Windows Debloaters

R

rambo919

Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
27,890
Reaction score
11,537
Those who have actually tried them, Windows debloaters compared, which ones just work and which ones brick your system?

I tried one a while back (WinClean I think) and it was a disaster.
 
Might this be useful?

Ameliorated

Completely transform your computer in minutes. Simply download a verified Playbook, or use your own, and run it in AME Beta.
ameliorated.io ameliorated.io

Disclaimer: haven't used it but I saw it talked about a while ago and the concept seemed cool.
 
newby_investor said:
Might this be useful?

Ameliorated

Completely transform your computer in minutes. Simply download a verified Playbook, or use your own, and run it in AME Beta.
ameliorated.io ameliorated.io

Disclaimer: haven't used it but I saw it talked about a while ago and the concept seemed cool.
Click to expand...
Tried it now on a new install..... some weird design choices and rough edges but not bad.
 
Im not a fan of Debloaters and there isn't one that stands out above the rest for me.

They all have their pros and cons.

Best to do your own surgery on your OS and once happy, make an image. ;)
 
Linux wise I am kinda ping ponging between MX and Mint. Never met a Red Hat based distro I did not find annoying.
 
rambo919 said:
Linux wise I am kinda ping ponging between MX and Mint. Never met a Red Hat based distro I did not find annoying.
Click to expand...
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux,” and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use.

Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
 
konfab said:
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux,” and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use.

Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
Click to expand...
Wyk spook van Stallman.
 
konfab said:
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux,” and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use.

Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
Click to expand...
Not to derail the thread but this is a fairly old talking point and really only pedants still insist on this.

Yes, Linux technically just refers to the kernel. But language evolves and takes on its own life.

If one insists on pedantry, consider this. Comparatively little of what I'm using on my Kubuntu box that I'm typing on at the moment is actually GNU in origin. The KDE / Plasma certainly isn't. The most important things are probably glibc but even that's optional these days, if you favour LLVM for instance, over gcc.

Anyway, rant over. IMO, if you want to refer to GNU/Linux you can, but insisting that others do is misguided.
 
newby_investor said:
Not to derail the thread but this is a fairly old talking point and really only pedants still insist on this.

Yes, Linux technically just refers to the kernel. But language evolves and takes on its own life.

If one insists on pedantry, consider this. Comparatively little of what I'm using on my Kubuntu box that I'm typing on at the moment is actually GNU in origin. The KDE / Plasma certainly isn't. The most important things are probably glibc but even that's optional these days, if you favour LLVM for instance, over gcc.

Anyway, rant over. IMO, if you want to refer to GNU/Linux you can, but insisting that others do is misguided.
Click to expand...
It is just a copypasta :laugh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X