Slashdot Mirror


Windows 7 vs. Windows XP On a Netbook

Justin writes "Many in the industry are counting on Windows 7 to bring the netbook market to the next level. Having netbook manufacturers ship netbooks with 7+ year old Windows XP pre-installed surely deterred some from joining the ranks of households with the small, light and portable netbooks. It seems Microsoft has addressed most of the pitfalls of Windows Vista on a netbook by increasing battery life and performance to be very close to that of the lighter-weight Windows XP. Legit Reviews has the full scoop of battery life and performance tests pitting Windows 7 against Windows XP on the ASUS Eee PC 1005HA Netbook." I'd like to see a follow-up with a few different Netbook-friendly Linux distros, too.

44 of 397 comments (clear)

  1. So what? by LeinadSpoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought the point of netbooks was to have a computer for accessing the internet and that's about it. Last I checked, XP could access the internet. I don't see the point in putting Windows 7 on your netbook at all.

    1. Re:So what? by Wowsers · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The point of installing Windows 7 is to keep Linux OFF a netbook!

      --
      Take Nobody's Word For It.
    2. Re:So what? by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Interesting

      DirectX 10, silly!

      Seriously, though, Vista changed quite a few things under the hood. The only reason you don't see more Vista-only software yet is because it was, well, a flop.

      If Windows 7 catches on, it won't be long before you run across software that refuses to run on XP.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    3. Re:So what? by wjousts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Security for starters. Vista changed a lot under the hood to improve security. So if your netbook is only for accessing the internet, there is actually more, not less, reason for dumping XP.

    4. Re:So what? by LeinadSpoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've ran XP for years and never had a security issue. Standard practices such as not opening attachments from people you don't know and keeping everything updated do wonderfully. Yes, not everyone follows them, but maybe after a few security problems, they'll learn.

    5. Re:So what? by basementman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The point of netbooks is to use them for whatever the fuck you want. Just because they are called "netbooks" doesn't mean I'm only allowed to access the internet with them.

      On my netbook I can browse the internet, write an essay in OpenOffice, watch 720p movies, run an FTP client, play CS:S. Upgrading to Windows 7 makes all of these things faster.

    6. Re:So what? by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I thought the point of netbooks was to have a computer for accessing the internet and that's about it. Last I checked, XP could access the internet. I don't see the point in putting Windows 7 on your netbook at all.

      7's ~0.5 second sleep and awake times are a nice boost over XP, and on my Mini with 2 gigs of ram Firefox opens under 7 in 1/2 the time it took to open in XP. Also, when I boot up I can start opening programs as soon as the desktop loads, where in XP the whole system would freeze for seconds at a time during the 60 seconds after a boot, possibly because of the JMicron controller in my SSD. I'm not sure how I generally feel about the new taskbar in 7 at its default settings (i.e., OSX Docklike), but on the tiny screen of a netbook the reduced taskbar clutter is great. Windows management features like mouseover-full size Window previews make me feel a lot less claustrophobic in the tiny netbook world, as well.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    7. Re:So what? by gparent · · Score: 5, Funny

      Windows 7 is better and faster. It'd be kinda like using Ubuntu 9.04 instead of 6.06.

    8. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      /facepalm -- Keeping Linux off the Netbook IS about making MS money.. are you new here?

    9. Re:So what? by clang_jangle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My experience supporting XP users is that even if I train them not to click blindly on just anything they still get personal email from their luser friends and family who are malware-infected, so it's just a losing proposition. Much as I'd love to see everyone adopt Linux, realistically I am sort of looking forward to win7 being society's default OS. So far, my testing appears to indicate it will be a lot easier to supporrt than XP has been.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    10. Re:So what? by PPH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If your whole point in installing Windows 7 is to not run something else, then just think of the money you could save by just not buying a netbook. Or a PC. Or a broadband or dialup Internet connection.

      I choose my O/S based upon what it does run.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    11. Re:So what? by lukas84 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, no.

