Tips & Tricks Call to ALL builders

[Proteus]

Greeting to all the fantastic builders we have here!

I have a suggestion that MAY help us alleviate a LOT of HELP comments on our builds. MOST of the problems come from the user downloading and installing a LITE build, and then wondering WHY things arent working like they do in a FULL build. My suggestion would be to put a DISCLAIMER in the thread that the build is a LITE BUILD and that a number of things WONT work anymore due to that fact. I would also go as far as to decline SUPPORT for said builds (unless builder deems it necessary). I know we will STILL get comments, but then it can be pointed out to the user that there is NO fix to it once its been taken out (most of the time).

This alone would help reduce or even eliminate MOST of the problems users have. Lite builds have their place in the computer world, but for the "average" user, its not an optimal solution. Personally, Id dual boot if I was going to use a lite build. Use the lite build for gaming, then when done, reboot to full version for stability and function.

Im just trying to reduce the number of complaints we ALL get when we do a build. ALL builders make this site what it is, and will continue to do so for many years to come! Build on!!

 

[Charles]

I still think that having an nfo file, inside of the ISO itself, with a list of all modifications in ANY modified OS iso, including the lite versions, as well as credits for the builder, revision / build number, etc. might be a good idea, and a more permanent fix, for such issues. A disclaimer is nice, but doesn't tell you anything about the build, what has been taken out, etc.

 

[Cyler]

Tho I agree 100% we must also at this point clear something up. The Lite versions dont really work as we think. There I said it It's a placebo effect or an unfair comparison between a badly setup build and a lite build. I know I will make a few people upset by saying so, tho I generally believe not even them really know or tested right and extensively a lite vs a full optimized build. As you see I said optimized, which is different than light versions or stock versions.

Members should also keep in mind (and maybe put that on the disclaimer too), that when a light version has issues, most often, nobody else than the creator of the build can really help. We don't know if and which things were removed or disabled and we dont know if other dependencies were also removed or disabled, and how those happened Sometimes also some things may be added back and some others won't, and since f we dont really know, we can't really help.

My 2 cents.

 

[zekaa]

I still think that having an nfo file, inside of the ISO itself, with a list of all modifications in ANY modified OS iso, including the lite versions, as well as credits for the builder, revision / build number, etc. might be a good idea, and a more permanent fix, for such issues. A disclaimer is nice, but doesn't tell you anything about the build, what has been taken out, etc.

I agree, but i think 00Proteus00 is right, because it would also be a waste of bandwidth for downloading such build, where user did not have info about things that might no longer work and might end dissapointed/frustrated maybe when they discover some things no longer work. But also i believe it is lot of work to put such "Things that are not working list" in every post.

Or for example shortly said there could be a brief bold disclaimer for lite, ultra lite, moded build for example:

1. Lite build - recommended for internet and mail usage, gaming, advanced windows features like hyper-v, cortana, update will not work in this release and windows store is removed completely.
2. Ultra lite build - recommended for advanced users and gamers. Not recommended for mission critical use where security updates and OS stability are priority.

And so on....

Maybe short brief generalized description of build like this might give some user second though before downloading, and yeah also i think that recommendation for user that want to download build anyway is to go for VM testing before bare metal installation cause that can be quite helpful for verifying workings of certain build.

Of course for many advanced users can tell just by looking at what is removed from description of build, what to expect when installing it. But for newbies that like to experiment and try different builds disclaimer might be nice. Some build might be stripped of core driver rendering some users with single and no spare pc unable to connect to internet and feel powerless to solve problem if they do not have drivers on usb or second partition on local drive.

This is my opinion/suggestion.

 

[Alessia_Amelia]

We can readily agree with you @00Pr0teus00 . We always use a VM to test out any build, full, custom or Lite before actual install to a system for real time use. A disclaimer would be appropriate in our opinion.

