XP lite vs XP

[kEnToNjErOmE]

Has anyone used XP lite? If so do you think it runs better than the full version of XP? Does anyone know of a test between the to?

 

[dc5]

i have never heard of xp lite. even if there was xp lite, it is not by microsoft.

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: dc5
i have never heard of xp lite. even if there was xp lite, it is not by microsoft.

XP Lite is a Microsoft product released in largely third world nations for very low prices. It typically supports lower resolutions (800x600 was what I read), and fewer programs running at once, as well as much, much, much simpler networking. Think of it as a very limited edition of XP Home Edition. Then limit it some more - that's XP Lite.

http://www.microsoft-watch.com...248%2C1522714%2C00.asp

is a very early article about XP Lite; do some more searching and you'll find better references.

 

[SimsFreak]

Their is no networking at all, you want multiple users? Forget that, it's really stupid becasue people will want to netowork and get Pissed when they find out they can't

 

[kEnToNjErOmE]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I was refering to an exec file that makes XP modular so you can remove components that you don't want.

http://www.litepc.com/

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: kEnToNjErOmE
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I was refering to an exec file that makes XP modular so you can remove components that you don't want.

http://www.litepc.com/

(sigh)

The "performance optimizations" are so marginal on a modern machine (p3/500 with 192M of RAM or more) that I think it's very silly to hack XP. So you'll save a few megs of disk space - big deal - hard drive space has never been cheaper, and that might end up costing you a half a penny or so.

You'll also remove stuff that other programs may depend on. Why bother?

 

[KoolDrew]

Just go with Windows XP Pro

 

[oldman420]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
Just go with Windows XP Pro

Yes XP pro is good.

 

[Canterwood]

I have been experimenting with a stripped down version of XP on a test rig, (using Nlite) and I love it.

It gives control of whats installed back to the user instead of having what MS decide you should have.

Obviously you have to be careful what you remove, but just play around, experiment, and you can get rid of most of the useless crap without any problem.

I haven't used the litepc one, but Nlite is free and easy to use and I personally think its a great app.

One of the reasons I stuck with Win2K on my main rig was I loathed all the bloat of XP, but now I have it stripped down to 2K standards I may well be promoting it to my main box soon.

 

[kEnToNjErOmE]

Originally posted by: Canterwood
I have been experimenting with a stripped down version of XP on a test rig, (using Nlite) and I love it.

It gives control of whats installed back to the user instead of having what MS decide you should have.

Obviously you have to be careful what you remove, but just play around, experiment, and you can get rid of most of the useless crap without any problem.

I haven't used the litepc one, but Nlite is free and easy to use and I personally think its a great app.

One of the reasons I stuck with Win2K on my main rig was I loathed all the bloat of XP, but now I have it stripped down to 2K standards I may well be promoting it to my main box soon.

The bloat of XP is what I have a problem with. But I don't want to use something that isn't going to increase performance. Do you know of a comparison test?

 

[Canterwood]

TBH, you can have all the bloat still left in, but as long as its not starting up with Windows, running in the background and using resources then the perfomance isn't going to be that different from a 'Lite' version of XP.
The kernel is still going to be the same and the perfomance will be too.
Its just the bloat I can't stand, thats why I've got rid of it by default on installation.

 

[Peter007]

:thumbsup: nLITE ROCKS!

I see huge performance difference in OS-Loading;
and overall responses seem to be quicker.

The biggest benefits is QUICK INSTALL of WinXP.
My Modified XP is only 200mb.
It install on my Celeron 700 machine with slow 5400 Maxtor 8G in only 20minutes.
the standard XP PRO on this hardrive is around 40-45minutes.

Overall I love it. Microsoft could have given users the options to NOT install all the bloat;
a shame really. Since a nlite XP really kick butts over any linux.

 

[piasabird]

I did some research on XP Lite and it does not keep up in the Multitasking area. The trend today is to run a lot of tasks in the background.

 

[kEnToNjErOmE]

Do you have the link for the information? I was hoping someone would have a link to a actual test. I saw a test on 98 Lite vs 98 vs XP vs 2000. The Lite was fastest in most games. I was wondering did it do the same for XP/2000.

 

[KoolDrew]

Since you guys say nLITE is so good I downaloded it and am giving it a try

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I did some research on XP Lite and it does not keep up in the Multitasking area. The trend today is to run a lot of tasks in the background.

I think this poster is thinking of XP Lite that Microsoft released / will release in India and other third-world nations.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I had not heard of that new MS product being referred to as "XP Lite", I had always heard it referred to as "XP Starter Edition".

( Otherwise known as, "XP - The first hit's free, kids, Edition". )

 

[earthman]

XP Lite only runs 3 programs at once, not very useful.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: earthman
XP Lite only runs 3 programs at once, not very useful.

Explorer.exe, SysTray.exe, and MSTask.exe? You're right, that's not very useful.