      ASLR, Internet Explorer's Protected stuff (which not one of the competitors has), Bitlocker, the new Firewall (which finally has a nice group policy settings), service hardening using restricted accounts, NAP inclusion, kernel patch protection, etc. etc.

    12. Re:So what? by Enderandrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Um, I just went through the article and XP was faster in basically every bench mark.

      What feature does 7 provide you that is a huge benefit over XP, especially on a netbook?

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    13. Re:So what? by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 5, Informative

      I thought the point of netbooks was to have a computer for accessing the internet and that's about it. Last I checked, XP could access the internet. I don't see the point in putting Windows 7 on your netbook at all.

      Well, let me play devil's advocate and throw out some ideas for you...

      1) Security, there truly is a major level of security between XP and Win7. This goes from the built in malware tools, to even IE running in protected mode so it is technically more secure than running Firefox or Chrome, as the browser doesn't even user level rights. (This is why the Flash and recent IE exploits you have read about (that can even affect OS X and Linux are IMMUNE on Vista or Win7 when running IE.) - I know, this is hard to hear and I hate saying it myself, but is true.

      2) Network features. Running through the airport and having the new Win7/Vista networking stack features is freaking awesome, as it not only does really good at just hooking into the WiFi, but also remembers. So that if go back through Denver it knows not only how to connect (which all OSes should do), but it also knows how to classify the network and flips on the Firewall on the fly and correctly sets all sharing settings based on the profile of the network there.

      3) 3G features - Networking Again - 3G if you have the latest drivers from most manufacturers, and you have a 3G netbook, or even a 3G phone that you are tethering, the Network connection is treated more like a WiFi connection, and gives you instant information from the same interface, with Bars, Speed, etc, and again automatically just hooks you into the network and again applies the level of firewall security and sharing crackdown that you have specified.

      4) Resume from Standby or Hibernate - Set your Power Button to hibernate and you can flip the netbook on and off as fast as you can open your phone. The speed differences in resume from standby are good, but the hibernate resume features are fast, and when you are trying to rebook flights running through an airport, you appreciate these little things.

      5) Then add in 1000 other new features over XP, from better application boot times via Superfetch, to pulling up tons of information from a simple search. There are also the nice corporate features that work better and are handy from newer ways it deals with Offline files and access remote servers, to even NTFS features that do a bit extra to keep previous versions of your documents with you at all times, without even having to back them up every hour.

      And this could go on and on and on, as the full list of several thousand features were contrasted between Win7 and XP that really do make things easier and work better than an 8 year old OS. (From bluetooth to even having the right printers appear based on what network I'm roaming on at the moment, just little things that are nice.)

      ----

      Finally, netbooks are NOT ONLY for just browsing the internet. They are low power computers, and you seem to discount that there are users running Office, and Photoshop, and Corel, and Illustrator, and even playing games on these computers. There is a difference between getting a crap Web inteface to my documents when at the airport, and actually opening the application they were created in and just editing them.

      You can also find 'geeks' like myself playing an MMO on netbooks, and sure it isn't 60fps, but 20-30fps on a device isn't bad, and ironically, most of the games that the Netbooks can actually run, hold their own and often run faster under Win7, as it does a better job of silencing background processes.

      There are also the times, I just want to read an eBook, watch a movie, listen to a book, or listen to music, and then the Netbook becomes the ultimate PMP, and you will find me with headphones on and my Netbook is shoved in my briefcase. (Oh and on flights where space is tight, again, they work quire well for movie viewing, you are getting a 8-10" screen for you and anyone you travel with and about the same battery life as a gen

    14. Re:So what? by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 3, Informative

      If Windows 7 catches on, it won't be long before you run across software that refuses to run on XP.

      Which is necessary to Microsoft's survival, being their own biggest competitor and all.

