digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at lifehacker.com

Strip down yer XP to bare minimum

lifehacker.com — Lifehacker outlines how to rip all the cr*pware out of your XP installation, and its so easy! Perfect for use as Virtual Machines and for Vista users who want to dual-boot into XP for better, faster gaming experiences.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mirkey, on 04/01/2008, -25/+4great tips
    • chmcarro, on 04/01/2008, -4/+4I haven't really seen gaming fps differences with any XP tweaks, Just use Windows Defender or msconfig to remove your unnecessary startup items.
    • celkin, on 04/01/2008, -0/+10insightful comment
    • ElBeh, on 04/02/2008, -3/+7Great *****.
  • wmw1900, on 04/01/2008, -9/+26Lightweight windows? I like it.
    • LongShlong, on 04/01/2008, -20/+5There is no such thing.
      • prophetpimp, on 04/02/2008, -1/+5Yes there is. Hell there is even a Official version of it. Its called Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PC. It flys on old hardware. replaced my XP install on my old aging laptopn and its like it got a new lease on life.
    • JackyAppleJones, on 04/01/2008, -19/+4Too bad it's only an April Fools joke.
    • santa7, on 04/01/2008, -0/+4nLite and XPLite do not mix. XPLite still thinks the things you removed are still there and cannot remove anything because there is usually a useless thing in there you remove with nLite but it necessary for XPLite
    • fodder0, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1Where is the strip down Vista to XP link on the website???
    • Archaic1, on 04/02/2008, -0/+2oh god oxymoron overload...
  • jcannonb, on 04/01/2008, -10/+57Now windows is only heavy and not completely obese :)
    • chingy1788, on 04/01/2008, -3/+23Do it to vista and you go from Morbidly Obese to Obese
      • madformadness, on 04/01/2008, -11/+2Whats is OSX then?
        • meatmcguffin, on 04/01/2008, -16/+10OS X is an OS that's proven to be faster with every revision on the same hardware.

          Thanks for playing!
          • Reziarfg, on 04/02/2008, -1/+3Except Leopard which is more hardware demanding than Tiger.
          • Jlaugh, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1Leopard is much faster on my machine than tiger was.
        • aschmack, on 04/01/2008, -8/+12The obese and retarded cousin.
        • specialK16, on 04/02/2008, -10/+2"OS X is an OS that's proven to be faster with every revision on the same hardware."

          On every revision of the same hardware.... yup.
        • nobelief, on 04/02/2008, -5/+13the homosexual one
      • jcannonb, on 04/02/2008, -0/+2I second that :)
      • apotropaic, on 04/02/2008, -0/+12OSX Can't even compete... different class all together. I mean windows has to make sure it runs on thousands and thousands of hardware configurations, while OSX has to make sure it works on what 5-10 at most? Its like comparing 360 games to PC games. When software can be written fo specific hardware, it can squeeze every ounce of performance out of that hardware cause its all it is used for. So its not really fare to compare them plus OSX is just a GUI on BSD. But this is of course to OSX users benefit. But on the flip side... no custom built machines :).
        • Jlaugh, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1Nah I've seen pc's running OS X. There's some project that let's you do it.
    • iPhrankie, on 04/02/2008, -0/+6After using Vista for a few minutes XP already feels extremely lightweight.
  • ClockworksNine, on 04/01/2008, -7/+46Dugg for nLite, it really helped me install XP into my friend's eeePC.
    • andrewtheart, on 04/01/2008, -30/+14Dugg down for removing a perfectly good Linux OS
      • mrsteveman1, on 04/01/2008, -2/+7It's april fools day, not opposite day
      • ClockworksNine, on 04/01/2008, -3/+20Very childish response, nobody cares what you think, he wanted XP and I got it for him. He's happy with it so what does it matter?
      • sathias, on 04/02/2008, -6/+24Dugg down for the condescending attitude, it's an OS, not a religion.
        • quomen, on 04/02/2008, -3/+8So religions are allowed to be condescending?
          • mrsteveman1, on 04/02/2008, -1/+4The 2 are synonymous and can't be separated
          • durant0s, on 04/02/2008, -1/+1To quomen:
            No, people are allowed to be condescending of religions
      • prophetpimp, on 04/02/2008, -0/+2Xandros =/= A Good Linux OS
      • jamesdew, on 04/02/2008, -0/+0I have an EEEpc and the installed OS is not perfectly good. Particularly the advanced mode is full of bugs. E.g. it deletes your desktop instead of backing it up

        Anyway I went with Ubuntu so i didnt switch to windows but still, perhaps his friend wanted windows.
    • kelmaster1, on 04/02/2008, -2/+2nLite's cool, but msconfig works perfectly fine and its part of windows.

      noobs: run-> msconfig
      probably one of the best windows tools
      • ilves7, on 04/02/2008, -0/+2MSConfig, for the most part, turns things off that are already installed.. This never installs them.
  • InfamousAtheist, on 04/01/2008, -19/+4Holy crap, an article on LifeHacker that's not epic blogspam?
    • HonoredMule, on 04/02/2008, -2/+5How is it not blogspam? I should make my own website...I could spit out inane, easily-discoverable crumbs of information until the sun expires.
  • arcooke, on 04/01/2008, -5/+74I just installed a stripped down version (250mb ISO). I got tired of Vista's problems so I decided to revert back. It works well but I saw no real performance gain over a standard XP pro install.. the installation speed was even the same. Nice to know it's saving some space though.

