"98 Lite"

Hi,

Some posts in this NG mentioned "98 Lite".

From the name, my impression is this is a stripped down version of
Windows 98. Is it more compact than a "Custom" install of Win98se?

Thank You in advance, John

wrote:

Some posts in this NG mentioned "98 Lite".
From the name, my impression is this is a stripped down version of
Windows 98. Is it more compact than a "Custom" install of
Win98se?

If you're asking because you have anemic hardware (small amount of
memory, small hard drive, slow CPU) then I'd have to ask why you don't
pick up some better hardware on the used market. There are plenty of 5
and 6 year-old computers kicking around, being given away, thrown away,
that would make your quest for 98 Lite completely unnecessary.

But to answer your question, 98 Lite is basically Windows 98se with some
system files picked from Windows-95 and with more or less the complete
extraction of Internet Explorer.

The origins of 98-Lite are from a time when the hatred and suspicion of
the integration of IE into windows was reaching a fever pitch - and if
you ask me looking back on the situation and where IE6-SP1 reached it's
end-point (with all service packs and upgrades) I don't think you can
make the case that Win-98se with IE6 was the monster it was made out to
be.

I've said here before that IE6 should not have been used as the default
browser for win-98 since about 2007 because it just plain sucked at
rendering web pages compared to, say, firefox.

But IE performs many "behind-the-scenes" functions for Windows and as
such it really should be part of a standard installation if the user is
seeking trouble-free operation of the OS in conjunction with many
associated installed application programs.

wrote:

Some posts in this NG mentioned "98 Lite".
Is it more compact than a "Custom" install of Win98se?

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/98lite

wrote in
:

Some posts in this NG mentioned "98 Lite".

From the name, my impression is this is a stripped down version of
Windows 98. Is it more compact than a "Custom" install of Win98se?


it was an attempt to modularise W98 SE, to let users get more control.
Microsoft let users choose whether or not to inatall 'Active Desktop' which
fused the browser and operating system shell in ways some people found
objectionable (to the point where ongoing legal cases resulted for
Microsoft), so instead of going the way Microsoft wanted, a gut called Shane
Brooks made money selling 98-Lite, which let them go the other way, using the
old (fast) W95 shell on W98 SE. Other reductions existed, the main one being
to remove IE v5.5 (the default one that came with W98 SE, and either leave NO
IE core, or to leave enough to handle compiled HTML files, and some other
functions that other firm's browsers and internet programs may depend on.

It can be very compact, but not as small as a W98 moduilar install built from
the bottom up. Most if not all commercially available reductions left plenty
in while aiming not to remove too much.

The main reason for doing this now is to allow clean starting conditions for
stable systems, as the stability can be better than W98 ever used to be. Even
with a fast new machine, there's something impressive about running a small
fast OS that can still do a lot. You get all that extra speed to do your
stuff with, instead of OS stuff you may not want. You also get a small and
manageable set of starting conditions for exploring things, testing new
programs, etc. And being tiny, it's very fast and easy to make a new clean
install. No matter how fast everything else is, this is true because all else
being equal, a small fast capable core is more easily refitted than a slow
bulky one, in the same context.

It is worth noting that Microsoft finally came to agree with this! They are
now building Windows to run an ARM chips, where this is mandatory.

On 11/30/2011 07:01 AM, wrote:
Hi,

Some posts in this NG mentioned "98 Lite".

From the name, my impression is this is a stripped down version of
Windows 98. Is it more compact than a "Custom" install of Win98se?

Thank You in advance, John




yep

I've used it and it works fine on minimal hardware

In message ,
Lostgallifreyan writes:
wrote in
:

Some posts in this NG mentioned "98 Lite".