 

[DGrigorescu]

I agree. I'm not a beginner but I can't use lite builds. From this year I use an app called Audirvana Studio. This app needs as I know App Installer. But even if App Installer and Store are present I can't install it in any of TeamOS lite builds - various error codes. So I gave up. Now i'm on @00Proteus00 LTSC, installed Store and App Installer and everything works like a charm.

 

[Proteus]

I still think that having an nfo file, inside of the ISO itself, with a list of all modifications in ANY modified OS iso, including the lite versions, as well as credits for the builder, revision / build number, etc. might be a good idea, and a more permanent fix, for such issues. A disclaimer is nice, but doesn't tell you anything about the build, what has been taken out, etc.

BUT, if ALL that info is INCLUDED in the thread, and in plain sight, the user just has to READ it. Back in the 80's-90's we SysOps (system operators) used to have a slogan, "Read The DOC's". Very few people read the documentaition nowadays. People are inheritantly lazy, and wont do anymore than necessary to accomplish a task. Most reward for the least effort is the way of the world now. So I dont expect MOST to browse a ZIP file and read docs, unless its how to activate their build.

 

[Daddygrief]

BUT, if ALL that info is INCLUDED in the thread, and in plain sight, the user just has to READ it. Back in the 80's-90's we SysOps (system operators) used to have a slogan, "Read The DOC's". Very few people read the documentaition nowadays. People are inheritantly lazy, and wont do anymore than necessary to accomplish a task. Most reward for the least effort is the way of the world now. So I dont expect MOST to browse a ZIP file and read docs, unless its how to activate their build.

+1 on that i cba to read docs that come with stuff i've downloaded with 1 exception... if theres a .nfo file in there i will read that, thats hardcoded from back in the day Neomodus DC and DC++
But yeah a disclaimer should be default with any build...

 

[Cyler]

I also wanted to say something about the light builds now that I am given the chance.

The need for light builds started when PCs still had a 3200 or 5400 RPM disk that was like 500 MB-2 GB big. Trying to use any current windows on such disks is a nightmare when it comes to loading times and responsiveness. The reason is simple, those disks had low throughput let's say 10-25 MB per second so reading an OS that was several MB or even a few GB would take actual minutes to boot. The same goes for RAM. PCs then had like 128-512 MB and so every byte you could save was going to the applications that needed those extra bytes of ram. Both booting and shutdown was a carefully planned move as not to waste time. We would start the PC and then go make a coffee so we dont have to wait and no one dared to click on shut down until they were 110% sure they didn't forget anything cause shutdown and restart would be like 10 min wasted.

That's when lite versions first appear. Every MB you would strip would actually save loading time and would save RAM and disk footprint. OS indeed was loading faster as shaving even 500MB of data was a good 30 seconds of saving on load times.

But this was then, and this is now. Anything of the past 7 Years has SSD, even if you dont have one, SSDs are now like $50 per 250 GB. No reason not to buy the second most important thing than CPU. If you are here, you have decent internet. Of course, I'm talking about the majority of people and I do know there are always exceptions to the "rules".

Now hardware outpaced software. Most of us can easily have 4GB - 8GB RAM while the OS asks for 1 or 2 GB, and a decent 120/250 GB SSD which the OS will claim about 12-40 GB depending on options and settings. I assume from the downloads most have an extra "spinning rust" (that's what I call the normal hard disks).

Without going into details, and maybe I will make another thread for this, current lite versions dont have any real difference in performance than an optimized windows build. None. You just see misleading numbers that make you think that, cause a lot of us dont really know how windows behave internally. Hardware matters the most.

Just to show one aspect of the placebo effect that light builds have on some, it's a thing I see often. Lots of people want to know the memory used and ask "show memory on task manager". Then they see like 800 MB and go bananas not knowing that windows auto-adjusts the ram based on the FREE system ram and inside a Virtual PC most of the time the ram is limited. So when you set for example 1 Gb ram for the VM, windows will use 600-700 MB. When you set 2 Gb windows will use 1.1 GB. When you have 8 Gb will use about 1.5 and so on.

