Microsoft doesn't recommend creating Vista 'Lite'
Frustrated with Vista's sluggishness, some people have been turning to a utility called vLite, which out components of the operating system deemed unessential.
Although the move does offer frustrated Vista users an option other than going back to XP or switching to a Mac, Microsoft said Wednesday that it doesn't endorse such changes to Vista's setup.
"Microsoft does not recommend using any tool to strip out applications from Windows Vista prior to installing it on your system, as it may affect your ability to download future Windows updates and service packs, and may cause your system to become unstable," the company said in an e-mail to CNET News.com.
The company didn't mention downgrading to XP or switching to a Mac, but I'm guessing Microsoft doesn't really want you doing those things either.
Microsoft does have a project under way, as part of its Windows 7 development process, to create a slimmed-down Windows kernel. Microsoft has refused to offer further details on the MinWin effort, beyond comments made by a Microsoft engineer at a university lecture last year.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
"Traut stressed more than once that MinWin is not going to be 'productised' in itself - you should see it as a base on which the various editions of Windows are going to be built - server, media center, desktop, notebook, PDA, phone, you name it."
Vista was poorly executed, no negative testing results were recorded, and no management took any responsibility for killing Vista as defective or making sure the performance could ever be fixed.
When a house is consumed by mildew, it is best to tear it down and start again. No SP or "patch" will fix the miserable performance of Vista.
In my opinion - Vista should be as fast as XP on a P4 and significantly faster than XP on new equipment. Instead Vista needs new equipment just to run close to the same speed as old equipment but even on the newest equipment, network throughput and access time is still significantly slower than XP even on three year old equipment - how sad is that?
http://gizmodo.com/337768/battlemodo-windows-vista-service-pack-1-rc1-vs-shipping-vista
http://www.news.com/Windows-XP-outshines-Vista-in-benchmarking-test/2100-1016_3-6220201.html
http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/vista-sp1-performance-dud.html
The search function alone has limitless value.
I mean, I hit the window button and type in WHATEVER I want. If it's MS Word, I just type in W-O-R and before I even get the D in Vista has found the program I am referencing and has it highlighted. This goes for documents, frequent websites, anything in your LAN.
What needs cutting out? I mean, there are a few useless things, but they don't take up space and are not constantly running services.
I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and get smart. This OS was designed with the future in mind. Watch, in no time at all everyone is going to be so pleased with how well Vista works on the Core 2 Quad, and the performance boost over XP on the same system.
If you REALLY need the max speed from your hardware then use Ubuntu. I have my home media PC set up with BOTH Vista and Linux, and it's the greatest thing ever.
I work in a company with 40 people. It has been my experience here that the people who are basically computer illiterate can't hang with Vista. They're ignorance is the only problem with Vista, they can only work on an XP computer, new buttons are just too much to handle for some people. The savvy users, like my IT team, the company CTO, and some of our engineers, LOVE Vista.
So what can I say? I use it. It's plenty fast. I don't expect it to be a minimal system, that's not what I bought it for and that's what Linux IS for. Vista increased the productivity of everyone who knows how to use a computer, and bottom line, it is better so don't listen to people that don't know what they are talking about.
IMO - that is much of the CNET staff. Sometimes I wonder if they employ editors at this place... Or own spell checks.
Now you got lucky, even for someone with a new computer. According to ChangeWave, about 20 percent of vista users were very satisfied with it, compared to 50 percent for xp and 80 percent for leopard.
for a couple years now and have had the same search
functionality through Mac OS X Spotlight.
And it has run plenty fast for millions of people on older
hardware than what Vista requires. Vista is bloated. It has some
nice features, but it isn't worth the cut in performance to gain
those features.
The argument that the computer world isn't ready for Vista is
just a cop-out. Would you build and sell a car that can't be
driven on the roads until 2010 or can't use any of the gas and
has no way to be refueled? Probably not. Likewise, you shouldn't
build software that can't run correctly on the majority of users'
hardware. XP runs fine on existing hardware and Vista provides
no substantial reasons to switch.
The problem is that Microsoft seems to have peaked with XP and
now has no direction to go but down. They aren't bringing
anything substantial to the table with Vista and in the process of
"upgrading" Windows, they have only slowed it down and
alienated their customers.
I agree Vista is not a BAD operating system, but it isn't as good
as XP. From a performance standpoint and a compatibility
standpoint. If it works great for you, that's awesome. But people
are just as entitled to their opinions as you are. I personally like
OS X a lot more than any of the Windows flavors and that is what
I use. I have Vista installed under Bootcamp and it runs fine on
my Mac. But, my aging laptop that runs XP great, can hardly run
Vista at all. Most people probably have the experience that I
have had on my laptop and realize that there is no reason to
upgrade.
Add to that, you could make Windows Mail, Windows Sidebar, and a whole bunch of other programs including the Windows Photo Gallery and Photo and Fax Viewer optional..... and you begin to see where some of the waste could be cut down on.
Microsoft needs to realize, and the companies that make equipment and hardware need to realize, that we do NOT NEED ALL THOSE DRIVERS INCLUDED!
They should put them on a separate "Windows Vista Driver Disk" or in a separate directory on the disk and when you need a driver.... BOOM! You just pop in the disk, which isn't that hard to do, or direct it to the spot on the hard drive where the separate driver you downloaded is.
Personally, I do expect Windows Vista to mature and move to a 'minimal' and then add on stuff installer.
The problem is though, that some people who don't want to sit there and tell Vista what they want and what they don't want will whine, even though it will be for their benefit in the long run.
Oh, and I have used Vista and still use it, in fact I switched my parents computer over to Vista recently.
Microsoft failed to fix them. I've never had that much trouble any other version of Windows going back to Version 1.
