on their machine, time the boot with a stopwatch, and then post the results and pass out awards? i leave my machines running all day. i reboot every two weeks, maybe. maybe.

source reduction

a dvd-r drive can be found for under 100 USD / 85 EUR. a dvd blank is not that expensive. why reduce source? if you are reducing source on a cd-r, why? you can't fit ms office and windows on one cd-r. even if i burn all of my programs to cd-r, it takes one... i couldn't add them to my windows cd anyway, they all take 800mb. never mind adobe creative suite which is its own dvd. i'd need to reduce my windows install cd to about 10 mb (ten megs) to fit all of my other programs on the same disk, like nero, partition magic, dreamweaver, virtual pc, etc etc etc.

XP users who talk about performance

ok, i just do NOT get this one. they use xp, rip out all of the extra stuff so it's almost as slim as win2k, and say they use it because it's faster, or it's more stable, etc. faster or more stable than what? GEOS running on a Commodore 64? xp is pretty. it has to have hundreds of tweaks added to it so that it doesn't re-arrange your icons without asking, doesn't hide your desktop items, doesn't hide control panel items, doesn't hide task bar icons, doesn't try to cache stuff in the prefetch at boot time so booting doesn't take longer when you uninstall something later, doesn't mess with your start menu, doesn't offer some sort of retarded "shared documents" thing when you're trying to set up networking, etc. it has to be nlite'd to he?? and back just to strip out stuff so that it comes a little closer to the IE-free win2k.

doesn't anyone actually use their machines anymore? does all of this reflect the general ignorance of the mass user who doesn't understand drive defragmentation or how windows loads DLLs? do people really need to reduce the size of their source because they are ALL putting 7 operating systems on one multiboot dvd?

fdv, who is just not understanding any of this "reduce it to zero" stuff any more

Edited November 16, 2005 by fdv

[rikgale]

It's fun!

I'm not after a speedy machine/system, but I view this as more of a learning experience. Shaving off the past few Mb's is pointless unless I feel that I might learn something from it.

My 2p worth

[nite0859]

Reducing the source makes sense if say, you're installing Windows XP or 2000 on a customized Carputer or something like that. In the regard, however, it makes much more sense to modify an xbox with a mod chip, put XBMC as the dashboard and go from there. Regular xboxs are like $150, an upgraded HD will run around $100 depending on size, the modchip is like $65. With a few LCD screens, you can make something that'll really pimp your ride. And you'll be able to watch .mkv, .avi, .qt, or whatever. You can always upgrade the HD on an xbox. I knew a friend in high school that put a PC in his Blazer (early to mid 1990s) just so he could interface his sound card to his stereo system so he can play Mp3s. Now, there are factory CD players that play Mp3s from the CD itself.

To me it makes more sense to have a stable system, regardless of size or speed. A fast system is nice, but it has to be fast for a purpose. What is the purpose of a fast system ? 90% of the people will respond : "To game." I understand that. But even there, there are fanactics that want every last .005 FPS they can get. Me ? I want the most stable, and within stability, the fastest system I can get in order to FRAG people. Upgrading drivers is the quickest way to gain performance and stability. But the drivers depend on the OS to function. I think people translate a faster OS into more FPS.

I want my OS to be quick, responsive, protected and uptodate -- this is the cornerstone upon which all else depends (well, except for the hardware). That's why I use HFSLIP, RyanVM's stuff, and BTS's driverpacks. I want to be able to have one CD or one DVD that has all the hotfixes and drivers already on it to help those that I know who are in no way computer savvy.

[Zxian]

Hehe... interesting topic.

I used to use nLite a lot, but then I realized that there were things that I would need that I thought I didn't, so a re-install was in order. After about 3 or 4 times of that, it got a little bit annoying (this was my work computer).

The thing with projects such as nLite, MicroWinX, or your registry removal files is that you are changing the fundamentals of the operating system you're using. Windows 2000 and XP have a feature set that other software and hardware developers consider when writing their drivers and software. If you remove components of the OS, you run the risk of breaking the compatbility.

Yes, you can set most of the settings/options you want on install, but that requires a lot of testing and time. I remember the very first time I tried to set up a UA CD manually... took me **** near a week to get it working properly. Then add regtweaks, UA installs, personal settings, etc etc etc.

For me, I'd like to have my computer "just work", perhaps a little bit slower, rather than find out something doesn't work, then spend the next 5-6 hours reinstalling all my software and applying the settings I need.

Don't get me wrong. I think that these projects should continue for those who use them and are interesting. I am in no way bashing fdv, gdogg, or Nuhi. I just think that everyone should realize that these projects are not for everyone. I can't stand it when I see someone suggests nLite to a person who doesn't even know what a UA install is. You're just going to end up causing that person more grief in the end, and they'll get the "Windows sucks" attitude even more.

[Crash&Burn]

It was the only way I could get my Nvidia SATA drivers integrated, though will be testing without it soon, since they claim to be WHQL now/again.