      It could be necessary for progress in general. Although, maybe I'm mistaken and you'd prefer to retro fit your gasoline engine powered vehicle with a pair of oxen? I'm just sayin, at some point the past "version" becomes so obsolete you may no longer wish to support it. It may also be that the costs of maintaining support for said obsolescence is simply higher than abandoning it.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    15. Re:So what? by CannonballHead · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Linux doesn't default to granting root privileges, I know. And you don't need root privileges to delete files out of your own home directory. Hence the tilde before the slash: ~/* not /*

      Linux does have executable files.

      Now, I am not entirely certain it could have the +x flag set on the file after being an e-mailed attachment, though, actually. I could be mistaken there.

      On the other hand, you could just bundle it up into an RPM, make it look "real" and people will "install" the "video." If you switch the average Windows user to Linux, they'll know even less about Linux than they do about Windows. They'll install RPMs (or whatever) as quickly as they will install Smilie Packs on Windows. If that means typing in their password - which they'd be used to, by now, if they've been installing updates - then they will type it in.

    16. Re:So what? by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The main reason IE needs that is because it is so integrated into the O.S.

      Are we back to the 1990s belief that IE somehow runs "in the kernel?" Can you Microsoft bashers at least get up to date on this stuff please? IE is no more "integrated into the OS" than any other application that uses a system library.

    17. Re:So what? by Arker · · Score: 3, Informative

      IE is no more "integrated into the OS" than any other application that has been chopped up and hidden inside system libraries.

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  2. What, you think people *WANT* vista? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Vista jokes aside, the fact that people are willing TO PAY EXTRA to get their computer with windows XP is a very good indicator.

    Most people/companies are not interested in the new features offered by Vista. They just aren't that compelling.

    Then add the fact that Vista is new, slower, compatible with less hardware, some of your current software won't work on Vista, and many people find UAC annoying.

    Not a lot of upside, and a big downside for many. The value proposition just isn't there.

    Microsoft pulled XP from the retail market to avoid Vista looking like a flop.

    1. Re:What, you think people *WANT* vista? by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Most people/companies are not interested in the new features offered by Vista. They just aren't that compelling

      Most people anyway, have never sat down in front of a Vista machine for long enough to get used to it.

      Compatibility, seriously? That hasn't been a problem for literally years. Any computer you buy off the shelf today is going to have compatible hardware and I bet you'd be hard pressed to find individual pieces that are worth buying that aren't compatible.

      UAC? Can be turned off in about 5 mouse clicks.

      I can't say much about performance except that my $600 laptop has enough power to handle it easily, I know that doesn't capture the netbook market at all, but if you're buying an off the shelf desktop or laptop I highly doubt you'll see any issues. It's true that there isn't a whole lot of big changes to make the transition worthwhile, certainly there's nothing that would make me upgrade an XP machine to Vista.

      OTOH, if I were buying a new machine and had the choice, I would, in all honesty, take Vista for the little things if nothing else. Being able to control the volume on a program by program basis is very nice. Being able to search the start bar and individual folders, including things like the control panel is also nice, just to name a couple. The single largest problem with Vista was it's launch, for what it's worth running Vista is actually quite enjoyable for me.

      (Please don't blow this post off just because it's not anti-Vista, I run XP at work, Vista on my laptop, and Ubuntu on my Desktop. All have the pluses and minuses, I'm just trying to dispel a bit of the bad reputation that Vista (unfairly IMO) has.)

  3. Windows $NEXT_VERSION to rule them all by David+Gerard · · Score: 5, Funny

    Windows 7 betas have been greeted with remarkable positive press. "Of course," said Steve Ballmer, "the betas preview the 'champagne and hookers' edition, which would be way too much for netbooks and explode users' brains. Imagine thinking those little things are computers! So we're releasing what we call Windows 7 Dumbass Edition(tm). It lets you log in and look at the shiny. Even Spider Solitaire has the ribbon toolbar! And you can buy an upgrade to the version that runs programs! It lets you do that!"