Here is the fun part. Windows dont even use all of that RAM. Most of it consists of cached data and the moment an application/game asks for more RAM, those cached data are released and the RAM goes to the application except a small part that windows need to operate.

Dont have to take my word tho, An image is worth a thousand words so here are 2. A screenshot of a full-blown, LTSC without anything removed, lots of things added, with Windows Defender on (I know right), with full drivers (Nvidia, AMD).

Yes... 438 MB. Super light build... Should I publish it? If I waited a bit more, you could have seen it go as low as 380 due to memory compression.

Here is the same build/Same hardware/same VM but with 8Gb of ram dedicate to it.

As you see, the memory footprint is pointless as a metric for a light build.


A short guide for better windows.
Just do the following things to any windows setup and you will be ok.

1. Disable Cortana
2. Disable index especially if you have thousands of personal files (tho technically it works when the PC is idle), or set it to index locations only and not data.
3. Disable or set antivirus to not always have real-time protection on or set it on specific folders. That goes for ANY antivirus, not just defender
4. Set the right power profiles

5. When possible use LTSC/ LTSB. I leave this one alone cause it's not always applicable.
You can do some other small-time optimizations but those are outside windows most often. Setting graphic drivers for performance as an example.

I will try to make a post and demonstrate how actually a lite build can be more harm than good, what services exactly do and how they function, and other windows internal topics.

Hope it helped.

 

[Proteus]

A short guide for better windows.
Just do the following things to any windows setup and you will be ok.

1. Disable Cortana
2. Disable index especially if you have thousands of personal files (tho technically it works when the PC is idle), or set it to index locations only and not data.
3. Disable or set antivirus to not always have real-time protection on or set it on specific folders. That goes for ANY antivirus, not just defender
4. Set the right power profiles

5. When possible use LTSC/ LTSB. I leave this one alone cause it's not always applicable.
You can do some other small-time optimizations but those are outside windows most often. Setting graphic drivers for performance as an example.

I will try to make a post and demonstrate how actually a lite build can be more harm than good, what services exactly do and how they function, and other windows internal topics.

Hope it helped.

Everything I had in my brain, but couldnt put to paper! Thanks for the "in-depth" explanation.

 

[Chuck]

I still think that having an nfo file, inside of the ISO itself, with a list of all modifications in ANY modified OS iso, including the lite versions, as well as credits for the builder, revision / build number, etc. might be a good idea, and a more permanent fix, for such issues. A disclaimer is nice, but doesn't tell you anything about the build, what has been taken out, etc.

If the nfo in only in the ISO file, that means that a user has to download the whole OS just to see the nfo.
Wouldn't it be better to put it in a spoiler in the description as well?

 

[Proteus]

If the nfo in only in the ISO file, that means that a user has to download the whole OS just to see the nfo.
Wouldn't it be better to put it in a spoiler in the description as well?

Absolutely!!!! Know BEFORE you spend the time downloading it.

 

[Cyler]

If the nfo in only in the ISO file, that means that a user has to download the whole OS just to see the nfo.
Wouldn't it be better to put it in a spoiler in the description as well?

Let me answer you by asking a rhetorical question

Those are some of the ISO I currently have from Team OS. Can you tell me which has what? What version are they? what do they include or have removed? Which updates do they have and which apps and without having to search the site for each one and waste your time?

NFO files are supposed to be there for those who already downloaded the ISOs (or anything actually), have several of them, and after months/years pass they can't recall which is what. In some cases, they might not even have internet.
The web page descriptions are there to read before you download.

 

[Chuck]

NFO files are supposed to be there for those who already downloaded the ISOs (or anything actually), have several of them, and after months/years pass they can't recall which is what.
The web page descriptions are there to read before you download.

I agree entirely. That's why I said "put it in a spoiler in the description as well", meaning that the information should be in the description and in the download. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

 

[Mr. Spacely]

How is this devolving into same conversation as before, that we put to rest? Enough now or thread will be locked and removed. This was intended to try and stop nonsense questions, not to debate wether or not .nfo folder will be included or not. I / we have many other things to do daily here and in real life than to check all ISO's and see if .nfo is included. That will be left up to each author to include or not.