    For the record, it's worth looking into installing Windows Server 2003. If you google "windows 2003 as a workstation", you'll find countless articles on how to essentially convert Server 2003 to an ultra reliable, speedier version of XP. 2003 uses XP drivers, and almost every program installs just fine with the exception of some finicky Windows programs that insist you purchase the server versions. It pretty much ends up being an upgraded, xp compatible version of windows 2000 pro.

    Just a heads up.
    • Myztry, on 04/01/2008, -1/+2Isn't Xp Pro just the standard version with a backup utility which is too cruddy to use anyway?
      • gudnbluts, on 04/01/2008, -0/+9The big advantage of Pro, as far as I can see, is the Remote Desktop server.
      • flatlinebb, on 04/02/2008, -0/+11Don't forget the ability to join a domain in Windows XP Pro. XP Home does not have that function.
      • DarkDx, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1It also has policy editor.
    • stealth210, on 04/01/2008, -0/+5Regarding Windows 2003 Server as a workstation: I gave it a shot and while the whole system was speedy, I did have issues with getting DirectX 9 (at the time) loaded and working properly for games. Although I'm not a huge gamer and more of a developer, it was a drawback to an otherwise clean-running, fast OS. I do recommend it for a workstation (or for an older machine) if gaming is not a requirement.
    • apzdsx, on 04/01/2008, -12/+6"Nice to know it's saving some space though."

      And compromising system stability! That's the April Fool's joke here. If anyone is foolish enough to strip their XP installation of all these components, expect a lot of random ***** to not work. You may be surprised that the seemingly useless program or service you removed is required by your favorite game or some obscure program you'd like to try. You may also find your operating system locking up while it tries desperately to access the removed program/service if requested by an application you just installed or are attempting to install. Have fun reinstalling.

      Bottom line: Doing this is a terrible idea for most people. The only people this could possibly benefit are those with very old hardware.

      And I would advise against using Windows Server 2003 as a workstation. It's supposedly more stable, but on the same hardware I did not notice any significant improvements in performance. I did notice certain programs refuse to install on a server operating system and gaming performance was not as good as XP's. There were also some issues with slightly older games running in server 2k3 that were not present in XP. So, unless you have a lot of time on your hands to solve these problems, save yourself the trouble.

      If you have high end hardware (or mid-high end) I would suggest Vista. It is superior to XP in almost every way. You will notice a negligible drop in performance while gaming, but the other benefits will outweigh this once you get used to the new UI.
      • KiraDnote, on 04/02/2008, -2/+2Even with very old hardware, Xp is better than '98.
      • minimalLGP, on 04/02/2008, -2/+10Jesus, man. I sure hope you do not give IT advice for a living.
        • apzdsx, on 04/02/2008, -5/+1Because I recommended Vista? I know that for some reason people here hate Microsoft and Vista. Probably because they have inferior hardware that cannot run the latest software. I have a high end PC and I would never downgrade to XP for a 5 FPS boost in games where I'm already maxing out my FPS. And for everything else, Vista runs on par or above Windows XP.

          Vista is the best operating system out right now for home use, period. People who are running XP can't afford to run Vista or are extremely stubborn and don't like change.

          As for stripping out almost all components from your Windows XP install, be my guest. Anyone who does this is a fool and will be forced to reinstalled the OS once they find out something they need has been removed. Nlite can be a useful tool, but it cannot compensate for stupidity. The less you remove, the better off you'll be. Removing everything won't make your computer 50 times faster, although it might slow it down. Specially if you're stupid enough to remove the XP prefetch.
        • Groovemaster, on 04/02/2008, -4/+4It's "April Fools" day, not April "Clueless Idiots Who Have No Idea About Configuring Computers But Have Somehow Convinced Themselves They Do" day.

          I run a highly stripped down, highly tweaked, personally nLited XP and it not only outperforms Vista dramatically in gaming and everything else, but I also have zero compatibility problems due to the unneeded services I've removed, and this has held true for the several years I've used such a setup.

          It's a matter of knowing what you're doing - which you obviously don't - so you stick with your slow, cumbersome, bloated OS while I get much greater performance out of my hardware.
          • apzdsx, on 04/02/2008, -3/+2You're deluding yourself into thinking removing unneeded services will give you any boost in performance, it only increases your chance of running into compatibility issues. You could simply disable these services after installation if you felt they were degrading performance and enable them when needed, but then you'd be using your brain.

            It's a matter of knowing what you're doing - which you obviously don't - so you stick with your slow, cumbersome, outdated hardware while I get much greater performance and stability out of my system.
          • Groovemaster, on 04/02/2008, -2/+3Learn to read... "I also have zero compatibility problems due to the unneeded services I've removed, and this has held true for the several years I've used such a setup"

            What part of that statement is too complicated for you to understand? Why would I need to enable services "when needed" when I don't need them? (This is a rhetorical question in case you're too dumb to realize, which I suspect is the case). And the suggestion that releasing CPU cycles by disabling unneeded services doesn't give you a performance boost is just mindblowingly retarded.

