Delete Pre-installed app on Windows 10 Lite
- Thread starter Boilh
- Start date
Thats an illegal iso and you wont get any help here with it.
However if you download an official iso from ms and use ntlite to build your own image we will be ready willing and able to help you build it.
However if you download an official iso from ms and use ntlite to build your own image we will be ready willing and able to help you build it.
Hellbovine
Well-Known Member
Just to add-on to what Clanger said, we all talked about this in another recent thread, someone was asking about things like ReviOS, SpectreOS, etc. All those "gaming" editions floating around on the internet... The problem with all of them is there is no transparency (or it's quite lacking) and you just have no idea what is or isn't in them (perfect example here, OP stated this Windows ISO is full of crap like startisback, etc).
I'm not just talking about security issues, like someone sticking a virus in there, but rather a lot/most/all of these guys don't do that great of a job testing these things. You can see it for yourself because they use tons of registry keys that aren't even valid for those versions of Windows. There's so much misguided and incorrect information out there on tweaking, and since all these website articles just copy/paste the same stuff from site to site we end up with all this "gospel" information which is actually wrong, and then these guys use that information to build gaming images. At best those tweaks do nothing and it's just taking up registry space, and at worst they slow things down.
For example, SpectreOS compresses all files to save some disk space... This doesn't make sense in a "gaming" ISO because compression requires more resource overhead (CPU/Disk activity) to uncompress and load, which then contributes to slower loading times in games. Also, if you play a game that streams graphics textures, which quite a few of them do, then you can potentialy see artificial hitching and microstutter that wouldn't otherwise exist if you weren't compressing everything needlessly.
TLDR: It's actually faster to use a clean Microsoft ISO and build your own tweaked edition than it is to try and reverse engineer these other ones.
I'm not just talking about security issues, like someone sticking a virus in there, but rather a lot/most/all of these guys don't do that great of a job testing these things. You can see it for yourself because they use tons of registry keys that aren't even valid for those versions of Windows. There's so much misguided and incorrect information out there on tweaking, and since all these website articles just copy/paste the same stuff from site to site we end up with all this "gospel" information which is actually wrong, and then these guys use that information to build gaming images. At best those tweaks do nothing and it's just taking up registry space, and at worst they slow things down.
For example, SpectreOS compresses all files to save some disk space... This doesn't make sense in a "gaming" ISO because compression requires more resource overhead (CPU/Disk activity) to uncompress and load, which then contributes to slower loading times in games. Also, if you play a game that streams graphics textures, which quite a few of them do, then you can potentialy see artificial hitching and microstutter that wouldn't otherwise exist if you weren't compressing everything needlessly.
TLDR: It's actually faster to use a clean Microsoft ISO and build your own tweaked edition than it is to try and reverse engineer these other ones.
Last edited:
Even i know that and im not a gamer, makes me wonder if they really know what they are doing,,,,
I want less resources used for an every day do it all home pc(except any kind of gaming and benchmarking).
From my own experience with ltsc 1809 compressing the OS only saves around 1GB, whoopy.
Last edited:
I've read the arguments for both sides. It depends on your CPU, disk and memory.
The problem is compression is applied to the entire file. To read any part of the middle or end of a file, you must uncompress the data stream up until you reach the uncompressed image's offset. The question becomes what takes longer? Time saved by having less file blocks to load into memory vs. time spent uncompressing it.
For small or moderately sized files, that's a win. When you reach GB file sizes, not so much. SSD users might want the space savings, since faster read times will offset CPU delays. Non-SSD users don't get that benefit.
When you have large RAM, Windows can cache recently uncompressed data in memory. As long as other programs don't ask for too much memory and force Windows to discard the cache, it's a win.
CompactOS and file compression are intended for tiny PC's like in kiosks or POS systems (stores & restaurants). Unless you have a small SSD (and can't upgrade), there's marginal wins for average PC's.
120GB(111gb formatted) is the smallest sata ssd i can get at my regular supplier.
99.9% of my stuff is audio and video files up to multi GBs.
8GB of ram is around £35, double for 16. I dont overclock, stock speeds only.
There is no magic one size fits all image, none.
99.9% of my stuff is audio and video files up to multi GBs.
8GB of ram is around £35, double for 16. I dont overclock, stock speeds only.
There is no magic one size fits all image, none.
Last edited:
If you remove Search app (which greatly reduces resource usage) then you need to use StartisBack or OpenShell which are much more efficient to have search in start menu. So I don't think these apps are "crap". The rest, yes, I think it's unnecessary to include in the ISO.
I fully agree. Since we have NTLite in hand I find it more advantageous to reduce the image size by removing components rather than using compression.
The problem is that since Windows 10 version 1809 with the PSFX format being used for updates, if you want to maintain compatibility with cumulative updates it is necessary to keep several files in WinSxS and remove only the hard links from the System32 folder and from other system folders, then the reduction in the image is very small.
If you want a significantly smaller image either use compression or break compatibility with updates using deep removal.
Biggest space savings i get are disabling Pagefile and Hibernation so even with a full default and updated install im using wayy less space than everyone else and those with a lite install. Next up would be the stage 1 safe lite preset i recently posted somewhere so thats my complete windows installation taking up only 6.xxGB.
Use Everything search program, only use start menu for power button. I completely kill start menu on 1809.
There are different ways of doing things and we each do what best suits us. These "gaming" frankenbrews, MEH, i can do better than that just bareboning Services and Scheduled tasks and i wont be giving it any of that "if i told you i'd have to kill you" secret squirrel crap, i share my s--t and provide screen grabs as proof and which other users have confirmed my results. Windows 7 x64 installed size 1.26GB.
Use Everything search program, only use start menu for power button. I completely kill start menu on 1809.
There are different ways of doing things and we each do what best suits us. These "gaming" frankenbrews, MEH, i can do better than that just bareboning Services and Scheduled tasks and i wont be giving it any of that "if i told you i'd have to kill you" secret squirrel crap, i share my s--t and provide screen grabs as proof and which other users have confirmed my results. Windows 7 x64 installed size 1.26GB.
Last edited:
Clanger It seems that for most what matters is having a smaller ISO/install.wim file than others, as if this were a competition. I also don't understand why hiding what was done, as if it were the greatest feat in the world. Any user here on the forum is capable of doing a better job 
and doesn't hide what is done. Most here share their work and learn from each other.
and doesn't hide what is done. Most here share their work and learn from each other.