[jaclaz]

I am all for tweaking the last bit out of MS Operating Systems, but actually the real problem is the 32 Mb of memory.

In my experience, the only thing that will be able to run on a 32 Mb system with acceptable speed will be a "lited" version of WIN98.

The same Mr. Nienhuis, in the page linked above says as much:

Quote

To be able to work a bit efficiently, I got myself some upgrades and extensions. Where applicable I'll describe how I got them up and running:
32 MB is too small even for Windows 98. The maximum allowable 64 MB is just enough to run e.g. Windows 2000.

This is even more true in your case as laptop harddisks (swap memory) are, generally speaking, slower than desktop ones.

My personal rule of thumb:
standard Win95/lited 98 min 32 Mb, with 64 flies
standard win 98 min 64 mb, with 128 rocks, anything more isn't really useful
standard NT4.00 min 64 mb, with 128 rocks, anything more is welcome
lited Win2k has same requirements of NT4.00
standard Win2k min 128, 256 is MUCH better, anything more is welcome
lited winXP has same requirements of Win2k
standard WinXP min 256, 512 is MUCH better, anything more is welcome

PLEASE, don't flame me for this with posts like
"HA!, I am running Server 2003 on a Pentium 133 with 16 Mb of memory, I just needed to make a few hacks!"
I know that the above listed are NOT the minimum requirements, they are just what I found the minimum requirements for "acceptable speed".


jaclaz

[fdv]

Quote

I am running Server 2003 on a Pentium 133 with 16 Mb of memory, I just needed to make a few hacks!

ha ha!! i liked that... i don't think i could even bear 98 on that system.
really, the best thing you can do is throw another memory module into it. as jaclaz indicates, there's a big difference between what's theoretically possible to use and what's actually useable. RAM really is everything.

from personal experience using windows 2000, ie ripped out:
pentium one 233 MHz, 32 MB RAM, swap is C drive - too slow to use at all
pentium one 266 MHz, 196 MB RAM, swap is on its own drive - works just fine for email, browsing, etc (specs At0mic lists). even works fine for office and many other progs.

[bledd]

i'd say use a really nlited windows 2000 install, use winamp lite, use some really light browser, use mpc for video with ffdshow and buy some more ram for the laptop, 64 or 128 would make the world of difference

[Asin]

For the record, Windows XP requires 64 MB of RAM just to install.

Anyways, this guide might help you to speed up a 2000 installation:

http://www.nexle.dk/...l/win2000-32mb/

[At0mic]

Thanks very much for the info and the links everyone. I've decided to completely strip down Win2k right down to the bare essentials and see how well it runs. I'll try some experiments on my main computer using virtual pc to see how low I can get the memory usage down to.

This post has been edited by At0mic: 05 September 2005 - 11:52 AM

[os2fan2]

I suppose you could go 32-bit, and use OS/2. It has pretty good plug and play, and the version i use picked up all the drivers, video etc without hassle.

--------------------------------------------------------

OS/2, because a 586 is a terrible thing to waste

[iWindoze]

Asin, on Sep 5 2005, 11:50 AM, said:

For the record, Windows XP requires 64 MB of RAM just to install.

Anyways, this guide might help you to speed up a 2000 installation:

http://www.nexle.dk/...l/win2000-32mb/
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I saw that on OSNews.com when it first come out...

Unfortunately I can't believe his suggestions include not installing
the latest service pack when, as many of us all know, nLite allows
you to slipstream and then strip out most of the above referenced
'bloat' on the system...

Also I seem to recall there being a tweak in nLite allowing for a patch
made to the installation eliminating the memory check (allowing you
to by pass the minimum required memory) add that to the option to
install using the Windows 2000 setup routine and I imagine you'll do
just fine.

--iWindoze

[At0mic]

I've been messing around with Windows 2000 and I’ve managed to get the memory usage down to only 29,780Kb which is lower than I thought possible. My WINNT folder is only 166Mb. I haven’t even started with this yet. I’m going to see how low I can get this. I plan to somehow knock a few more Mb’s off my memory usage as well.

[Jlo555]

29 megs, wow I'm impressed. I think I should try out nLite, when I was using 2000pro, memory usage was at least 90mb at startup.