I like Vista for it's interface, but I really don't like that it doesn't work.
Obviously you can see from reading the boards there is a disconnect somewhere. Some people say it runs like crap, and others say it doesn?t. How is that possible? One would assume that?s because people with better hardware are running the OS better. However, after reading many boards I got the impression that there wasn?t a direct correlation between ones Vista experience and their hardware. I also felt this after seeing two very basic computers with 512 megabytes of ram where one computer ran Vista Basic ok, and then another computer ran Vista horribly.
So, a few friends and I have spent the last two weeks doing some tests with five laptops and four desktops among us. We clean installed all them and put XP on them. Then we clean installed Vista on them. We did a few unscientific benchmarks, but basically we noticed generally the power hardware will run better all around with Vista installed. However, sometimes that just wasn?t the case. Two of the more powerful laptops really did run Vista horribly while the less powerful laptops would run it just fine, and we were left scratching our heads.
After more accurate testing by people that actually knew what they were doing perhaps the results would differ, or maybe there would be something actually worth publishing. It sure wasn?t a test that answered any of our questions. That?s for sure.
Probably because MS changed the location of a lot of things in Vista and added so much unnecessary crap that you need a much bigger computer. Like Glass Windows and Quick search indexing, which you can also get from other software companies ( and they use almost NO resources :-).
I use ' Everything ' in Xp http://www.voidtools.com/ , superfast search-engine (293 KB only!). Don't need Vista for that.
Don't need Word either , what a crap if you save a doc in Office 2007 and nobody with Office 2003 or 97 can open it! Commercial bulshit (N.b ! Save a normal letter as doc or as rtf, doc is 8x bigger without any reason ....
Can you imagine the harddisk space wasted around the world ;-( and the money! for a sluggish wordprocessor ;-)
For the rest, Vista still lacks good drivers for some hardware and a lot of software still runs faster/better on XP ( especially on MicroXP or XPlite ). Hope that will improve with Windows 7..or 8..?
Ubuntu fast? A well tuned XP is still faster on the same PC. I also had some programs crashing on Ubuntu ( 8.10 ). Anyway, still not enough Linux versions of professional software available till now. Also the desktops still look a bit toyish to me ( KDE etc., like BeOS in the 90's :-)
( BeOs ! still the best multimedia OS EVER written, the most massively multi-threaded ever made. Everything ran on threads, even within the Kernel. The system libraries were designed so that no resources ever blocked and ui/worker stuff HAD to be on separate threads, which meant smooth operation no matter how many things are happening at once. Even stuff like hard drive failure or a scratched CD wouldn't block, even the applications accessing the devices. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eMGbDJmgv0 , a view from the past.
Pity they didn't change it to open source....)
I use computers in recording studio's (a.o) since the mid 80's and always wondered why people used PC's ( serial Intel/AMD/Cyrixserial processor ) instead of computers with parallel processors ( IBM / Digital / Motorola), like Silicon Graphics,Apple, Atari and Amiga..... 64 Bit?..nothing new, Atari already had one in the early 90's ( Jaguar).
An OS of more than 1 Gb? Ridiculous! That's bad ( lazy) programming ) Almost nobody is programming in assembly or Pascal/Delphi anymore. Luckily? Microsoft bought Borland ( C, C++, Visual C) a few years ago and got some good programmers in house who developed dotnet (.net) for them?. Maybe after Windows 7 - Windows 8 ( codename KillMac ;-) will be 'The One' ?
Pity that all that commercial crap ( like MS ) wins in the end over nice lean & mean good quality software.
Same with VHS over Betamax and the (technically) superior Philips V2000 system.
( And now Blue Ray over HD DVD - thanks to the porn industry ;-)
DG -The Netherlands
accidentally delete the M$ kill switch. Don't believe for a second
that just because YOU paid for your computer that you actually
OWN it.
Your computer belongs to M$ now. Just bend over and take it, you
have no choice. Wait ... don't install Linux and take your machine
back ... NOOOO!!!
If trimming the OS down makes it run better and not worse, who cares what MS says? Do what is best for you not MS.
Why would anyone with xp leave it when their copy looks like vista, has the same features, but works faster and more reliable?
If you were capable enough to do a Vista Lite install you should be capable enough to take it off and put the full version back on if need be right? Is that a hassle? Oh you better believe it. However, it wouldn?t be the first time someone installed an OS to experiment with to find out it wasn?t going to work for them. God knows I?ve done it. It?s the nature of using an OS. Unfortunately you have to make the decision about what OS you are going to try before you know how it?ll run on your computer. There are a whole slew of programs that actually address this problem. They?re called Linux Live discs, and they pretty much exist because of this predicament.
Now Windows doesn?t really have that. However, it?s not really that big of deal. Just do it the old fashion way, format. It?s good for you. You?ll learn about partions and drivers.
If they cannot control what a user does, they cannot maintain their grip on the most profitable aspect of their operation, namely: vendor lock-in.
/P
- by huiiiiii May 28, 2008 11:39 PM PDT
- i want to try this vlite, cause my preinstalled vista lets my sony vaio eat recources like hell. when i am doing nothing on vista,, the fan is blowing as if it would be rendering video...
- Reply to this comment
-
(30 Comments)looking to cpud it seems that by doing nothing, the cpu is already at 2ghz. its a 2duo processor from intel with step technology, but well, doing nothing is expensive on this OS.
BUT, i have dual boot, 80% of my PC time I work with Linux, you wont believe how nice it feels there, how beautiful it is, how good the open-source software can be, HOW FAST IT IS, nothing compared to my handycaped fat unfaithful monster vista. take ubuntu hardy, NOW, www.ubuntu.com