    Dumbass Edition(tm) comes with pre-installed viruses to make the computer part of the Storm, Conficker and FBI botnets. "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

    "Some manufacturers were going to release netbooks with ARM processors, which would run Linux or Chrome OS at twice the speed, half the heat and ten-hour battery life, but wouldn't run Windows 7. Microsoft assures us this is a crushing blow for ARM," said Michael Silver of Gartner. "ARM didn't have anything to say to that, just a guffawing sound down the phone. Obviously they're upset and hysterical."

    In future news, Microsoft Corporation has announced a limited one-off extension of availability of its Windows XP operating system to April 2101 after criticism from large customers and analysts. This is the fifty-sixth extension of XPâ(TM)s availability since 2008. "Windows XP is currently in the extremely very prolonged super-extended support phase and Microsoft encourages customers to migrate to Windows for Neurons 2097 as soon as feasible," said William Gates V, CEO and great-grandson of the company founder. "Spare change?"

    Illustration: Steve Ballmer's joyous expression when announcing seeing the latest Microsoft quarterly figures.

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. Re:Windows 7 should be 64 Bit by lyml · · Score: 3, Informative

    The intel atom cpu is 32 Bit. Shipping no 32 bit whatsoever would eliminate you from this very popular market.

  6. Re:Windows 7 should be 64 Bit by sexconker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    May have been me.

    32-bit should have died with XP.
    Vista should have been 64-bit only.

    No existing applications / devices that were 32-bit only had to worry, there was still 32-bit XP dammit.

    But ok, whatever, fuck it, Intel was still flogging 32-bit CPUs for some reason, and people are morons. Fine.

    But Windows 7? WHY THE FUCK do we need 32-bit versions of Windows 7? FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKK

  7. Really? by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ok, the article isn't off the scale in terms of inaccuracy, but when you see comments like this, how can you trust anything they do or say?

    Aero is automatically disabled when unplugged in battery saver mode which makes sense

    Aero is NOT disabled when unplugged; instead, translucency is turned off. (The Blur/Glass effect)

    Aero itself remains enabled. I know people confuse 'Glass' and 'Aero' and 'DWM' and what the OS, but come on this is a technical review right, shouldn't they get the basic facts that you find on Wikipedia correct or at least maybe, just maybe have a clue themselves?

    There are other more subtle errors in the article, and even though it basically says Win7 is doing fine. However, do you notice it forgets to mention that Win7 is performing as well as XP while having search, defender and many other 'heavy' features working properly and still performing as well as XP on a very modest CPU and GPU platform.

    Going to leave it here...

  8. My Anecdotal Evidence by basementman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Having run Windows XP, Ubuntu and Windows 7 on my MSI Wind U100 I can say Windows Seven has by far been the best OS. XP ran fine, but it wasn't particularly pleasing to the eye and had some issues running multiple programs at once. Ubuntu looked marginally better but performance wise it was terrible, I couldn't watch a flash video without it seizing up. Windows Seven looks pretty, runs faster than XP and is just better overall.

    1. Re:My Anecdotal Evidence by gravos · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's Adobe's problem, not Ubuntu's. Videos in every player other than Flash will work fine.

    2. Re:My Anecdotal Evidence by s7uar7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It might not be Ubuntu's fault, but it's Ubuntu's problem.

    3. Re:My Anecdotal Evidence by PRMan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, many open-source drivers do not have hardware support for playing video on the graphics chip.

      Regardless of the reason for this (and it may be impossible to fix if they are closed up), Ubuntu is very poor at playing Flash video depending on the chip. On one machine at home, they emulate hardware speedup in the driver using software, but Flash actually does better with it turned off.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  9. Re:Windows 7 should be 64 Bit by 0racle · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why not have 32bit? There is no real compelling reason for most people to have a 64bit OS so why force people to buy all new hardware when what you're trying to do is sell an OS? Most people that brag about having a 64bit system have no idea what they're talking about, they just brandish it around and keep yammering on about it like it's some awesome thing.