[gamehead200]

At0mic, on Sep 11 2005, 06:53 AM, said:

I've been messing around with Windows 2000 and I’ve managed to get the memory usage down to only 29,780Kb which is lower than I thought possible. My WINNT folder is only 166Mb. I haven’t even started with this yet. I’m going to see how low I can get this. I plan to somehow knock a few more Mb’s off my memory usage as well.


<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You think you can post how you did this? I'm stuck at 47,344KB... And over a gig for the Windows folder (which used to be about 200MB... )

[At0mic]

Sorry I didn't post earlier. I just removed everything using nlite except for about 2 or 3 essential things which are needed for the functionality of windows. I cant tell you what I removed exactly because I lost my nlite config file during a format. I'll try and redo and test it then post it shortly.

I've been concentrating heavily on file removal these past few weeks and my Winnt folder is getting smaller each day. Currently its about 100Mb and I plan to cut this down much much more.

When this is all complete, I'll post a list of all the files I removed. I'll also post a list of all files that are essential for Windows 2000 to be able to boot to the desktop. Also I’ll write a script which removes all these files for you.

I’ll try and add all these files to nlite so it removes them from the install but I know I’m going to have problems because some of the files I’ve removed are needed for Windows installation. The sad thing is I don’t know exactly which ones so it’s going to be a bit trial and error.

I also plan to do some major reg removal but that might take some time.

I'm also planning to greatly reduce the memory that windows uses to run. I had a play around with getting the Windows Nt 4.0 shell to work in Windows 2000. The NT4 shell made the startmenu say "windows NT" and of course quick launch was removed and it had the Windows NT style windows and everything. It was really cool but the sad thing was that it used about the same amount of ram so I didn't gain.

[Daemonforce]

You can hack away the minimum installation requirement, but you'll never hack away the minimum runtime requirements. I believe an NT kernel needs a bare minimum of 8MB ram to run at all. You obviously exceed that, but it isn't much. Are you able to put any more ram modules in your laptop?

At0mic, on Sep 21 2005, 11:49 AM, said:

Sorry I didn't post earlier. I just removed everything using nlite except for about 2 or 3 essential things which are needed for the functionality of windows.

Welcome to Win2K Stripped Edition.

[At0mic]

My laptop supports a maximum of 96Mb ram but there's no fun in that its too easy. I like a challenge. Maybe when my project is complete and I'm running windows 2000 with only 19Mb ram, I might decide to buy more ram.

[EchoNoise]

How about running DSL (**** Small Linux)

DSL runs fine for a firewall on my 233 with only 16mb ram

[pcalvert]

Personally, I would install Vector Linux. It was designed to work well on older hardware. If you already have another computer with Windows on it, why not put something different on the laptop? Or you could set it up as a dual-boot system containing nLited Win2K and Vector Linux.

BTW, just today I came across this (fairly) recent review of VectorLinux:

A distro enlightened: VectorLinux 5.1 Deluxe


Phil

[saugatak]

Atomic, check out FDV's fileset. You can nLite an FDV Win2k and get the best of both worlds. They're both great and each has its advantages. I've played with both and this is what I think:

1. FDV fileset is for Win2k only and is specialized for Win2k. nLite can be used on 2k, XP and 2k3, but it's really geared for XP and I think it works best on XP.

2. FDV fileset does a "cleaner" job on IE and OE removal. Lots of programs think they need IE. FDV fileset prunes the registry and does other hacks to fool the OS and other programs into thinking IE and OE are there when they're not.

3. If you don't want to do IE/OE removal, nLite is the better choice. FDV's fileset is highly specialized on IE and OE removal for Win2k only.

4. An nLited install CD is usually smaller in size than an FDV CD. nLite actually removes the physical components. FDV fileset does less removal in the actual CD, but at install time does not install the stuff that you've taken out. *BUT I understand that FDV is working to reduce the install size on his latest fileset.*

The end result--not installing files you don't want--is the same, just that the FDV Wkn2k install CD will be a little bigger.

5. If you elect to nLite an FDV Win2k, don't remove IE or any other component of the OS that FDV removed and you'll be OK.

Good luck.

[jaclaz]

However reduced, Win2K WILL NOT run decently on 32 Mb of RAM.

As soon as you start an app, it will get from the very reduced 30 Mb usage you achieved well over the 32 Mb of phisical memory, starting swapping on HD.