            Enjoy computing in blissful ignorance with your slow, unoptimized, bloated OS.
          • apzdsx, on 04/02/2008, -3/+2I apologize, I wasn't aware you were still running on a 386 microprocessor. Hehe, gotta save those would-be-completely-insignificant CPU cycles. Or maybe Vista just handles CPU cycles better? I don't really know :) I'm sitting at 0-1% usage while browsing, what about you?

            And again, what is the logic of removing something you might someday need (and require a complete OS install to do it) instead of simply disabling it and having the option to enable it without having to reinstall the entire operating system?

            Not that it matters, this discussion is pointless. We have different hardware and software, and we are both completely unaffected by the other's choice/preference. Vista is still the best operating system out right now (in my opinion, of course) and you will never understand until your hardware is powerful enough to run the system at its full potential.
          • Groovemaster, on 04/02/2008, -2/+3My hardware is more than powerful enough to run Vista. I just choose to get more performance out of my hardware by running XP.

            The simple fact of the matter is that your computer would run faster and smoother if you knew how to configure XP, but you don't so you're forced to stick with a slower OS and fool yourself into thinking it's faster when it isn't.

            It's a shame you have such difficulty understanding extremely simple concepts, but you seem happy to be an idiot so have fun. :)
          • apzdsx, on 04/02/2008, -3/+1You're very hard headed, so I guess you'd be in the latter category of the people I mentioned above: too stubborn to upgrade to Vista. I suppose you also believe the moon landing was staged and the government planned and executed the 9/11 attacks. Idiots.

            Have fun living in the stone ages. I'll stay right here in the modern era, with my updated operating system and user interface. I hope you never have to copy a large amount of files, XP will stop mid-way if it encounters an error. Vista informs you of the error and gives you options while still copying the remaining files to the folder. That's only one benefit I'm missing out on and for what? 5 more FPS? I am so jealous... seriously. Other than a loss in FPS in games, I don't think Vista under performs at any task. I even have superior audio and network stack. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me.
        • minimalLGP, on 04/02/2008, -1/+2Amen Groovemaster.
      • minimalLGP, on 04/02/2008, -0/+2...
      • arcooke, on 04/02/2008, -0/+3Tell me how this idea is "terrible". It removes unnecessary drivers which if by some chance I ever needed, I could download. It removes useless programs like Briefcase, Clipbook Viewer, screensavers, MSN Explorer, etc. It removes zip folder support, color scheme presets, the search assistant dog and paperclip guy.. none of which I ever use. And it does all of this without compromising ANY system stability. This is the 2nd time I've used a stripped version of XP and both times I have not had one issue with it. It sounds to me like you've never even tried it, and you're just making blind assumptions. Who's the foolish one now?

        Go ahead and continue your intimate relationship with Vista. I've had it installed on my computer twice (legal copy). Both times after about 1 or 2 months I got so sick and tired of it, I ended up going back to XP. I had problem after problem after problem with Vista. I want to like Vista, I truly do. But it's not going to happen until it's as solid as XP has become which likely won't happen for another couple years.
        • apzdsx, on 04/02/2008, -2/+1When I used XP, I experimented with various nlite builds. From stripping out all but the core components of the OS to only removing the help files or language packs. After various experimenting and tweaking, I came to the conclusion that it was all pointless. You don't need to remove anything unless you have limited space on your hard drive or want to make room on the CD for other things.

          What performance do you gain by removing MSN Explorer or zip folder support? None. There's no harm in removing certain components, but there's also no benefit. And as you keep removing components, you increase your chances of running into compatibility issues and may experience odd behavior with certain programs. And when that happens (and to most people it will because removing everything is super awesome!) you'll have to reinstall.

          As for Vista, again, needs compatible hardware with compatible drivers. The former is useless without the latter.
        • arcooke, on 04/02/2008, -1/+2You still never said why we are "foolish" for stripping windows. Or why it's a "terrible idea". Even after clarifying that you have done it yourself, you didn't even mention having problems with it, yet your first post emphasizes possible lockups, "***** not working", etc. The only thing that might start causing serious problems is if you start removing services which are dependencies of other services.

          What performance gain do you get? Theoretically, faster seek times on your disk (fewer files = faster seek). Faster driver discovery (less to search through). Fewer start menu shortcuts. Faster load times for certain things (like if you disable the search assistant).

          Did I notice any significant performance increase? Not really. But then again, I had not only come from a different OS install, but I also had all brand new hardware. So determining whether or not it actually sped things up is difficult to do. An actual benchmark would be needed.

          It's only a terrible idea for those who don't know what it is they're removing/disabling.
          • apzdsx, on 04/02/2008, -1/+1I believe I have:

            "There's no harm in removing *certain* components, but there's also no benefit. And as you keep removing components, you increase your chances of running into compatibility issues and may experience odd behavior with certain programs."

            It is foolish to remove things you could disable from within the OS.
          • Acolyte357, on 04/02/2008, -1/+1"It is foolish to remove things you could disable from within the OS." Why? Because I might need it later?
          • gzusfreak, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1You remove things in the first place because you don't need them, so why would you need them in the future?
          • apzdsx, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1You leave them in so you won't experience any odd problems later. They may not be immediately apparent, but I've experimented with nlite a lot and have run into a lot of extremely weird problems as a result of removing certain components.

            I've removed things, like the built-in Indexing Service, that I've never used and found out at a later time that it caused some errors to show up in the event log because Windows tried accessing the service for some reason. In my experience, removing components via nlite causes more issues than disabling them in Windows.

            That is not to say the same thing will happen to you, but why risk putting up with bugs or needing to reinstall your entire operating system when the problem can be easily avoided? It's simply not worth it in my opinion, but obviously others are willing to take the risk for any perceived performance gain; real or imagined.
        • apzdsx, on 04/02/2008, -1/+1And god help you if the search assistant is bogging your PC down, LOL!
      • solid12345, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1Why do people always using gaming as a benchmark for OS's? I care more about stability, being able to leave my OS on and untouched for days as I do alot of photoshop, after effects, and various other graphic work. I personally found Server 2003 to be the best for this option.
        • apzdsx, on 04/02/2008, -2/+1I agree, if you don't mind/need certain programs (that refuse to install) Server 2003 is better than XP.
      • dawnraid101, on 04/02/2008, -1/+3 apzdsx wtf vista is ***** and so is your face, i had vista on my quad core rig (8gb ram) i had countless issues with drivers , random service lockups ect, even networking my 360 was a pain in the ass. Rolled back to Xp GUESS WHAT no problems , i dont give a ***** about the interface wow i haz AERO whoopty ***** do. VISTA < XP (mce) . XP ftw period
        • apzdsx, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1Sounds like the only thing wrong with Vista is people's lack of knowledge. Having a quad core rig is pointless without your other hardware components having compatible drivers. It means absolutely nothing. My vista machine has only had to shutdown once in the past 8 months, and that was due to a power failure. Vista is more than a shiny interface, not that you ignorant morons would know. Have fun with your outdated operating system! And wipe that foam from your mouth.

          LOL @ MCE
        • gzusfreak, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1"My vista machine has only had to shutdown once in the past 8 months, and that was due to a power failure."

          So what you are saying is you haven't installed any software for the past 8 months. Probably one of the more annoying parts of Windows and why I run it in a VM. As for my personal experience with Vista, I find that XP is much better. Even with 100% compatible hardware, XP ran everything faster. After a couple years though, I think Vista will be a little more like XP is now given that companies start getting those Vista drivers out. Until then, Ill stick with *nix and XP.
          • apzdsx, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1I've installed a couple of games and apps, but nothing has required me to reboot my PC.

            I can't dispute that XP is faster, because it is. But for me, the speed difference is negligible and I'd be losing out on Vista's new features.
          • gzusfreak, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1That is a pretty valid reason, so I can't really argue on that matter of opinion.
            You are much more level-headed than most of those Windows fans out there, thank god for that. :)
    • Spottswood, on 04/02/2008, -2/+9How about Windows Server 2008? Stripped down, reliable, speedy version of vista????
      • DarkDx, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1It's not exactly "stripped down" if you count the features that are always disabled for servers, but even after you enable all the eye candy and funcionality it IS faster than vista, I assume it has some very nice fixes and ....maybe a new kernel?
    • Matt2k, on 04/02/2008, -1/+2Because server 2003 is in the same price ballpark as XP or Vista ?
      I really wouldn't bother.You'll find the most inane things that refuse to install on a server OS, just because it's a server OS (Think AVG Free edition).
      • psykiv, on 04/02/2008, -0/+8This is digg. Somehow I get the feeling the price of software is not really an issue for 99% of the digg population.
    • kelmaster1, on 04/02/2008, -0/+0Vista is bloated, but if you have enough memory (min of 2gb x86 or 4gb x64).
      I run Vista64 with 8gb of ram and its a pretty solid os. It does and sometimes uses around 2gb of memory while inactive. Vista is designed so that it uses way more memory but it uses it in kind of a paging way so that stuff loads faster, which it does. The one thing you have to watch out with Vista is it can cause havoc if installed on a partitioned system, or a computer with multiple OS's as Vista uses a new boot loading setup and is very invasive.
      • PurpleSfinx, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1I learned that the hard way. This por XP maching is still having boot problems.
  • aurrea, on 04/01/2008, -14/+4Can someone just do the work for me and mail me a copy? Thanks.
  • noseeme, on 04/01/2008, -10/+3You just said cr*p? You gonna go to heck!
    • Synapse84, on 04/01/2008, -0/+5no he's gonna go to H-E-double hockey stick!
  • gplpark92, on 04/01/2008, -10/+2you realize you can already get a stripped down version online
    legally of course
  • unomeasjon, on 04/01/2008, -6/+12Why waste your time doing this when its been done for you. Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs... It's XP Barebones... Was created so you could run Windows XP on older machines.. But it will run great on any machine as a barebone version of Windows XP
    • STKD, on 04/01/2008, -2/+15...Because Fundamentals is a pain in the ass to use. The installer is horrific too.
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 04/02/2008, -0/+10Tiny XP is superior.
  • Millsee, on 04/01/2008, -18/+5I'm trying really hard not to slag off Windows and put a Mac fanboy statement here.... really hard....
    • hello2usir, on 04/01/2008, -4/+7So? You want a cookie or a medal or something?
    • wageslaven, on 04/01/2008, -3/+6Dont bother, this is digg, look up and down the forum. You are not alone in your ignorant apple fanboy-ism here on digg.
    • BOFH2, on 04/01/2008, -2/+5I am trying really hard not to unleash the fist of death...
  • trackerbishop, on 04/01/2008, -35/+11xp >> ubuntu. here is why.