    --
    "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
  10. Strange conclusions? by William+Ager · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So, in my interpretation, the Windows 7 netbook had slightly shorter battery life, and performed slightly worse in all but two benchmarks. One of those two was dealing with "next generation gaming performance" that really isn't point of netbooks, and the other was essentially identical to the XP performance.

    And the conclusion the reviewers take from this is that Windows 7 is good? Just because it isn't as bad as Vista, and isn't too much worse than XP?

    With these sorts of results, XP is going to be with us for a long time. Why is it so hard for Microsoft to make something comparable?

    1. Re:Strange conclusions? by CannonballHead · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, that's good, isn't it? A 7 year old OS vs. a not-yet-released OS running on current hardware... and the not-yet-released OS performs almost just as well as the 7 year old OS?

      I'd say that's pretty good. Typical idea is that older OS's will run faster since they were smaller and HAD to run on .. less hardware. Hardware is better, so OS's can plan on using more of it. An OS that is able to run almost as well as a 7 year old OS on CURRENT hardware is doing pretty well.

  11. Re:would be nice if they fixed RAID in windows 7 by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 3, Informative

    We're running several RAID configurations, even on many of our notebooks with dual-HD configurations. RAID 0, RAID 1, etc...

    Not sure what issue you are seeing, but maybe you should complain to the HD Controller MFR as this would be the first place to yell, as they not only make the driver, but once the OS passes off HD read/write commands to the driver and then the HD Controller for the RAID, the OS has little to do with what happens then.

    I personally know that some RAID MFRs are crap sadly, but even running Linux, the drivers are and HD controllers are still crap.

    Haven't seen the ATI Black screen, unless it sets your video mode to a native resolution and you havea 1990s monitor, but even then it should pop back or you could reboot and adjust this in safe mode.

  12. Re:Windows 7 should be 64 Bit by dnaumov · · Score: 4, Informative

    Unfortunately, Windows has been kind of lagging on the 64-bit front. By treating it as sort of a bastard child (like they treated all their non-i386 NT versions), Microsoft managed to ensure that hardware manufacturers wouldn't make an effort to support 64-bit windows in a non-server environment. Which is frustrating as I've started bumping up against that once-awesome 4GB barrier.

    Please, stop spewing bullshit. Just stop. For almost 2 years now, it has been a requirement to provide both 64 and 32 bit Vista drivers if a manufacturer wanted to get the WHQL stamp of approval. And these same Vista drivers install and work just fine on 64bit Windows 2008 Server as well, I know, because I actually run 64bit Win2008 on a rather obscure combination of hardware and haven't had any issues. I am sure some old hardware does exist that still doesn't have 64bit drivers for Vista/2008, but you really really need to try to actually find such hardware.

  13. Chrome OS announcement timing. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It is a game invented by Microsoft. Some start up creates a product. Looks like the product has some legs. Microsoft feels, that product could threaten its monopoly or it feels it wants that piece of the market also for itself, or it thinks sabotaging that product would somehow strengthen its position. All it used to take to kill it would be a press release. "Microsoft is planning to release a competitor in the next release Or would make the functionality part of Windows." That is it. Venture capital would evaporate and the product would never see the light of the day.

    Now Microsoft is facing the same game from the other end. Very carefully timed announcement by Google that all the OS you would need to run a netbook is coming soon. Vendors do not commit wholeheartedly to Microsoft. Device driver writers do not just hack something that will work in Windows alone and be done with it. Consumers also do not rush out to buy the latest and greatest. Corporations add another action to their evaluation. "What about Chrome OS?". That buys some time. Most vendors cite Chrome OS and demand hefty discount for Win7 in netbook market. Microsoft is forced to sell its OS at bargain basement prices in the fastest growing segment of PC market.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  14. VirtualBox by loudmax · · Score: 4, Informative

    VirtualBox is very easy to use and it's GPL. If you use the free-as-in-beer desktop integration tools, then it's quite slick as well. I run a 64-bit Gentoo desktop with 32-bit Windows XP as a guest OS. This gives me all the power of Unix with MS compatibility when I need it. In full screen mode, I might as well be running XP for all you can tell.

