Anyone used stripped down version of XP?

[Grentz]

Just curious how many around here use stripped down versions of XP.

I use a load called tinyXP with my old XP Pro COA that has pretty much nothing on it (not even IE or most services) except for things necessary for gaming (ex. Audio, Network Stack, Video and DX).

I actually dual boot it with Vista and use it for gaming....the real reason for using it is I can reload my main OS (currently Vista, was XP Pro) whenever I want without having to reinstall all my games/game updates/setup crap for gaming, etc. Also, I never get bugged by normal applications and things I have installed on my main OS load.

Works great, plus TinyXP boots in about 4-5 seconds on my machine

 

[Nenu]

Voted no but will look it up.
Not sure if I have a license to use it though.

 

[Gorankar]

Not anymore, I tried it almost a year back, I remember getting a whopping 3fps gain in UT2004 at 1280x1024 with a opty175, 1900xt, and 2gigs of ram.. IMHO, it was not worth the hassle of my printer and various apps not working because this or that needed service was missing.. Just not enough of a performance gain and I have plenty of HD space..

If it works for you, great..

 

[Grentz]

Not anymore, I tried it almost a year back, I remember getting a whopping 3fps gain in UT2004 at 1280x1024 with a opty175, 1900xt, and 2gigs of ram.. IMHO, it was not worth the hassle of my printer and various apps not working because this or that needed service was missing.. Just not enough of a performance gain and I have plenty of HD space..

If it works for you, great..

Ya, like I said I have multiple reasons for doing it:

-Never have to reinstall games/game updates when I redo my main OS (which i do pretty often) (this is my main reason)
-No worries about other services interfering with my games
-Dont have to setup things for when I game and then go back to normal settings I use in my main OS (mainly audio stuff)

 

[Ranma_Sao]

XP Embedded is the right approach to this question...

And no, If anybody has read my posts, they know I don't look kindly on custom O/S configurations for everyday use.

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

 

[Catweazle]

Voted "No" because it's a rather ridiculour thing to do (IMO) on an everyday, general-purpose machine. Minimal gain, potential pain, and wasted effort.

I have used 'stripped down' installs on fixed-purpose machines. Systems which were dedicated to being hardware testing platforms. Older and less capable rigs which were being set up to perform a specific task. situations like that. But on an everyday rig? Nope.

 

[Marvelous]

tried to run xp on p2 once with all things off.

 

[Grentz]

I am surprised no one else uses it specifically for a gaming OS like I do...it is not my main load, everyday usage, etc. Vista is....but I dual boot and just reboot into TinyXP to play games and it works perfectly.

I guess I just hate reinstalling games and then having to do all the updates and mods each time which can take a long time to do

 

[swatbat]

XP Embedded is the right approach to this question...

And no, If anybody has read my posts, they know I don't look kindly on custom O/S configurations for everyday use.

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Yea I've used XP Embedded a few times for random things. Never tried tiny xp but was interested in it. Just guess I never cared enough as xp embedded did the same thing.

 

[tacticus]

Kind of.
I have a Nlited disc setup with some components of xp removed but on the other hand it has a whole crap ton of apps that auto install
and i do occasionally patch it (atm its about 3 months old)

it also has some nice scripting in it to pull stuff off my fileserver (thunderbird\ff profile, steam files etc)

 

[puffcap]

I use a stripped down version of Windows 2000 as a VM. Saves memory.

 

[anthrex]

yea used nlite to strip things out and ryanvms integrator to integrate things right back in for a nice custom os. since this computer is just for me I don't care if i occasionally have to put in the original win xp cd to install something but even then its really on the older nlited cds that I had that problem with

 

[DeaconFrost]

I voted no, because it wouldn't really have much of an effect, if anything at all. If a computer is in need of this much tweaking, it's definitely time for a hardware upgrade.

 

[Grentz]

I voted no, because it wouldn't really have much of an effect, if anything at all. If a computer is in need of this much tweaking, it's definitely time for a hardware upgrade.

Never tried it huh?

I dont think you have ever seen how friggin fast XP boots all stripped down
It is almost like instant on!

 

[Catweazle]

I dont think you have ever seen how friggin fast XP boots all stripped down
It is almost like instant on!

Have you ever seen how friggin fast it boots when you dump all the network gear and disable all the startup programs? It is almost like instant on! But hey! Just like a stripped down install you soon run into a fair amount of shit which makes it spit the dummy when you try to do stuff.