Before had to remove all IDE drivers w/ Nlite, so only the Nvidia drivers that were slipstreamed into drivers remained.

I liked making Windows 2000 Frisbees.

Reducing source would let you make a multi-OS-install CD, though I never did so. Imagine you might as well do so on a DVD instead.

And like a few others here mentioned, learning experience, was using Qchain et al prior to Nlite. But I'm more about seeing the guts of whats going on, Nlite only lets me see the end results, HFSLIP lets me see exactly whats going on and F-around with it hehe.

FDV: 4 harddrives to attain 100GIgs - whats the point of that Ah got them at a garage sale?

Specs: Asus K8N-E Deluxe (754), AMD 64 (2800), 1024MB RAM (3200 Samsung, TwinBanked), 2xSeagate 160Gig SATA drives, ATI Sapphire 9800 Pro (128mb)

The question I have is why do people pay 2-4times what I did (50 bucks per 512MB stick) for ram...oh yeah 5 more F.P.S for their FPS heh.

Edited November 16, 2005 by Crash&Burn

[fdv]

FDV: 4 harddrives to attain 100GIgs - whats the point of that newwink.gif Ah got them at a garage sale?

you pretty much nailed it, but they were all leftovers from other dead systems

The question I have is why do people pay 2-4times what I did (50 bucks per 512MB stick) for ram...oh yeah 5 more F.P.S for their FPS heh.

that would be another thing, and that's the whole idea of what i am getting at -- people going through what is IMHO massive effort (or expense) for questionable, minutely small gains that in some cases probably cannot even be measured.

[saugatak]

I guess it all depends on what people say is "overkill."

I have a bunch of old computers that I don't want to upgrade until the move to x86-64 bit chips is complete.

I have to reboot all the time because I shut my computers off, and I only use a very limited number of programs. Given these fixed variables, I'd like to find my ideal system configuration and stick with it.

Also, IMO, Windows is just an incredibly flaky system. If you leave a system alone long enough, something weird happens with printer drivers or something. On one computer, for some reason an old version of AdAware just won't uninstall. On another computer, an old version of Firefox won't uninstall. On another computer, my printer driver wouldn't install right so I shifted it to LPT4 and all the other programs as well, but that screwed up Adobe PDF printing. Sigh.

These problems start accumulating and my policy is, on average every 6 months, re-install everything on a computer. Since I have 4 computers, this used to mean a lost weekend. Using HFSLIP, FDVfiles and nLite and slipstreaming Office, WordPerfect and other programs, I can do this in one day.

Since using HFSLIP and FDV Fileset I've done more re-installs but that's part of the learning process. As all the bugs (including the bugs I introduce) get worked out, the systems will be stable and FAST and won't need as much updating.

Edited November 18, 2005 by saugatak

[muchlux]

For general amusement, my systems:

ABIT KG7-RAID XP1800+ 512MB-ECC 80GB-HDD Radeon9000VIVO

AOPEN AK79 XP1800+ 512MB 80GB-HDD Radeon9000VIVO

DELL GX110 P3-800 256MB 20GB-HDD

DELL GX100 P2-500 192MB 10GB-HDD

I have to agree when "saugatak" says it is useful or necessary to make a clean install every xx months.

My 2 AMD systems needs this because my family is working+playing on these and I only have dial-in connection to the internet, so Windows update is almost impossible.

Even Windows2000 is not that stable anymore when using some Video Processing Software.

(I killed a fresh installed W2k system with installing a DVB card)

Therefore I like to have a CD which reduces setup time from approx. 4 hours to 1h.

BTW The DELL GX110 is the PC I work on all day.

Finally: My reason to use HFSLIP is the fast setup time with up to date Hotfixes that "I" can include.

And of course it's only a script - not a program who I cannot trace.

I also don't like the "W2kSP5 update packages" which are offered by some sites.

Mostly they are not localizable or working some hours to apply dozens of hotfixes one after another.

[Oleg_II]

The point of reducing files?

Interesting question

What is the point of fishing or making models? Is it time spending for nothing? No, it's hobby. It's learning. It's some fun. Somebody like spending time in bars. I like spending it with my computer.

When I'd got my first notebook I understood (after some time of course) that I don't want go back to a desk PC.

When I have to go somewhere on business I understand how's good to have all you need in only one reasonably small case.

I like it compact. Reasonably compact. For an OS: less files, smaller regestry but good functionality. Why I reduce files? There are a lot of files left obsolete ater using your set There are a lot of files that I never used, don't use and are not going to use in future like cursors and wallpapers. All my hardware needs external drivers (not supplied by W2k source) and I can delete safetely nearly all all drivers from the source. Only deleting printer drivers reduces the source about 20-some MB and HFSLIP and than the installation even run faster in this case (if there is printer drivers reducing file in HFCLEANUP).

I'm not rushing for the smallest source possible. I'd told you one day: it's not the size that is metter And I'm completely agree about compact regestry - it's sometime even more important for the fast OS. But I'm a bit of a perfectionist - all including the source and the regestry should be "clean" and fast.

