PROBLEMCHYLD Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 I was wondering all the files in DirectX,WMP,etc are they necessary for proper operation or is it just bloat. If it is would any of you Guru's be interested in slim'n them down to increase better performance for the OS.Why have the Obselete files installed if they serve no purpose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chozo4 Posted July 28, 2006 Share Posted July 28, 2006 (edited) DirectX is neccessary for many forms of hardware\software to take advantage of functionality and\or even run at all.Hardware such as some video cards need direct x to take advantage of hardware acceleration or software rendering if they rely on directx to handle alot of internal features. Seems intel gfx chipsets rely on it alot for many things and will cause lockups otherwise.Some soundcard drivers also need directx if their drivers are written to use it and don't have a software fallback method if directx is too low a version of unavailable.Alot of games and other software that use sound and video may need directx installed to run. This based off my own experiences due to my laptop needing ddhelp.exe manually loaded because It will often load twice on bootup which causes additional lockups. If it's not loaded most things won't function either. Edited July 28, 2006 by Chozo4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmsta Posted July 28, 2006 Share Posted July 28, 2006 Also, if you're interested, the DX9c package in Win9xPower Pack is slimmed down to the bare essentials to work on Win9x platforms. I went through each cab file, searching for references to Win9x, and removed any that did not have any inf files for Win9x. The package size went from 60mb down to approx 15mb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PROBLEMCHYLD Posted July 28, 2006 Author Share Posted July 28, 2006 thanks i'll download it now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LLXX Posted July 28, 2006 Share Posted July 28, 2006 If you want a really minimal system, look here : http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=59856 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erpdude8 Posted July 28, 2006 Share Posted July 28, 2006 and there's always 98Lite which should make Win98/ME load faster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PROBLEMCHYLD Posted August 1, 2006 Author Share Posted August 1, 2006 What about a WMP9 lite is it possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmsta Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 If you strip out presets, skins, and codecs, I'm sure you could get WMP9 down a ways, but you'll end up losing vital functionality, in most cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erpdude8 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 i agree with jimmsta on cutting down on wmp9 that some crucial functions will be lost.why not use WMP 6.4, PROBLEMCHYLD? media player 6.4 uses less resources than media player 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marius '95 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 What I'd like to see is EXPLORER.EXE from Win95 patched to work with SHELL32.DLL v5.50.4134.100 (included in 98SE2ME) or at least v4.72.x . Win95 EXPLORER.EXE is very fast compared to Win98/2000 EXPLORER.EXE, but it only works with SHELL32.DLL v4.00.xxxx . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erpdude8 Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 (edited) What I'd like to see is EXPLORER.EXE from Win95 patched to work with SHELL32.DLL v5.50.4134.100 (included in 98SE2ME) or at least v4.72.x . Win95 EXPLORER.EXE is very fast compared to Win98/2000 EXPLORER.EXE, but it only works with SHELL32.DLL v4.00.xxxx .not going to happen. besides, it'll make windows explorer just like win98/2k/me/xpi have no probs with installing IE Active Desktop Shell update which updates BOTH explorer.exe & shell32.dll to version 4.72.3612.1700 on my old Win95 osr2.5 PC. I have plenty of RAM installed on there. besides, that Spider Solitaire game included in ME doesnt work with shell32.dll version 4.00 and only works with shell32.dll 4.72 & above. Edited August 2, 2006 by erpdude8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erpdude8 Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 also that ol' win95 explorer interface is SO 1995 and anemic in file management.I use xplorer2 lite edition which is a nice alternative (and perhaps a nice replacement for any version of) Windows Explorer:http://www.zabkat.com/alldown.htmeven the shareware based Total Commander tool has wonderful file management features that make Windows Explorer look lame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PROBLEMCHYLD Posted August 12, 2006 Author Share Posted August 12, 2006 (edited) If you strip out presets, skins, and codecs, I'm sure you could get WMP9 down a ways, but you'll end up losing vital functionality, in most cases.What about the files belowI was looking in WMP9 and noticed some things i don't use maybe you guys don't either1.playlist files2.skins i don't use them this is the only skin i use KenwoodKenwood Excelon KDC-X959 Car Stereo Skin3.Roxio Software don't use itdelete all this obselete stuff and you save a few bites about 5mb to be exact.please consider this request guys.I'm all about lite stuff Edited August 12, 2006 by PROBLEMCHYLD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcalvert Posted August 12, 2006 Share Posted August 12, 2006 What I'd like to see is EXPLORER.EXE from Win95 patched to work with SHELL32.DLL v5.50.4134.100 (included in 98SE2ME) or at least v4.72.x . Win95 EXPLORER.EXE is very fast compared to Win98/2000 EXPLORER.EXE, but it only works with SHELL32.DLL v4.00.xxxx .Think beyond Explorer. In other words, try other shells. Here's one that many people like a lot:bbLean And here's an article that explains it fairly well:Review: *box Shells, BB4Win, and bbLean Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marius '95 Posted August 12, 2006 Share Posted August 12, 2006 i have no probs with installing IE Active Desktop Shell update which updates BOTH explorer.exe & shell32.dll to version 4.72.3612.1700 on my old Win95 osr2.5 PC.I think you did not understand what I wanted to say. Maybe it's because I don't speak english very well.I don't want to upgrade. I'm using Win98 SE and I already have Active Desktop. I want it downgraded! I just want a fast start menu that does not read icons from the disk each time I open it. I have plenty of RAM installed on there.Me too, but it still loads icons from the disk. Win2000 version (5.50) is even slower.besides, that Spider Solitaire game included in ME doesnt work with shell32.dll version 4.00 and only works with shell32.dll 4.72 & above.Exactly! I want Spider Solitaire (SHELL32.DLL v4.72) AND a fast start menu (EXPLORER.EXE v4.00).that ol' win95 explorer interface is SO 1995 and anemic in file management...even the shareware based Total Commander tool has wonderful file managementExacty! I don't use My Computer, Windows Explorer. I use Total Commander and I hope nobody else here still uses My Computer for file management. This means I don't need EXPLORER.EXE v4.72, only SHELL32.DLL for program compatibility.------I just installed bbLean. It is fast, simple, can be configured very easy and uses only 9 MB RAM (Explorer.exe uses 13.5 MB). There is no START button. Every time I want to open the menu I have to minimize all windows to reach the desktop (the missing desktop). And there are no icons in the menu (maybe that's why it uses less memory than Explorer). Because there are no icons, programs are a little bit harder to find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now