I get 'Instant on' anyways. I don't turn the bloody thing off! It only ever reboots when it needs to in order to complete an install of some sort or other.

 

[Finn]

I don't use any 'strippers' but I do take care that my startup list and running services only contains the absolutely necessary and nothing more.

My gaming boxes have 24 processes alltogether with antivirus and 3rd party software firewall enabled.

 

[duby229]

Yep I do. I use nLite to get rid of all the crapware MS forces down your throat. After making an nlite install CD, I have it down to almost the same footprint as 2000. A little bigger due to Luna, and various Windows Update dependancies (--not-- including IE ) But otherwise everything an OS should be capable of doing Like running you fucking programs... It does just fine. For all the services that I have disabled, I either dont need it, or have a better 3rd party app to provide that functionality....

In the beginning I thought XP was garbage bloatware. Then nLite came along and solved all my problems. Now I'm waiting for vLite to solve my Vista problems, though it's still not quite ready yet.

 

[DeaconFrost]

Never tried it huh?

I dont think you have ever seen how friggin fast XP boots all stripped down
It is almost like instant on!

Just because my title says noobie, doesn't mean I am one. Wild assumptions aren't going to benefit anyone. Those stripped versions just aren't worth it, for two simple reasons. One, anything those stripped versions do, can be achieved with a normal, legal version of XP. Secondly, based on your original post, many of those "stripped" versions are downloaded from warez sites.....which means you are inviting malware onto your system.

On an aside, does it really matter how fast XP boots? I mean, if it takes 30 seconds as opposed to 20 seconds, are you really being prevented from doing something?

 

[MrGuvernment]

Just curious how many around here use stripped down versions of XP.

I use a load called tinyXP with my old XP Pro COA that has pretty much nothing on it (not even IE or most services)

you cant strip IE from XP can you, since it is still highly built into explorer? you can remove the shortcuts are crap, but it is still there.

 

[duby229]

you cant strip IE from XP can you, since it is still highly built into explorer? you can remove the shortcuts are crap, but it is still there.

You can actually remove IE totally. The problem with doing so is that it breaks windows update, as well as windows help, and a few other minor systems. You can get around the windows update problem using a fairly simple firefox hack.

The rest of the issues you'll have are due to the fact that MS doesnt test XP without IE. All of their debugging assumes that IE is installed, and there are a few runtime bugs that show up when it isnt available.

That said I do run XP without IE, and I've learned to deal with the quirks. Additionally I also have WMP removed, and most of the start menu applications. I also have most services removed, with the exception of those that I use. It actually works fairly well.

All in all it is a different user experience then the out of the box experience, but I'd say it's for the better.

 

[Techx]

I use a stripped down version of Windows 2000 as a VM. Saves memory.

can you PLEASE tell me how you are doing this, is it for a vmware server, did you config win2k yourself, did you d/l an iso, I'd love to know

thanks

 

[Catweazle]

You can...

.. it breaks ....

... there are a few runtime bugs that show up ...

... I've learned to deal with the quirks...

...I'd say it's for the better.

In other words, you can do it, but unless you're on some sort of crusade it's probably a silly thing to do!

 

[duby229]

In other words, you can do it, but unless you're on some sort of crusade it's probably a silly thing to do!

That is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that I can run a slimmer faster, and more customized Windows. So it is better for me.

And that is really what it comes down to. Whats best for you? Is IE best for you? If it's not then your better off not having it installed at all. If your not going to use it, then it shouldnt be on your computer. And that goes for any software no matter who wrote it

Thats where nLite comes in. It allows you to determine whats best for you. It takes the decision away from MS. Basically it does what MS should have been doing from the beginning. On the other hand nLite isnt going to resolve the bugs involved with providing --untested-- customized installations. And that is solely MS's fault. MS should be providing choices for there customers, and testing their software to make sure that it works. Unfortunately they dont do that.

Is it "silly" that MS doesnt provide you the choice, and forces unstable configurations on it's user base?

 

[DeaconFrost]

can you PLEASE tell me how you are doing this, is it for a vmware server, did you config win2k yourself, did you d/l an iso, I'd love to know

thanks

If you have even 1 GB of memory in your system, you don't need to slim down Windows 2000 to run in a VM. You could run it decently with 256 MB of memory allocated, and with 512 MB, it would run very well.

 

[DeaconFrost]

Is it "silly" that MS doesnt provide you the choice, and forces unstable configurations on it's user base?