    1. ubuntu ruins itself with each successive version.

    evidence: someone made a gui startup manager and it worked with feisty
    http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=295524
    once the next ubuntu came out they made sure none of this worked and you couldnt use automatix2 or anything of the sort.

    2. they never add the ability to use ctrl+alt+del to get task manager up. at least in feisty you could install beryl beta and it let you set this option.

    3. xp task manager is far more powerful than ubuntu task manager

    4. ubuntu doesnt have a pictureviewer like quicktime pictureviewer that lets you transform your images directly on the screen.

    5.
    • trackerbishop, on 04/01/2008, -27/+7continued.

      5. no games, wine blows and cant even run photoshack 6

      6. gimp sucks

      7. no good printer drivers, cant do any print head cleaning or diagnostics from ubuntu, gotta dual boot to xp

      8. crappy wifi support. i get better wifi pickup on my broadcom on xp than i do in ubuntu.

      9. it cant handle wep or wpa (one of the two i forget).

      10. the brown theme is getting annoying

      11. you are annoying, i win, you lose, youve failed, go back to coding me a codE!!!!1111111111111111111111111111111111
      • hello2usir, on 04/01/2008, -4/+9So these are 11 reasons why XP bitwise right-shift Ubuntu.
      • manitoba98xp, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1Okay, now I think you're trolling, but for the record:

        5. Wine runs Photoshop CS2 and a number of games quite well actually ( http://appdb.winehq.org/ ), but Linux isn't intended as a gaming platform. Not that it has any technical weakness, availability is the keyword here.
        6. Subjective: not a valid argument in and of itself.
        7. I've never done print head cleaning from the OS, so I don't really care.
        8. Who knows?
        9. It can handle both quite well.
        10. You can change it.
        11. I think that comment is self-defeating enough that it doesn't require a response.
    • renegadeafk, on 04/01/2008, -2/+3...?
    • DrHoliday, on 04/01/2008, -5/+111.) Ubuntu is the only distribution to become successively faster with each new version. The reason the gui start up manager didn't work is because its creator did not bother to make it compatible with successive versions. Progress is the word here.

      2.) Ctrl + Alt + Del is a completely arbitrary way to access the task manager. If it bothers you, change it yourself. This doesn't make Ubuntu any worse - merely different.

      3.) No it isn't.

      4.) Eye of Gnome
    • manitoba98xp, on 04/01/2008, -3/+161. No comment, but it's third-party software.
      2. It's trivial to do that by opening the Keyboard Shortcuts preferences. I've done it myself.
      3. Hmm? Most of what I use a GUI task manager for works in either, but the "ubuntu task manager" is simple the GNOME one, which is intended to be user-friendly, but not overly powerful. But the CLI allows you to do things far being what Windows' Task Manager can.
      4. This just doesn't make sense to me. There are picture viewers available (and preinstalled), even a photo editing suite (the GIMP). QuickTime isn't even part of Windows at all.
      5. Evidently you couldn't come up with a fifth troll.

      Why did you even bring up Ubuntu in a story about XP?
    • doyoulikeworms, on 04/01/2008, -4/+4I can only agree with you on 8 (horrible wifi support!) and 10.
    • mRIpX, on 04/01/2008, -15/+4 とは八とはとみとはしち
      ちとはてう　　乳風
      • detalubo, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1Why are people burying this guy? He makes some very convincing arguments!
        • ukblacknight, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1Maybe, but I couldn't be bothered reading the massive essay...
    • Ninjao, on 04/01/2008, -5/+10You ***** fail.
  • stix213, on 04/01/2008, -4/+37Aren't instructions for making a barebones XP install about 7 years too late?
    • supermanred, on 04/02/2008, -10/+6No, it's just in time seeing as Microsoft has ***** up ANOTHER OS.

      When will they realize they have to fire everyone and start from scratch. They have to start by writing one single line of code and go from there.

      Or smarten up and do what Apple did, start with a UNIX core, and open source *****.
      • Matt2k, on 04/02/2008, -3/+8Apple didn't open source most of their code
        Firing everyone is dumb. So is dumping all code and starting from line 1. I realize this is hyperbole. But come on. Vista has problems with drivers. Yeah, we get it. The core operating system is pretty decent.
    • OrangeSoda31, on 04/02/2008, -1/+4Where is barebone vista?
      • dsgamer, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1i know they have it...dont have a link though
      • jackyyll, on 04/02/2008, -1/+8Barebone Vista is called "Windows 95"
        • theRyMo, on 04/02/2008, -1/+1Except Win95 had new code from its predecessors....
  • Tehrooni, on 04/01/2008, -14/+4I hope the Linux community learns from this and come up with a diet plan for some of those fat destros as well.
    • bigfloppydonkey, on 04/01/2008, -2/+4Agreed, that's why I end up using FreeBSD for most of my work now.
    • murlox, on 04/01/2008, -1/+2There is a distro, such as Gentoo Linux, that allows you to install barebone system, even without X if you wish to.
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1Horrible advice. Advising anyone to use Gentoo who isn't already an uber Linux user should be a crime. Thanks to advice like that I was turned off of Linux for years after a horrible ordeal trying to get Gentoo installed (which never happened).
    • qber, on 04/01/2008, -2/+6No need. Don't want a fat distro? Choose a lean distro.
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 04/02/2008, -0/+2Exactly, this is why all these distros exist in the first place.
  • DrHoliday, on 04/01/2008, -5/+8You can find yourself a premade version by a guy named eXPerience. Look him up in the usual places.