From the name, my impression is this is a stripped down version of
Windows 98. Is it more compact than a "Custom" install of Win98se?


it was an attempt to modularise W98 SE, to let users get more control.
Microsoft let users choose whether or not to inatall 'Active Desktop' which
fused the browser and operating system shell in ways some people found
objectionable (to the point where ongoing legal cases resulted for
Microsoft), so instead of going the way Microsoft wanted, a gut called Shane
Brooks made money selling 98-Lite, which let them go the other way, using the
old (fast) W95 shell on W98 SE. Other reductions existed, the main one being
to remove IE v5.5 (the default one that came with W98 SE, and either leave NO
IE core, or to leave enough to handle compiled HTML files, and some other
functions that other firm's browsers and internet programs may depend on.

You can still get it: http://www.litepc.com/98lite.html. In my
experience, the free version is more than adequate (it offers three
variants, called SLEEK, CHUBBY, and OVERWEIGHT - I used the first).

(They also do an XP lite; I haven't played with it. From mutterings I've
heard, it's not - proportionally - as good; certainly the free version
looks to me as if it does a lot less, in proportion, than the free
version of 98lite did. But I fear it's rather like XTree Gold: the
original was silkily engineered.)

It can be very compact, but not as small as a W98 moduilar install built from
the bottom up. Most if not all commercially available reductions left plenty
in while aiming not to remove too much.

The main reason for doing this now is to allow clean starting conditions for
stable systems, as the stability can be better than W98 ever used to be. Even
with a fast new machine, there's something impressive about running a small
fast OS that can still do a lot. You get all that extra speed to do your
stuff with, instead of OS stuff you may not want. You also get a small and
manageable set of starting conditions for exploring things, testing new
programs, etc. And being tiny, it's very fast and easy to make a new clean
install. No matter how fast everything else is, this is true because all else
being equal, a small fast capable core is more easily refitted than a slow
bulky one, in the same context.

It is worth noting that Microsoft finally came to agree with this! They are
now building Windows to run an ARM chips, where this is mandatory.

How's X98 coming along? (jaugustine: Lostgallifreyan is developing
exactly what he describes above. I await it with interest!)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... his charming, bumbling best, a serial monogamist terrified of commitment,
who comes across as a sort of Bertie Wooster but with a measurable IQ. - Barry
Norman on Hugh Grant's persona in certain films, Radio Times 3-9 July 2010

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
:

You can still get it: http://www.litepc.com/98lite.html. In my
experience, the free version is more than adequate (it offers three
variants, called SLEEK, CHUBBY, and OVERWEIGHT - I used the first).


Sleek works for me too. It leaves enough IE core to handle the compiled HTML
help files which I like. 'Micro' from the full version won't do that. 'Sleek'
does break the 'cryptographic support' preventing DirectX v9c from
installing, but that can be fixed, details in a thread here from last year (I
think..). I'd never use the larger installs.

(They also do an XP lite; I haven't played with it. From mutterings I've
heard, it's not - proportionally - as good; certainly the free version
looks to me as if it does a lot less, in proportion, than the free
version of 98lite did. But I fear it's rather like XTree Gold: the
original was silkily engineered.)


XPlite depends on a full install, then strips away from that. I never liked
the method (hence X98). NUHI (Google knoweth all) seems to be the one people
like best, like 98lite it sets out a clean starting install base. I think the
conditions needed to do that are elaborate though, .net running on full WXP,
so in principle I wonder exactly how that is the same as a true base build
install. I never got into WXP enough to want to explore deeply.

How's X98 coming along? (jaugustine: Lostgallifreyan is developing
exactly what he describes above. I await it with interest!)


It isn't but it should be. I ended up taking time to complete a laser
diode driver for 1 MHz analog modulation, and build and test a new layout
after modifying the original. Sam Goldwasser's LaserFAQ has it now, but I
said I'd build and test one for Sam so he can do a bit of peer review on it,
because it uses a method that a few people claimed was not viable. I have one
ready to send him now so that project is done for now (at least till I
find a better op-amp, which may be unlikely). Once the weather gets really
cold and confines me to one room for a while I'll almost certainly have at
the X98 inet module then. (And the printer setup which the shellfix I made,
same it turns out that Shane Brooks did in a later edition, breaks, and I
still don't know why. I can launch the printer wizard by direct command but
this isn't as complete a service as it ought to be).