Actually, one could easily argue that mucking around with 3rd party apps to build a custom install leads to untested, unstable configurations. From a stability standpoint, less options, means less configuration variables to account for. Think of it from a support standpoint. Is it easy to test and support a few configurations, or many? Why do console games typical suffer from less bugs and issues than computer games? Because the developers have to account for less configurations than the myriad available on the computer side.

 

[duby229]

Actually, one could easily argue that mucking around with 3rd party apps to build a custom install leads to untested, unstable configurations. From a stability standpoint, less options, means less configuration variables to account for. Think of it from a support standpoint. Is it easy to test and support a few configurations, or many? Why do console games typical suffer from less bugs and issues than computer games? Because the developers have to account for less configurations than the myriad available on the computer side.

MS role is to provide an Operating System. That means quite literally a system to operate the computer. I know this is entirely subjective, and interpretation gets lost on the internet so bare with me for one moment.....

I dont know if you guys are familiar with agencies or not, but that is more otr less what an OS is. It's an agency. An Agent is a very simple thing. It does one thing, and one thing only. You can think of the memory manager as an agent, or the print service as another, or the network manager, etc, etc, etc.... Each agent only does one thing, and one thing only. As long as that agent was designed to function independently, and to simply perform the task at hand....

So an Ideal OS would be an agency, which is would, by definition, be totally modular.... Modular? Now thats a concept..... A modular OS? hmmmm.....

Thats just some food for thought. Like I said, I know it is entirely subjective, but If MS really cared about you, or me, or about the technology, this would be the goal to work toward. Unfortunately they dont care about the technology, and are far more concerned with product tie ins.. It's a shame. A dirty rotten shame.

 

[DeaconFrost]

But then you get into a tough situation, and one Microsoft faces with each and every decision. If you take more features out, and provide only the basics to "operate" a computer, half of the people will bitch and complain that they still need to go out and obtain all of their necessary software. Now, if you add-in all this functionality, the other half bitch about being anti-competitive practices, and being forced to use certain products.

My point is, Windows is what it is. Microsoft gets beaten up unfairly because it's impossible to please everyone all the time. I'm always amazed at how easy it is for certain people (I'm not directing this at you) to bash Microsoft, without putting any effort into looking at the big picture, that it is, in fact, impossible to release a product that meets everyone's needs. If you polled each and every person in the world who uses Windows, each of them would be able to give you one thing they'd change about it.

 

[Nenu]

MS were in a bit of a mess internally until they started working on Vista.
Before that, they struggled to keep track of the changes that occurred in different departments that were using the same code and there were many other issues.
Vista became too complex with the relatively unstructured approach so they changed the way they write code for it.
MS havent been truly modular for long. It also explains why IE was tied with the OS.

 

[duby229]

But then you get into a tough situation, and one Microsoft faces with each and every decision. If you take more features out, and provide only the basics to "operate" a computer, half of the people will bitch and complain that they still need to go out and obtain all of their necessary software. Now, if you add-in all this functionality, the other half bitch about being anti-competitive practices, and being forced to use certain products.

My point is, Windows is what it is. Microsoft gets beaten up unfairly because it's impossible to please everyone all the time. I'm always amazed at how easy it is for certain people (I'm not directing this at you) to bash Microsoft, without putting any effort into looking at the big picture, that it is, in fact, impossible to release a product that meets everyone's needs. If you polled each and every person in the world who uses Windows, each of them would be able to give you one thing they'd change about it.

I certainly agree with you on that. People bitch and moan about anything, and everything. I know. I'm one of them.... The only thing I'd like to see, and I don't think it's too much to ask for, is the option to select what applications and services get installed... That's it. Right now they don't. Each service and application is an agent in the agency, so they can feel free to continue offering their software.

However since they don't provide the means for selecting and deselecting the software that I want installed, I am forced into using an unsupported third party application called nLite. That isn't my fault, that is MS's fault 100%. I managed to get it working exceptably for my needs without IE. But I'm 100% positive that Joe Blow wouldn't. And that is the problem. It's not a technical limitation, it's a corporate limitation

I guess what it all boils down to is that my biggest point is..... Not having IE installed shouldn't make any bit of difference. IE is one agent in the system. Windows Update is another agent in the system. Windows Help is yet another agent in the system.... As long as they each function independently then they should also function together, or any combination there of. It's in this way that they can still offer you what you want, and offer me what I want. My theory is that if your not going to use it, then it shouldn't be installed. MS duty as an OS provider is to accommodate that.