    Just make sure you own Windows first :)
    • STKD, on 04/01/2008, -2/+6As long as you don't want it to maintain any degree of stability or compatibility, sure, go with eXp installs. Alternatively, do it yourself with nlite.
      • KMartSheriff, on 04/01/2008, -3/+6You've never even tried it have you? Anyone who has can tell you're talking out of your ass.
        • KiraDnote, on 04/02/2008, -2/+3How do you know the eXp version doesn't include spyware?
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 04/02/2008, -1/+8What? I've installed Tiny XP on dozens of systems and never had any of the issues you claim.
      • BryanJK, on 04/02/2008, -2/+8I game on TinyXP and have no issues, I actually get a 25% FPS increase in TF2.
  • sirmasterboy, on 04/01/2008, -4/+12Why do we care about slimming down XP. I'd be more interested in an article about slimming down Vista. I've been able to get it down to a 2.5GB install (1GB iso) with vlite but more info would be nice.
    • STKD, on 04/01/2008, -1/+4Record low for me was around 610 MB for Vista with vlite iirc. Again iirc, Home Premium was actually the one that ended up the smallest. Server 2008 can go sub-800 MB simply by removing the printer drivers. You can get a Core install of that down past 600 easily.
    • digitalpencil, on 04/02/2008, -1/+14Because most people are still using XP.
      • sirmasterboy, on 04/02/2008, -7/+3I suppose, but I would assume most people who visit digg and like tech would have upgraded to Vista by now seeing as its been almost a year and a half. Pretty much everyone I know around me at college uses Vista now but I guess thats probably influenced by the fact that the college was passing out free keys from MSDN, though any student can get a free copy from MS.

        Vista was only a bit crappy on the driver support for the first 1-3 months but with current hardware like a quad core, 8GB ram and an nvidia 8 series video card it runs just as good as XP I don't see any other reason not to upgrade.
      • digitalpencil, on 04/02/2008, -0/+3We get free MSDN keys too but I don't know many devs that would willingly touch it with a 12ft barge-pole, that includes most diggites.
        It's still not entirely stable (not by XP's standards) and it's a resource-hog. Most people don't have quadcore boxes w/ 8gb ram & a SCSI raid. Some are still running single-cores because that's all they need.
        The truth is, most applications don't require that much power. Hell, most people just surf the web and answer email which, to all intents and purposes could still be done on a 486 with a push. It's only hardcore gamers and 3D designers that require that much raw power and most of those don't have quad-core boxes.
        The be all and end all is this.. why run an OS, that runs slower than its predecessor, on the same hardware and provides no new features save better drive indexing, DX10 (which most don't use) and a bit of eye-candy that not all like (i still run xp in classic cause i hate that bulbous green monstrosity)? That's why the majority still run XP, especially those with tech backgrounds.
  • chmcarro, on 04/01/2008, -1/+12I haven't really seen gaming fps differences with any XP tweaks, Just use Windows Defender or msconfig to remove your unnecessary startup items.
    • KMartSheriff, on 04/01/2008, -0/+3Thank you, that was the only thing that was keeping me interested in this.
    • KiraDnote, on 04/02/2008, -1/+0This whole thing is much ado about nothing. All you're really saving is a little disc space. Big deal. There are ways to disable unneeded services in XP if you think that will help.
  • JohnnyKdiggs, on 04/01/2008, -25/+10"Lifehacker outlines how to rip all the cr*pware out of your XP installation"

    Step 1: Use Linux
    • STKD, on 04/01/2008, -1/+3Step 2 that follows that is presumably "bin PC".
    • IllBeBack, on 04/01/2008, -8/+26What if I don't want to use ***** Linux? Jesus, ***** off.
      • samurimaster, on 04/02/2008, -0/+2use freeDOS cant get much smaller.
    • retawd, on 04/02/2008, -4/+2I took your advice and Y'know what? I found Crysis and Bioshock REALLY difficult to install. EAC, too. Almost impossible, but thank gawd I am a master programmer and was able to port those 3 projects in just under 2 hours! I thought about Wine, but I guess my supercomputer wasn't super enough to run Crysis under Wine. Gawd I suck!
  • SodaForJones, on 04/01/2008, -0/+8I've been using nLite for custom XP installs for a while now. Its the best program if you want to preinstall all of the drivers your gonna need so you don't have to use a separate CD or download them, again. If you build computers for your friends or family nLite's perfect for trimming the fat.
  • chesscat, on 04/01/2008, -12/+1Nothing better than keeping 2001 technology on life support.
    • tba2287, on 04/02/2008, -0/+6Maybe because some people don't want to buy new hardware and are fine with XP? Vista, Win2K and Linux aren't options for people who want to keep their older computers but still want to run new applications. XP is a lean and fast OS without all the bloat, and its long life cycle means that more machines are able to run it well.
    • KiraDnote, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1Maybe you haven't noticed, but XP has been updated a couple of times since then, and a new version is right around the corner. Not that I think you care.
      • chesscat, on 04/03/2008, -1/+1You're right, I don't care. I use a real computer OS: OS X.
  • zeeeg, on 04/01/2008, -11/+4In my opinion if your system can handle Vista at all you're better off spending your time tweaking Vista than stripping down XP. Despite all the bad hype it does have its benefits and game performance can be just as good as XP in DX9 mode.
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 04/02/2008, -0/+5Drivers.
    • digitalpencil, on 04/02/2008, -0/+6This isn't a crack against Vista before everyone blows up.. but how do you get the same DX9 performance under Vista compared to XP?
      I tried everything.. a myriad of different drivers, stripping it down and could never get anywhere close to the fps of the XP boot.
      I liked odd features of Vista but ended up reverting to XP for this reason along with overall stability and the fact it generally treated me like a retarded infant.
  • UNL1M1T3D, on 04/01/2008, -3/+2I am going to have to give this a whirl. I keep an XP partition laying around strictly for gaming.
    • KiraDnote, on 04/02/2008, -3/+0and Photoshop, and a bunch of other little goodies
  • dpowre, on 04/01/2008, -5/+2"yer" kidding
  • Groggie, on 04/01/2008, -4/+13Why did you censor the word crap? Are we afraid that 5 year olds will see it and start using words like "crap" and "fart?"
    • Chris4, on 04/01/2008, -1/+5I believe they already do.
      • Gathalimay, on 04/02/2008, -0/+3WHAT?!
        It seems we have failed as a society :'(
      • solid12345, on 04/02/2008, -0/+3My friend's little 6 year-old brothers tell us to "***** off"
    • Sleepfist, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1Shut the h*ck up, or I'll punch you in your d*rn pottymouth!
  • punchinelli, on 04/02/2008, -11/+5XP is pretty lean to begin with, when compared to Vista. If you need to strip down XP, your PC has issues. I got XP Pro to install and run on a 133 MHz Pentium with 64 MB RAM - ran it pretty decently too.
    • obliviousfool, on 04/02/2008, -2/+1Oh dear lord... what applications can you manage to use?
    • vinetari, on 04/02/2008, -2/+5Even if you did, "Pretty decently" must mean it loads and thats it
  • diggerachi, on 04/02/2008, -5/+0Waiting for a vista version.
  • ClevelandBrown, on 04/02/2008, -5/+0yippie kay yay
  • jasonsalas, on 04/02/2008, -4/+16i'm a software developer and i like XP. i think it's the best, most stable, most compatible OS Microsoft has done. that having been said, i have a routine for setting up new XP boxes on my company's Windows network right out of the box:

    (1) download/install Firefox and Analog X's Fast Cache
    (2) uninstall MSIE, MSN Messenger, the card games and other bloatware i never use
    (3) download/install Apache, Python, Picasa, Avast, The GIMP, MySQL, OpenOffice and other free software
    (4) get to work
  • krnldmp, on 04/02/2008, -6/+7If you wanna get into stripped down systems you're probably better off starting with Linux.
  • returnofthemac, on 04/02/2008, -10/+1Ok. I'll do it if noone else is going to:

    "I thought Windows XP WAS the bare minimum"
  • Apoy, on 04/02/2008, -2/+2How about the "Game XP"?
    • EskNerd, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1How about it? Try reading the article before you comment. An entire section of it is dedicated to Game XP.
    • jaimeshm, on 04/02/2008, -1/+1yup, Apoy is a dumass
  • digitalpencil, on 04/02/2008, -1/+1Great article, i only use XP for playing games and my install was pretty lean to begin with.. just finished reinstalling it with nLite/GameXP though and have seen a 12fps increase (average) under COD4! Am yet to test GOW/BF2 but am impressed so far!
  • brown705, on 04/02/2008, -1/+1nLite rocks
  • BethersJR, on 04/02/2008, -2/+0Sounds great! Can't wait to try it.
  • lumbergh, on 04/02/2008, -5/+3Guys, this idea has been out for a while and is called TinyXP and TinyVista. Search for it on your favorite torrent sites. Leave it to a Mac user to know more about Windows than you folks do...
  • PuyoDead, on 04/02/2008, -3/+3"yer"? What is this, MySpace? It's no wonder digg is never taken seriously as "tech news".
  • MattH, on 04/02/2008, -2/+2http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4111244/TinyXP_Platinu ...
    • Crisender111, on 04/02/2008, -0/+3Man...I tried twice installing 2 diff stripped down versions on my laptop & it ***** up each time.

      So my advice...install the BLOATED one & then strip out what you dont need.
  • donosaurr, on 04/02/2008, -1/+12i am a mac user who switched to xp primarily so i can use programs like 3DS Max and Revit. (Architecture student)
    i will go on the record and say that after stripping it down, i actually really like the OS and notice that it actually runs a bit snappier!
    i'm actually running it off of a bootcamp partition on my macbook but startup times are a bit faster and things are running really smooth.

    though, to make the mac to pc transition easier i've installed some comforting mac UI applications such as RocketDock and Expose.. i also moved the taskbar to the top and decided to not have any desktop icons. (the dock covers all of that)
    i'm just really happy with this setup because i can still have a bit of the eyecandy (sorry i'm a designer)
    but still get a lot of control over the UI and system config.
    a definite one up over os x, imo. :)

    just trying to shed some light and put it out there that not all mac users are pc hating fanboys..
    cant knock it till you've tried it?
    • blacktriangle, on 04/02/2008, -2/+1My suggestion would be to use Maya, which can be used on Macs. I am a 3ds Max user, and am pretty much stuck on XP for the moment.
      • donosaurr, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1maya is great for high quality CG, but as far as architectural renderings, the majority of the business uses 3DS.
        its not imperative that i'm mac-only... i happen to really like xp as well.