To reduce phisical usage of the HD, I once started a (actually very incomplete) project ....
I got as far (with NO network) as something like 80 Mb for ALL win2k files (no third party apps).
A list is here:
http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=41208&st=0

jaclaz

[At0mic]

jaclaz, on Oct 30 2005, 08:12 AM, said:

However reduced, Win2K WILL NOT run decently on 32 Mb of RAM.

As soon as you start an app, it will get from the very reduced 30 Mb usage you achieved well over the 32 Mb of phisical memory, starting swapping on HD.

I dont plan to use large apps. The main apps I'll be using are Media Player Classic (uses 3Mb ram) and Firefox. I'm not sure how much ram that uses but there's a 3rd party tweaked and optimized version of firefox around thats been designed for people running windows from a memory stick.

By the way, I've since got my memory usage from 30Mb down to 21.1Mb and I'm still not finished. Maybe I could hit 20Mb. Then if I use that tweaked version of winlogon which is supposed to save you about 600Kb, I'll be using even less memory. Then I could think about using a higher compression on some of the larger dlls.

I even tried using the NT4.0 Shell by copying across explorer.exe and shell32.dll and tweaking the registry but it didn't seem to make any difference to the memory usage. I know it was running the NT4.0 shell because I had the NT4.0 startmenu and control panel etc.

This post has been edited by At0mic: 31 October 2005 - 05:00 PM

[Master of Your Domain]

I had similar Acer notebook (well, I still have it, but not exactly as it was before), also 1998 make, with 233MHz Pentium MMX, 32MB RAM only, 1MB video neomagic chipset, slow 4200rpm hdd etc (also the size of VHS or slightly more). I had it for years loaded with Win98 (patched up with various stuff, using FireFox etc) using it primarily for recording audio when i was studying, taking notes etc.
I got bored this summer and I made custom Win2K with IE and all other crap removed (as on vorck.com). I got it running down to few services with some 25MB RAM footprint, so it is doable, you may get down to your 19MB target.
But
its not really useful. Anything you'll run on it (bigger than a notepad) will immediately jump up your RAM use, and since there is no RAM, here comes the swap on a sloooooooooow hdd... man, save yourself this pain, and get more RAM.
My notebook was expandable to 144MB max (there is 16MB onboard SDRAM), so I just did that, installed 20GB hdd, added ZV port MPEG accelerator (PCMCIA card), sandard Win2K (patched with all latest crap) and man, now this old heap rox. Im serious, im taking it everywhere with me, because with wi-fi card (again - PC card) i can watch DVDs on my backyard streamed from my 'main' home puter, and virtually all over the city there is no problem to poach any free wi-fi access at any time either (free calls using voipbuster or just audiochat thru msn messenger)
I dont care about having IE since I dont use it (I prefer K-Meleon with its ZERO security holes known so far) or Task Scheduler opening port 135 etc etc - just add firewall, antivirus, and youre all set. Why bother playing with trials and errors... get more RAM and you'll be set within an hour or less


BTW - Fred's guide is very good inspiration to play with hfslip etc, but really its a freaking mess I had to translate it from English to English to few friends because his guide is so inconsistant ("all these files go to HF folder" then in the same sentence "these files go to somewhere else"... ). Overall great guide, but Fred should have warn there it is not for any newbies or anyone who can't i.e. distinguish between hotfix' .exe and a .cab file (hence won't know himself where goes what in hfslip). And some warning about removal of i.e. Add/Remove Progs cpl and some other *vital* components (for any n00b) are removed as well.
Today I was already asked by one of the buddies about some "hftools" folder... I guess I'd have to download newest hfslip version later and see what Fred missed or omitted in his guide

[pcalvert]

Master of Your Domain, on Nov 2 2005, 11:13 AM, said:

I dont care about having IE since I dont use it (I prefer K-Meleon with its ZERO security holes known so far)

Not really true. K-Meleon uses Gecko, just like Firefox. Therefore, it has some (but not all) of the same security holes as other browsers that use Gecko, like Firefox. In addition, K-Meleon is not updated by the developer very often. Sure, there are unofficial security updates available for K-Meleon. But do you really feel comfortable patching your browser with security updates that come from some semi-anonymous "Joe Schmoe"? Something to think about...

Phil

This post has been edited by pcalvert: 03 November 2005 - 02:59 PM