Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (
More info?)
"Shenan Stanley" <news_helper@hushmail.com> wrote in
news:eIwdb$e$EHA.3924@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl:
<SNIP>
>> i personally would go back to Windows95, if i could, just for the
>> 'liteness' of it, but unfortunately, XP can't be beat for stability
>> and the eye candy is nice, Win98 is was still 'lite' enough.
>
> You are correct. Windows 98 was nice (SE) - although stable is not a
> word I would use with it and secure is one that should not even be
> associated with it. Fast and simple.. sure. Windows 95? I would
> never go back to it.
secure is how you make it.
> XP is a vast improvement and not even in the same family line - as
> that line was technically discontinued. But even the hardcore people
> who love Windows NT/2000 hated it for one of the very reasons you
> listed as good - "eye-candy". This is what i began getting rid of
> immediately.
i too was alway's the first to remove the eye-candy, like fading menu's,
but there's the small bit's that should have just been the way they are
in XP from the start of windows, ie- desktop icon text with a transparent
background.
>
>> i thought this was an interesting project:
>>
>> http://www.etek.chalmers.se/~e8gus/nano98/ , a very basic Win98
>> system that on 4.3 Megs in size with a GUI. a very lite start.
> There are projects out there that rip Windows XP to a "lite" status as
> well. You lose som much stability, however..
do you have any link's to these ? i would be very interested. i'm under
the impression you can do this with XP embedded, build an XP image for a
desktop including ONLY the compnents yo want to include.
> I install dozens of
> machines in a given week and with these instals I have made my
> registry files and other scripts do the tweaking for me. Tweaks from
> such pages as winguides.com and setting many services to manual due to
> research on sites like:
>
> Task List Programs
>
http://www.answersthatwork.com/Tasklist_pages/tasklist.htm
>
> Black Viper's Service List and Opinions (XP)
>
http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm
>
> Processes in Windows NT/2000/XP
> http://www.reger24.de/prozesse/
>
> Startups
>
http://www.pacs-portal.co.uk/startup_content.php
>
> While I am the last to tout Windows XP's greatness - as I use other
> operating systems alongside my Windows XP boxes - I do say that I have
> seen WIndows XP win over some administrators that *did* go against
> everything Microsoft. Yeah - sure - it requires tweaking - but this
> is the first in the NT line that actually targetted consumers instead
> of just businesses. For someone like me - it was easy enough to fix..
> And for people who know someone like me - same thing. A little
> tweaking here and there, a little cut-down on some of the more
> annoying features and Windows XP runs great and has some extra
> features that can, without a doubt, "save your butt".
>
i don't disagree at all, but i do believe the following:
there are 2 kinds of users out there. users like you and me (i'm an old
DOS guy that resisted the switch to Windows as long I possibly
could......until i realized you could run multiple programs
simultaneously) that know top to bottom how a computer works and can fix
just about any problem. then the other group of users, people that know
almost nothing short of pressing the power button, to the one's that know
just enough to be dangerous (hoping not to offend anyone).
it would be great if during the install process, for the 'expert' users,
you could have a lot more control over what is installed, and where......
'Windows XP support's multiple users. Each user's personal documents,
files and setting's are stored in a folder named after the Username. The
default location for the User folder's are C:\Documents and Settings.
Would you like to change this location ?'
wouldn't that be a great dialog box during installation ? or....
'Windows XP SP2 now includes 'Security Center', a built in firewall, that
helps protect you while online. If you already have a firewall, it may
not be necessary to install the 'Security Center'. Do you want to install
the Microsoft Security Center ?'
obviously since the PC has really gone mainstream since the early 90's,
the majority of the user's wouldn't want this, but IMO, a good percentage
would really like to see this. i know i would.
or better yet, an option to do a 'minimal' install, installing just the
VERY basic components required to NOT be considerd 'safe mode', that will
support networking, sound, and device driver installation's. the OS would
then telll you when something was trying to utilize a component that
wasn't installed.....
'The application (whatever) has tried to use the Windows Shadow Copy
Service. This service has not been installed. The program trying to
access it may not work without this service. Would you like to install
this component now ?'
obviously you'd have to keep the WindowsXP CD handy, but a small price to
pay for a sleek, non-bloated O/S.
regards,
DanS
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram