DRMLite?

All we need now is a DRMLite, HardwarePollingLite, and PhoneHomeLite versions of VLite!

Why doesn't Microsoft allow a custom install on Vista in the first place?

And when are they actually going to come clean and tell us how many services Vista phones home with?

Vista Schmista

I think if an OS is so slow, bloated, and resource-intensive that is sucks worse than its predecessor then making it "slimmer" by removing chunks of its core applications seems like a waste of time.
Formatting your hard drive and installing XP, or a Linux distro, takes far less effort and is much less interesting - and you get to keep the built-in email app!!
Vista is not slow and bloated due to poor programming -- it is slow because it was not desgined for the comsumer (aka "buyer" aka "person out 400 bucks." It's made with Microsoft's, the MPAA's, the RIAA's, anyone BUT the buyer's interest in mind.
Microsoft, you can stick this one up the ole' pipe-hole.
When you remember the basics of business ethics and customer satisfaction, let me know.

Actually...

>>MinWIn
Ok, author, get this straight for the freaking LAST TIME. There are two versions of MinWin.

The first one is the insternally used one MS uses to design and profile the kernel portion of ALL NT OSes, it was also used in creating WinCE, as WinCE is a variant of NT4's fork but is striped of layering and most of the kernel API features that are not needed in an appliance OS. It has been around forever and isn't much different than the demoed MinWin.

The second MinWin is the one demonstrated by the Microsoft employee in a presentation. It IS NOT Windows 7, NOR A precursor to Windows 7. It IS a compiled version of the Vista NT kernel (slightly newer build is all) that is absent of the Subsystem API interfaces to the kernel and these are replaced with a basic HTTP server handling User I/O. What this means is that the MinWin that YOU and other think is 'smaller' or WIndows7 is actually NO ANY DIFFERENT than the NT kernel in Vista. The Vista NT kernel is also VERY TINY, and if the subsystem APIs were removed would be exactly the MinWin you watched in the demonstration. Get your facts straight as this makes any subject or insight comments discredited and worthless.

To repeat, MinWin is just the kernel portion of the NT os without the subsystem API interfaces or the subsystems. (Thinked a layered OS with a client/server hybrid kernel = NT)

So Windows 7 is just like Vista, using the same NT kernel technology and architecture. PERIOD. This is nothing new.

What people see as 'bloated' in Vista is all the subsystems i.e. Win32, compatibility,and duality. For example Vista has BOTH the new WDDM video driver and subsystem model and the XPDM.

Both are completely different, render different, different drivers models, and provide a completely different set of features. YET Vista supports both of these driver models without people even realizing they are different (a testiment to the compatibility MS pulled off in Vista).

So when you provide two sets of technology then the OS size grows.

Drop two Video subsystem driver models, Audio, Printer, intercomminication systems, conversions (GDI-XPS) etc into any OS and it will be significantly larger. (PS other OSes can't even do this, it takes something like the NT kernel technology to split the driver models like this. Trying to implement two video subsystem on OS X or Linux would simply not work.)

So these 'dual' systems for new technology and legacy take up HD space, but they aren't running at the same time so they aren't slowing Vista down.

Back to the Vista Kernel and MinWin, go look up information on Inside NT. The original NT HAL was 64KB back in 1992. In Vista it is STILL under 256KB. (XP was under 150KB). And this is the low layer that has to deal with all the new technologies and providing compatible interfaces to hardware.

So the presented MinWin is a slightly newer build of the Vista NT kernel, but it isn't any different other than having the upper layers removed for the sake of presentation and internal testing, and Windows 7 will AGAIn tack all the Win32 subsystem and all the other NT kernel interface APIs back on when it is shipped.

Understand?


>>Why doesn't Microsoft allow a custom install on Vista in the first place?

They do and have had forever. Ask any OEM or IT person that deploys Windows. In fact the tools the vLite author is using to strip the OS are MS's customizing tools to create a new slipstream install. The trick is most people don't know what 'other' features can be removed without breaking the OS, and the vLite person/people is trying to figure out what does what and removing what THEY believe to be unecessary. However by doing this, you are breaking the OS even if you don't realize it.

Takeing out features even like the picture viewer is only going to PO users and saves SO little in HD space. Also removing the backup of the Vista DVD on the HD reduces Vista's internal repair systems that allow it to keep the OS running even if an authorized program or corruption messes with system files.

Home users truly have no need for custom installs 99% of the time, and anyone that has ANY tech knowledge knows how ot create a custom Install DVD.