    I haven't tried 3D accelerated graphics. I understand that VirtualBox has been making strides in bringing OpenGL to the guest host, but they don't have any expectation of getting DirectX working any time soon if ever.

    I hope Oracle decides to keep VirtualBox alive. As it is, VirtualBox is great for desktops, but the server side tools aren't in the same league as VMware. With Oracle backing, VirtualBox could become a serious contender.

    --
    KTHXBYE
  15. What a Joke! by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsoft has addressed most of the pitfalls of Windows Vista on a netbook by increasing battery life and performance to be very close to that of the lighter-weight Windows XP.

    What a fracking joke! That the new product is almost as good as the 7 year old one that it replaces.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  16. GPU rendering and compositing saves CPU power by benwaggoner · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A Netbook is a system with a very low powered single-core CPU. Everything you can do to move things off the CPU makes everything else faster. Windows 7 can offload GDI, window compositing, and many other effects to the GPU (even one as relatively weak as in Netbooks), saving a ton of CPU performance. And thus making everything else faster, even if it's just looking at a web page that's running some Javascript or Flash.

    I just upgraded my kids' Dell Mini 9 (1 GB RAM) to Win 7 RTM from its OEM XP config, and it's remarkably snappier even just doing web browsing, even with a GMA 945.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7#Desktop_Window_Manager

  17. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  18. Re:Lighter weight XP??? by Draek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From experience I can tell you that Windows 7 (64-bit version) can be installed on a 10 GB partition. Barely, but it does work.

    If you want light, Minix still can't be beat but I don't see anyone using it as a desktop OS. I wonder why.

    --
    No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
  19. Re:Lighter weight XP??? by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That is why I recommend DSL Linux on older laptops where the battery is starting to lose charge. On this 733MHz SFF I'm typing on it is using barely 40Mb of RAM and that is with the TORAM option flag set, which loads the whole thing to RAMdisk! Which means on even a machine as old as this 733MHz with 384Mb of RAM it flies and programs load as fast as I can click them.

    To be fair though, there IS a version of WinXP floating around the Internet called "TinyXP Beast Edition" that gives you all the Vista pretty and still only consumes 63Mb of RAM running the desktop. MSFT has just never been good at tweaking their OSes for speed. Maybe they should hire the TinyXP dudes to make a "Tiny 7 Monster Edition"? And for those that scream "Piracy!" for me daring to mention TinyXP? You can actually use your own key with it like I did and it works just fine. It is just easier to download a pre-tweaked version that to spend all that time tweaking it yourself. Oh and it has SP3 already slipstreamed, whereas my retail disk is XP SP2.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  20. Re:Lighter weight XP??? by MrHanky · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've tried a stripped-down pirate version (called XP JACKed Edition, IIRC) that would boot and run in a virtual machine limited to 20 MB RAM. It worked fairly well, I even used it to play games like Oblivion for a while (not in a VM, though). XP can be remarkably lightweight.

  21. Re:Who cares about these tests? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The tests confirm what many of us have been saying all along. Using XP as a baseline, Vista sucks gangrenous donkey balls through a garden hose. Win7, on the other hand, runs about as well as XP. Depending on configuration, of course. It wouldn't be terribly inaccurate to say that Win7 is XP with a better security model, and missing some of the bogus legacy shit that should have been dropped almost a decade ago.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  22. Re:Lighter weight XP??? by Mozk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just use nLite, which is probably what TinyXP was made with (to begin with). Getting rid of everything you don't use and disabling unnecessary services can save a lot of disk space and reduce memory usage significantly. It works with Windows 2000 too.

    There are even analogs of nLite for Windows 98 if you want to go even slimmer.

    --
    No existe.