 

[DeaconFrost]

I'll give you that. It was nice back in the Win98 days, to be able to select all the components you were to install/uninstall during the setup.

 

[Ranma_Sao]

I certainly agree with you on that. People bitch and moan about anything, and everything. I know. I'm one of them.... The only thing I'd like to see, and I don't think it's too much to ask for, is the option to select what applications and services get installed... That's it. Right now they don't. Each service and application is an agent in the agency, so they can feel free to continue offering their software.

However since they don't provide the means for selecting and deselecting the software that I want installed, I am forced into using an unsupported third party application called nLite. That isn't my fault, that is MS's fault 100%. I managed to get it working exceptably for my needs without IE. But I'm 100% positive that Joe Blow wouldn't. And that is the problem. It's not a technical limitation, it's a corporate limitation

I guess what it all boils down to is that my biggest point is..... Not having IE installed shouldn't make any bit of difference. IE is one agent in the system. Windows Update is another agent in the system. Windows Help is yet another agent in the system.... As long as they each function independently then they should also function together, or any combination there of. It's in this way that they can still offer you what you want, and offer me what I want. My theory is that if your not going to use it, then it shouldn't be installed. MS duty as an OS provider is to accommodate that.

Alright I'll bite...



It is a technical limitation, and that's due to the developers... Ask the myriad of developers out there, why it's difficult to support Linux, and the responce is always, there's a myriad of different configurations we'd have to support. Thus now, afaik, apps specify linux kernel and distribution versions. (Haven't ran linux in 8 years, but pay attention to the competition now and again.)

A developer writes an application for Windows, and they know it will "just work". There is one well tested configuration, and it works.

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=...6&postcount=25

Let alone the whole thread:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?...highlight=game

Developers to support a platform want consistancy, read the forum posts about how there is 7 sku's of vista...

And as to there is no supported tool from Microsoft, that's just someone not live searching for 2 seconds... (I even mentioned it first page)

http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/embedded/default.mspx


As to me, an O/S tester who worked on Windows XP, I did care about the technology. I got really frustrated when I'd get bugs reports I'd try to repro consistantly, and finally had to ask for repro steps from Customer's, and get, I deleted this file, the O/S blocked me, so I did this hack o rama to prevent it, and then I get crashes, in another component, obviously my Hack-O-Rama has nothing to do with it. Developers including Microsoft internal developers, want a consistant model, and to know what components are available, to help me make better tools.

And Lastly: (My english prof's cringed right there)

For all the haters of IE, you all realize it's a wrapper around the Trident Programming Model? Which a lot of applications do use?

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

 

[Finn]

It's not a wrapper - it's a concious move from MS to WRAP things around IE to make removing it as hard as possible therefore leading to unsecure systems with a default set of IE weaknesses.

 

[duby229]

Alright I'll bite...



It is a technical limitation, and that's due to the developers... Ask the myriad of developers out there, why it's difficult to support Linux, and the responce is always, there's a myriad of different configurations we'd have to support. Thus now, afaik, apps specify linux kernel and distribution versions. (Haven't ran linux in 8 years, but pay attention to the competition now and again.)

A developer writes an application for Windows, and they know it will "just work". There is one well tested configuration, and it works.

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=...6&postcount=25

Let alone the whole thread:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?...highlight=game

Developers to support a platform want consistancy, read the forum posts about how there is 7 sku's of vista...

And as to there is no supported tool from Microsoft, that's just someone not live searching for 2 seconds... (I even mentioned it first page)

http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/embedded/default.mspx


As to me, an O/S tester who worked on Windows XP, I did care about the technology. I got really frustrated when I'd get bugs reports I'd try to repro consistantly, and finally had to ask for repro steps from Customer's, and get, I deleted this file, the O/S blocked me, so I did this hack o rama to prevent it, and then I get crashes, in another component, obviously my Hack-O-Rama has nothing to do with it. Developers including Microsoft internal developers, want a consistant model, and to know what components are available, to help me make better tools.

And Lastly: (My english prof's cringed right there)

For all the haters of IE, you all realize it's a wrapper around the Trident Programming Model? Which a lot of applications do use?

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

This is not a discussion of Linux, were talking about Windows. So lets talk about Windows....

I can make one point that ruins your whole argument... nLite already does it..... All MS has to do is debug their software. If their software works independently, then it should also work together or any combination there of.

The point is that it has already been done. All MS has to do is test it and fix the bugs. That's not a technical limitation. That is a corperate decision to to "tie in" other products. Which by the way is illegal in most countries. So how the hell has MS been getting away with it for so many years?