You and TommyP's ideas let us follow this route

We are not going to stop on todays result, do we?

[Tomcat76]

Nice topic, fdv.

I'm not an extremist myself;-- I even call you an extremist with your FDV files...

Today's machines should be capable enough. I don't often work with or repair older computers but I've never tried to squeeze the max out of these by downsizing the installation. I do some reg tweaks here and there but the systems are fully up-to-date and "complete" otherwise.

I do want to comment on some things you wrote.

I'm maybe taking this out of the original context, but it's a bit hard to put swap files on different drives or partitions when you're dealing with a multi-OS rig. Just take mine as an example:

IDE1M: 80GB system drive

* C: Windows 2000

* D: Windows XP

* E: Test partition (for newly slipstreamed OS)

* F: various junk / preparation installs / drivers

SATA1: 320GB (general data)

SATA2: 320GB (videos)

SATA3: 320GB (backup)

SATA4: 320GB (backup of other computers)

Where do I put the swap files? I don't have the necessary room for any more hard drives (my full computer specs). And this is a system with "only" two OS's...

The second thing is about "stability". Windows XP is more capable and more stable in some domains. I have to use XP too for two reasons:

1) It's proven to be more stable when capturing/editing/exporting videos with Pinnacle Studio

2) It can handle the creation of Sonic RecordNow image files (.gi) larger than 2GB on NTFS partitions

I've once done an extensive comparison in this field and this is "my stability list":

1) Windows XP SP2

2) Windows 2000 SP4

3) Windows XP SP1

4) Windows 2000 SP3

5) Windows XP Gold

The testing was based on how long a fresh installation could do without BSOD'ing when not all drivers were installed, and how it does afterwards. When SP4 for Windows 2000 came out, I found it was the only one which could stand up against all others: it NEVER crashed when the drivers weren't installed "in due time". XP SP2 never crashed either.

For all other purposes, I use Windows 2000. I find it the prettiest OS ever made (Windows Millennium looks the same but it should be obvious why I'm opting for 2000) and it doesn't have this visual "blupp" effect that XP has when browsing through folders (except when browsing network folders). It also doesn't come with the junk that I need to disable on XP.

Oh... and this... XP SP1 found it necessary to warn me of invalid characters when copying and pasting a URL as the name for a new folder. I usually safe pictures in a folder that has the name of the site they came from, and I manually change the slashes to double dashes before applying the new name. The warning I can actually live with, but XP SP2 finds it necessary to actually REMOVE the slashes! This means that I have to move the Save As box away so I can see my browser's address bar, localize the forward slashes, and insert double dashes at those positions in the name of the new folder... What a waste of time!

About the only thing I don't like about 2000 (besides screwing up with Pinnacle Studio and with creating +2GB .GI files) is the time it takes before it STARTS emptying the Recycle Bin when you have a "large amount" of storage space... Any tips?

Edited November 17, 2005 by Tomcat76

[fdv]

By the way, Poll!

[tommyp]

Making a small installation source is tricky and sometimes it feels like I'm walking on thin ice to be sure all applications & networking works. Like Oleg2, I want my system to be bloat free and barebones. This barebones approach does seem to improve speed somewhat too... unless it's just a mirage.

@Tomkat, perhaps you can reduce the percentage of your recycle bin size? Here's my regedit that I run in my HFSVPK folder so it works for all users. This limits the size to 3% instead of the default 10%.

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\BitBucket]

"Percent"=dword:00000003

[Tomcat76]

@Tomkat, perhaps you can reduce the percentage of your recycle bin size? Here's my regedit that I run in my HFSVPK folder so it works for all users. This limits the size to 3% instead of the default 10%.

I have had mine at 1% (global) for as long as I can remember. It's not the time it takes to delete files that bothers me, but the time it takes before Windows STARTS to delete them. This appears to be irrelevant to "how full" the Recycle Bin is. I can empty it, create a new, empty TXT document, delete it, right-click the Recycle Bin icon and choose "Empty Recycle Bin". It takes approximately 8 seconds before Windows starts doing what it's supposed to do. On a clean install, when my SATA drives aren't connected yet, it doesn't take that long and if only one small partition is available (say, 3GB), it's as good as on XP.

[os2fan2]

There are several reasons that one might want to thin out some OS.

One thing is the potential security risk. For example, removing IE as an integrated element, and then reinstalling it as a standalone thing, made Win98 much faster, and stabler.

Another thing is to squeeze it into a smaller space, so that you can reduce the cost of supporting several operating systems. One can safely remove certian things to make Win2k leaner and meaner, without making it unstable.

One can do things with the registry as well. On slower machines, the little animated throbber slows things down, and removing this makes a visually more responsive machine. Other cycle-soakers can be eliminated in a similar fashion.

Cause, it makes no sense if you have to tweak registry all the time, so ye have a trusty rexx script to do the work.

Wendy