HFCLEANUP - Reduce your source

[tommyp]

Kiki, Please read the readme in the ZIP file. I didn't write it for my enjoyment. hehe. Sounds like you are using all the reducers and you have no idea what you are doing. If you are running NLITE on the sourcess folder, don't bother using HFCLEANUP, just use NLITE instead. It's a far better reducer than HFCLEANUP.

BTW, the Gosh reducer was written in honor of a great poster on the MSFN boards. She had great tips for reducing the source if you want to install by CD only. Hint... a CD only install doesn't need dosnet.inf.

[Kiki Burgh]

thanks for the quick reply tommyp!

actually i did read it ... simplest thing i did was just stash everything in HFCLEANUP directory ...

as for using nLite, i only did so to see if my mileage would vary ... he! he! trying to come up with a much slimmer source i used HFSLIP 1st though ...

i just hit the wall coming at T-39 minutes ... running it in a VM ... further, i did not place any addon or anything else that could bloat the source ...

Edited June 7, 2006 by Kiki Burgh

[saugatak]

Sounds like you are using all the reducers and you have no idea what you are doing. If you are running NLITE on the sourcess folder, don't bother using HFCLEANUP, just use NLITE instead. It's a far better reducer than HFCLEANUP.

tommyp, just wondering, why do you think NLITE is better than HFCLEANUP?

[tommyp]

Nlite is good at reducing the installation because it gives descriptive words and impacts about each thing to be removed. Nlite has lots more support by many users all over the world. Many of these users provide constructive feedback on what files to keep and what not to keep and what registry changes should be made. To top it off, NLITE is point and click based but the user is not presented with information all at once.

With that said, HFCLEANUP can be good for people who know what they want to delete, what registry entries they want slipstreamed, what hives they want to filter themselves, etc. HFCLEANUP is pretty powerful, but it's not for the novice and it's definately not for people who can't read the instructions. At this point, HFCLEANUP is mature for 2000 (there is a few more things I added but it not released at this point). HFCLEANUP with XP is buggy, HFCLEANUP with 2003 works.

[saugatak]

At this point, HFCLEANUP is mature for 2000 (there is a few more things I added but it not released at this point). HFCLEANUP with XP is buggy, HFCLEANUP with 2003 works.

Only used HFCLEANUP with Win2k and it works fine so I was wondering what you meant by buggy.

Looking forward to next release of HFCLEANUP with the few more things added.

[dirtwarrior]

I havnt messed with the reducers for a while, been very busy. Just a fast question. On 2k using the reducer files what would the iso size, install size and the comitt?

[saugatak]

I havnt messed with the reducers for a while, been very busy. Just a fast question. On 2k using the reducer files what would the iso size, install size and the comitt?

Depends on which reducers you use.

My experiences has been that the Win2k reducers take out more than nLite.

But mainly I use it because tommyp has tested in and it's faster to use HFSLIP and HFCLEANUP rather than doing nLite after HFSLIP.

I still use nLite for rare XP installs though.

[dirtwarrior]

using tommyp reducer

I know there is his and oleg and fdv is there more?

[tommyp]

Here's what I get with 2k/ie6/dx9/hfcleanup/hfexpert/lots-o-codecs (way more codecs than I really need). This data was taken in early January 06. Things may have changed somewhat, but probably not too much, but I haven't verified it in a while. Installation takes 12-13 minutes from CD bootup to first logon screen. This is just barebones OS at this point.

ISO (i386 directory) - 100 meg

Handles - 1700

Threads - 127

Processes - 12

Commit - 35 meg

OS footprint - 245 meg

When I say hfcleanup and XP is buggy, I mean that sometimes you could get a BSOD during installation. I haven't pin pointed it (and I really don't want to figure it out either).

[dirtwarrior]

OK thanks

Just wondering is there a way to incorporate BTS drivers?

Edited July 6, 2006 by dirtwarrior

[tain]

Dirt, Try this thread for BTS info:

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=72749

[dirtwarrior]

Thanks I followed it. My iso increased about 400 mb. It is nice to have a system up and ready to go after install. But 400 mb

[tain]

You can try this method for drivers as well.

For BTS, you don't have to include all of the packs if you don't want to.

We should probably be using an existing drivers thread...we are going off-topic :/

Edited July 6, 2006 by TAiN

[saugatak]

How does HFCLEANUP handle registry edits? In other words, when you use HFCLEANUP to rip out POSIX, for example, does HFCLEANUP also clean out the POSIX entries in the registry?

[fdv]

POSIX appeared in Win2k and not XP/2k3. So, to answer your question in a specific way, only my fileset cleans the registry (EXTENSIVELY). the reducers do not clean the registry. In XP and 2k3, that doesn't really matter much (I won't get into why) but in Win2k, it significantly speeds things up becasue of the way win2k loads the registry entirely into memory. In 2k3, the reducers combined with a file I wrote cleans the registry quite a bit, but since 2k3 doesn't load the whole thing anyway, it's not so crucial for performance.