        unfortunately, the two programs are also completely different beasts under the hood so its not even that easy to migrate to the maya work environment even though they're the same company... :/

        i really dont mind staying in xp though, its not a bad OS once you can get it running securely and without the bloat.
        but apple hardware definitely has its pros in my situation.
        bootcamp, and the best of both worlds, depending on your needs.
      • kutateli, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1Except it's a total bitch to switch over from 3ds Max to Maya. They are so different you would have to pretty much re-learn everything.
  • moneyswears, on 04/02/2008, -3/+3This advice is so pedestrian, he doesn't use the word "service" once. Then again, the guy's running a mac so what can you expect?
  • Skidmark66, on 04/02/2008, -6/+2somehow, this installs a trojan, watchout !!
  • iKnowKungFoo, on 04/02/2008, -4/+1My parents let me borrow their new Dell with Vista Home Basic since my dual Pentium-III / Windows 2000 machine finally died. They bought the Dell last year when their XP machine died. Ever since I was able to replace the motherboard on the XP box, they don't use the Vista machine anymore. I booted it up this evening and with 512Mb RAM and on-board video, this thing is slow as molasses.

    I was waiting close to 60 seconds for the Task Manager to pop up.

    I'm currently posting via an ubuntu 7.10 Live CD session and it's worlds faster than the Vista install. As soon as I backup some files from the HD, I'll be installing XP Pro and ubuntu.

    XP for games.
    ubuntu for everything else.
    • Evi1d33d, on 04/02/2008, -1/+1Vista will use up 500mb of ram just idling.
      • Wartz, on 04/02/2008, -0/+2its caching your apps that you launch a lot so they launch fast.
  • Crisender111, on 04/02/2008, -1/+2Man...I tried twice installing 2 diff stripped down versions on my laptop & it ***** up each time.
    So my advice...install the BLOATED one & then strip out what you dont need.
  • AppleMacStud, on 04/02/2008, -8/+3Stop playing around and get a Mac. 
    • Varz, on 04/02/2008, -0/+2Well to quote the description:
      "Perfect for use as Virtual Machines and for Vista users who want to dual-boot into XP for better, faster gaming experiences." See that, "faster gaming experiences".
      • lumbergh, on 04/02/2008, -2/+1Perhaps you didn't get the memo (which is now two years old). You can run Windows at full speed on Macs now. No drawbacks. I'll house you in CoD4 any day on my Mac Pro.
  • DomZy, on 04/02/2008, -2/+2This reminds me of the time I spent about a day making an unbloated, completely unattended xp install. I think I only ever used it like twice. You can download versions already stripped from the usual places, the one I've got on CD somewhere lately is "Windows XP Performance Edition". It servers just fine for booting into Windows to use Office 2007 because bloody wine doesn't support it yet!
  • ulaelable, on 04/02/2008, -2/+2I thought this was going to tell me to "delete system32"
  • R75700, on 04/02/2008, -1/+1I was hoping everything would be free. Anytime I see Free trial and buy it now!, I instantly click off.
    You pay a lot for XP to come with all this garbage you don't need and then pay more to trim fat off that shouldn't even be there in the first place? Not a chance. even if its 10 dollars.
  • ZingMan, on 04/02/2008, -0/+3Here's the guide for creating the ultimate Windows XP installation CD/DVD with nLite
    http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/index.php?showtopi ...

    Here's the guide to integrate software into your Windows installation CD with nLite
    http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/index.php?showtopi ...
  • cyclades, on 04/02/2008, -1/+3Am I the only one who saw the word 'strip' and was hoping for some hot .dll on .dll action?
  • cyberdash, on 04/02/2008, -5/+1C:Windows > Shift + Del
  • VJ4mes, 18 hr 24 min ago, -1/+1Jesus some of the comments on here are plain dumb.
    I've got a three partitioned system running both Ubuntu and Windows Xp Pro. No doubt they both have their advantages but really Windows XP just does the job for me. I have Ubuntu very much as tool whenever I'm working with server technologies or anything networked based but aside from that it just sit there. I very much over the Microsoft bashing people are giving, Windows XP does the job and does it competently. I'm often doing fresh installs on people's computer's who complain about how much XP sucks, if it weren't for the crap they accumulate and all the files and bloatware they collect they wouldn't have a problem.
    Often I ind the people who whine most about XP are the ones who pack it full of bloatware, find they're way onto the stingiest websites out there. Do very little diagnostic work at all (Come on people task scheduler does the virus/spyware/windows updates for you), and cry when it takes them 15 minutes to open up a text file.
    I've just thrown this lighter version of XP onto my computer, used two of the suggested programs and got a reasonable performance boost from it. It wasn't groundbreaking but it did trim the fat and create a system which boots that bit quicker. Which really for someone like me, is a pay-off. So the next time a person comes over I can create a slightly better system for them.
    • Cryoniq, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1You will see that when GNU/Linux own the gaming area, then it is over with Windows and Microsoft. And it started to happen no. Finaly. Good thing is.. we will all benefit a lot from it :P
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.