Here, read this. It'll give you a much better idea of the truth.
http://papers.nber.org/papers/w13339

Heres another one. What I really like about this one, is that it specifically covers your argument It's called "The Single Product Defense" Which by the way has been hashed, and rehashed already by hundreds of companies and has already been found to be illegal.
http://legaledge.bna.com/Pagemanager.aspx?pageId=1032

 

[Ranma_Sao]

This is not a discussion of Linux, were talking about Windows. So lets talk about Windows....

I can make one point that ruins your whole argument... nLite already does it..... All MS has to do is debug their software. If their software works independently, then it should also work together or any combination there of.

The point is that it has already been done. All MS has to do is test it and fix the bugs. That's not a technical limitation. That is a corperate decision to to "tie in" other products. Which by the way is illegal in most countries. So how the hell has MS been getting away with it for so many years?

Here, read this. It'll give you a much better idea of the truth.
http://papers.nber.org/papers/w13339

Heres another one. What I really like about this one, is that it specifically covers your argument It's called "The Single Product Defense" Which by the way has been hashed, and rehashed already by hundreds of companies and has already been found to be illegal.
http://legaledge.bna.com/Pagemanager.aspx?pageId=1032

I am not a lawyer, so I cannot speak to the law. Nlite does what XP Embedded does. How much do you think it costs to test one configuration of the O/S? How much for each third party developer? Testing is the most expensive part of any product. If anybody can just configure the basic components anyway they want, that adds test time, and money. XP Embedded lets you rip out features, but if you do that, it is no longer a multi-purpose O/S, it's an embedded O/S.


This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

 

[Grentz]

Just because my title says noobie, doesn't mean I am one. Wild assumptions aren't going to benefit anyone. Those stripped versions just aren't worth it, for two simple reasons. One, anything those stripped versions do, can be achieved with a normal, legal version of XP. Secondly, based on your original post, many of those "stripped" versions are downloaded from warez sites.....which means you are inviting malware onto your system.

On an aside, does it really matter how fast XP boots? I mean, if it takes 30 seconds as opposed to 20 seconds, are you really being prevented from doing something?

As a side note, sorry if you think I said what I said because your title says noobie...but I did not. I said what I said based on your prior post and did not look at your title at all...I was a noobie here once as well and realize that just because your title says something, that doesnt mean its what you are (except if Kyle gives you a custom tag ).

And there are non-warez torrent sites, torrents are used for legal things as well

Also, I really want it to boot fast as I switch over to it for gaming, so it is really nice when it turns on almost instantly for me to go and play a game.

Finally, as I said before, it is ONLY for gaming for me. I do not have to worry about any other issues since I ONLY use it for gaming and whats needed for gaming is there (network, video drivers, input device drivers, etc.). I run almost 24/7 my other load which is full vista, I only boot into my stripped down load for gaming because it is so convienient not to have to reload games every time I redo my main OS and to not have to change settings to play a game and then change everything back to do normal work.

 

[duby229]

I am not a lawyer, so I cannot speak to the law. Nlite does what XP Embedded does. How much do you think it costs to test one configuration of the O/S? How much for each third party developer? Testing is the most expensive part of any product. If anybody can just configure the basic components anyway they want, that adds test time, and money. XP Embedded lets you rip out features, but if you do that, it is no longer a multi-purpose O/S, it's an embedded O/S.


This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Testing is 90% of the development process. If MS is unwilling to do that, then they are in the wrong business. They have the money to debug their software, so I really cant entertain that notion. That was just a cop-out. Additionally third party vendors can choose the libraries they link against. If the library isnt available in a basic configuration then it is their responsibility to bundle it in their installer... Which is no different then what is done today.

 

[Ranma_Sao]

Testing is 90% of the development process. If MS is unwilling to do that, then they are in the wrong business. They have the money to debug their software, so I really cant entertain that notion. That was just a cop-out. Additionally third party vendors can choose the libraries they link against. If the library isnt available in a basic configuration then it is their responsibility to bundle it in their installer... Which is no different then what is done today.

Lol. Microsoft has one of the biggest testing organizations in all of Software Development.

There is a different between bundling mscvrt, and having to bundle an entire media player because you want to have a music player in your game. To paraphrase, if developers have it to build, they will use it. Let alone the space requirements you've asked every developer to include in their installer, and then do you really want 20 copies of an mp3 decoder on your box?

