Shit that you can trim out of Windows XP

[JanusChrist]

Anyone have suggestions for programs, registry items, and other garbage that you can trim off of Windows XP? I tried to get rid of Outlook Express but couldn't (I did delete it from my registry though). Any suggestions? What about Agent, Dr Watson, Net Meeting, help files, msconfig programs?

[Refalm]

It's shareware, but it's recommended by Nathan Lineback who owns one of the best anti-Microsoft site ever.

The program you need: LitePC.

Of course, you can never remove every spyware from Windows XP. If you want your computer up to the full potential, try Linux.

[Calum]

quote:Originally posted by Refalm / BOB:
Of course, you can never remove every spyware from Windows XP.

i could
 

quote:If you want your computer up to the full potential, try Linux.

and that's the method i would use to do it.

Linux systems do not have a 'registry' to mess up your configuration, nor does it include browsers, media players and other huge rubbish as 'core' components of the system. the only reason you'd want windows instead of a user oriented linux distribution would be if you had some proprietary product that there's no non-windows equivalent of, but those things you mentioned don't really fall into that category i would say.

[adiment]

Anyone have suggestions for programs, registry items, and other garbage that you can trim off of Windows XP? I tried to get rid of Outlook Express but couldn't (I did delete it from my registry though). Any suggestions? What about Agent, Dr Watson, Net Meeting, help files, msconfig programs?

http://www.tweakxp.com alot here to get rid of  bullshit that windows has...

[NegStar]

An excellent reference for optimizing your PC.  Pay particular attention to section on disabling services at system start-up.
http://www.blackviper.com/index.html

[z0iid]

http://unattended.msfn.org/
 
Good resource.

[Brandon Paddock]

Linux systems do not have a 'registry' to mess up your configuration

No, instead they have hundreds of scattered, cryptically named text files - many of which require changing by hand.  The registry, on the other hand, is for Windows to keep track of your settings in one centralized and secure location.  It was not meant to be edited manually.
 

, nor does it include browsers, media players and other huge rubbish as 'core' components of the system.

Actually... both KDE and Gnome include file browsers.  Most distros these days include a default browser that is used for both local files and web browsing.
 
And none of those features are "core" components of Windows.  They're integrated into the shell... but that's an entirely different matter.  Windows does a fairly good job keeping the non-essentials in user space.  Far better than Linux (the origin of kernel bloatware), though arguably not as clean cut as BSD (at least in the NT 5.x era).
 

the only reason you'd want windows instead of a user oriented linux distribution would be if you had some proprietary product that there's no non-windows equivalent of, but those things you mentioned don't really fall into that category i would say.

Or perhaps you'd want it because it's more secure and reliable than any Linux distribution?  Or because it is faster, supports more hardware, and works with all your software?

[skyman8081]

No, instead they have hundreds of scattered, cryptically named text files - many of which require changing by hand.  The registry, on the other hand, is for Windows to keep track of your settings in one centralized and secure location.  It was not meant to be edited manually.
 

 
Actually... both KDE and Gnome include file browsers.  Most distros these days include a default browser that is used for both local files and web browsing.
 
And none of those features are "core" components of Windows.  They're integrated into the shell... but that's an entirely different matter.  Windows does a fairly good job keeping the non-essentials in user space.  Far better than Linux (the origin of kernel bloatware), though arguably not as clean cut as BSD (at least in the NT 5.x era).
 

 
Or perhaps you'd want it because it's more secure and reliable than any Linux distribution?  Or because it is faster, supports more hardware, and works with all your software?

I completely agree.

Most people here think that windows has not progressed in any way shape or form since 3.0 For Workgroups.

[Calum]

i hope you both feel happy with your idiotic assumtions.

i haven't really got time right now to reply, nor do i think it's worth it on the whole.

you both appear to be replying to things i didn't actually say, a typical tactic of microsoft advocates.

[Brandon Paddock]

i hope you both feel happy with your idiotic assumtions.

I made no assumptions in my post [/quote]
 

i haven't really got time right now to reply, nor do i think it's worth it on the whole.

You did reply.  You made it clear that you disagree, and even insulted me (us).  But I guess you just meant that you don't have an actual answer.
 

you both appear to be replying to things i didn't actually say, a typical tactic of microsoft advocates.

I included excerpts of the parts of your post I was responding to.  You said very clearly that the registry "mess[es] up your computer."  Which, of course, is a load of bull.

[Orethrius]

Or perhaps you'd want it because it's more secure and reliable than any Linux distribution?  Or because it is faster, supports more hardware, and works with all your software?

Do me a favor.  If you're going to make an intelligent reply like you did, at least come up with examples to reinforce your bottom line.  Arbitrary examples don't work as proof of an arbitrary conclusion.  Besides, Calum gets a little messed up sometimes, I'm thinking he meant "sans registry, which happens to be easily corruptible by the actions of third-party applications."  That would have a certain ring of truth to it, and all but discredit any notion that the centralised registry is secure - at least in its current form.

[Aloone_Jonez]

No, instead they have hundreds of scattered, cryptically named text files - many of which require changing by hand.

That's one of the things I don't like about Linux.

 The registry, on the other hand, is for Windows to keep track of your settings in one centralized and secure location.  It was not meant to be edited manually.

 
But there's litte separation between important system settings and less important user settings.

 

Actually... both KDE and Gnome include file browsers.  Most distros these days include a default browser that is used for both local files and web browsing.
 
And none of those features are "core" components of Windows.  They're integrated into the shell... but that's an entirely different matter.

Yes they are when use need this shell to do system updates.

 Windows does a fairly good job keeping the non-essentials in user space.  Far better than Linux (the origin of kernel bloatware), though arguably not as clean cut as BSD (at least in the NT 5.x era).

What do you mean?

Or perhaps you'd want it because it's more secure and reliable than any Linux distribution?

Linux varies form distribution to distribution, and how you set it up.

 Or because it is faster, supports more hardware, and works with all your software?

That's one of the reasons I use Windows.

[Calum]

Which, of course, is a load of bull.

riiiight.

[WMD]

Windows does a fairly good job keeping the non-essentials in user space.

Like the window system, right?

Oh, wait.

[Kintaro]

Brandon Pillock, you have no idea what your on about.

No, instead they have hundreds of scattered, cryptically named text files - many of which require changing by hand. The registry, on the other hand, is for Windows to keep track of your settings in one centralized and secure location. It was not meant to be edited manually.

I think you mean "Dont need to be edited manually". And neither is the case with Linux as well with software like http://www.webmin.com

Because as soon as your fucking around in regedit, or vim, your editing manually: changing it by hand.

Actually... both KDE and Gnome include file browsers. Most distros these days include a default browser that is used for both local files and web browsing.

Actually thats not "these days" thats "in those days" because Nautillus in most distributions of Gnome now are purely for file browsing with no web browsing at all. File browsing can however include FTP, SMB, etc.

Or perhaps you'd want it because it's more secure and reliable than any Linux distribution? Or because it is faster, supports more hardware, and works with all your software?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA BAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahahahaha

I have had a brand new laptop for 3 months, Windows would crash, randomly reboot, and fuck up all the time.

I am yet to have any Linux problems.

And yea, all my software is supported.