 

[Proteus]

How is this devolving into same conversation as before, that we put to rest? Enough now or thread will be locked and removed. This was intended to try and stop nonsense questions, not to debate wether or not .nfo folder will be included or not. I / we have many other things to do daily here and in real life than to check all ISO's and see if .nfo is included.

1st off, this was never meant to be a debate over NFO files, but a means for we builders to come together on a way to get fewer complaints on the lite builds.

Personally, I build and distribute exclusively through TeamOS. I feel if I put in the description that a build MAY have issues on certain things, then it is up to the END USER to determine if they want the OS or not. If they decide to use the OS, then they have been warned, and NO support available (determined by me due to limitations of OS), and if something isnt working for them, then I dont feel bad, since they knew ahead of time. If someone picks an OS of mine up on another website (1377x for example), I could care less if they get support or not, nor if they have detailed info about the builds. If they want detailed info, then join Team OS and become a member and you will have ALL the info needed.

* I do build ocassionally for LastOS as well, but their style of building is SO different than ours. I can share what I do there over here, but not what I do here over there.

 

[Charles]

I agree, but i think 00Proteus00 is right, because it would also be a waste of bandwidth for downloading such build, where user did not have info about things that might no longer work and might end dissapointed/frustrated maybe when they discover some things no longer work. But also i believe it is lot of work to put such "Things that are not working list" in every post.

Or for example shortly said there could be a brief bold disclaimer for lite, ultra lite, moded build for example:

1. Lite build - recommended for internet and mail usage, gaming, advanced windows features like hyper-v, cortana, update will not work in this release and windows store is removed completely.
2. Ultra lite build - recommended for advanced users and gamers. Not recommended for mission critical use where security updates and OS stability are priority.

And so on....

Maybe short brief generalized description of build like this might give some user second though before downloading, and yeah also i think that recommendation for user that want to download build anyway is to go for VM testing before bare metal installation cause that can be quite helpful for verifying workings of certain build.

Of course for many advanced users can tell just by looking at what is removed from description of build, what to expect when installing it. But for newbies that like to experiment and try different builds disclaimer might be nice. Some build might be stripped of core driver rendering some users with single and no spare pc unable to connect to internet and feel powerless to solve problem if they do not have drivers on usb or second partition on local drive.

This is my opinion/suggestion.

The thing is, waste of bandwidth or not, I have a seedbox, with 10 TB of storage, so I download every build here, to help seed to others.
Therefore, the info file would help me sort things out, even on the builds that I personally don't need or use.

 

[zekaa]

The thing is, waste of bandwidth or not, I have a seedbox, with 10 TB of storage, so I download every build here, to help seed to others.
Therefore, the info file would help me sort things out, even on the builds that I personally don't need or use.

Well, can't argue with that. Still 10TB seedbox is awesome

 

[Mr Grimbahir]

Count me in, sir. Builders MAY add notes about possible issues that arise from their build and show that such issues are possible with this build.

 

[loweistudio]

I agree. I'm not a beginner but I can't use lite builds. From this year I use an app called Audirvana Studio. This app needs as I know App Installer. But even if App Installer and Store are present I can't install it in any of TeamOS lite builds - various error codes. So I gave up. Now i'm on @00Proteus00 LTSC, installed Store and App Installer and everything works like a charm.

Sorry if i am being off-topic there, but could you recommend a Team OS Windows Build that is optimized/geared towards audio production and gaming ? Or one that does not strip crucial audio fonctionnalities/components.
I was looking at "CleanOS 10 | Windows 10 Pro 21H2 (19044.1263) CompactLite" or "Windows 10 21H1 Pro CompactLite (19043.1147) -=FBConan-TeamOS=-" from FBConan.
I know i can re-activate services or DISM components but are those OS snappy when it comes to critical audio production ? Mostly for Mastering.