I've been a Software Tester for almost 8 years now, what you are asking is unfeasible, reguardless of the money. The test matrix for any Operating System is huge already. (Intel, AMD, Nvidia, ATI, etc...) are very good at making unique test cases.

Last question from a business perspective, do you optomize testing for the 99% case, or the 1% case?


This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

 

[duby229]

Lol. Microsoft has one of the biggest testing organizations in all of Software Development.

There is a different between bundling mscvrt, and having to bundle an entire media player because you want to have a music player in your game. To paraphrase, if developers have it to build, they will use it. Let alone the space requirements you've asked every developer to include in their installer, and then do you really want 20 copies of an mp3 decoder on your box?

I've been a Software Tester for almost 8 years now, what you are asking is unfeasible, reguardless of the money. The test matrix for any Operating System is huge already. (Intel, AMD, Nvidia, ATI, etc...) are very good at making unique test cases.

Last question from a business perspective, do you optomize testing for the 99% case, or the 1% case?


This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Again your point doesn't hold any water. Your arguing The Single Product Defense, and it just doesn't work. Additionally nLite already does it. We know that it is feasible because it has already been done by one programmer in his spare time... If one person can do it with nLite, then a giant corporation like MS should be able to do it better.

Also what your describing is very basic application management If an App-A depends on App-B, then App-A's installer should pull in App-B as a dependency. In this case having App-B installed would be warranted due to the dependency that App-A has on it. In all other cases App-B should not be installed. This is very basic Intro to Application Management that any IT professional should be intimately familiar with. If you don't need it, then it should never be installed. Any software that isnt being used should not be on the computer. I mean this simple common sense.

 

[Ranma_Sao]

Again your point doesn't hold any water. Your arguing The Single Product Defense, and it just doesn't work. Additionally nLite already does it. We know that it is feasible because it has already been done by one programmer in his spare time... If one person can do it with nLite, then a giant corporation like MS should be able to do it better.

Also what your describing is very basic application management If an App-A depends on App-B, then App-A's installer should pull in App-B as a dependency. In this case having App-B installed would be warranted due to the dependency that App-A has on it. In all other cases App-B should not be installed. This is very basic Intro to Application Management that any IT professional should be intimately familiar with. If you don't need it, then it should never be installed. Any software that isnt being used should not be on the computer. I mean this simple common sense.

I don't know where you got your street creds, but we'll continue this thread. So App A needs a media player, so it installs, App B. App C also needs a media player, so it installs App D, one it licenced the codecs from, infinium, you'd have all sorts of media players on your box by the time you're done...

So any software not being used shouldn't be on the computer, eh? So who makes that decision? My mother, who bought a computer and expects it to work right out the box, like a VCR?

IT Admins can make the claim on what they do or do not want on their network, and they have that flexibility... Home users, 95% of them, cannot make that decision, they want a computer to just work. Hell, when I get home, I just want a computer that just works... If you feel that home users would prefer not having Media Player, etc, installed, we can actually look at market data, Windows XP N, and compare those sales in the same exact stores, where regular Windows XP was sold.

As to your nLite defense, we already know XP Embedded works, because oh yeah, Microsoft did it! I haven't stopped singing that if you wanted an Embedded operating system, XP Embedded is your thing.

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

 

[Finn]

I don't know where you got your street creds, but we'll continue this thread. So App A needs a media player, so it installs, App B. App C also needs a media player, so it installs App D, one it licenced the codecs from, infinium, you'd have all sorts of media players on your box by the time you're done...

So any software not being used shouldn't be on the computer, eh? So who makes that decision? My mother, who bought a computer and expects it to work right out the box, like a VCR?

IT Admins can make the claim on what they do or do not want on their network, and they have that flexibility... Home users, 95% of them, cannot make that decision, they want a computer to just work. Hell, when I get home, I just want a computer that just works... If you feel that home users would prefer not having Media Player, etc, installed, we can actually look at market data, Windows XP N, and compare those sales in the same exact stores, where regular Windows XP was sold.

As to your nLite defense, we already know XP Embedded works, because oh yeah, Microsoft did it! I haven't stopped singing that if you wanted an Embedded operating system, XP Embedded is your thing.

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

The Neutered version doesn't sell because the removal of mediaplayer doesn't show in the price. Would you prefer buying a cup that's only half full for the same price of a full one?

In addition to that the Neutering is done in a way that it's not even possible to install the mediaplayer afterwards if some apps are broken through lack of it. At least this is the conclusion I came into after trying Vista business N.