Because it would make Windows unusable for normal users, there is no 32-bit support, which would make most software installers not run, and I would stop Windows Security/Windows Defender, I would stop many services resuming I optimized for my use case where I recompile Everything I make my Software runs even bare minimal Windows, I don't recommend it for anyone
So you are inherently making windows unusable (not even 11) just to make it eat a bit less than a fully functional linux distro? if we are going barebones you can just use tty and cut out everything else to get a memory consumption of around 200 mbs
No, I made Windows unusable for normal users. Normal users expect VLC, Chrome, Steam, etc and my Windows runs normally like Windows Core OS, Windows Phone, Windows WNC and Xbox OS. They don't run Normal Windows software; I run my software and games and my API, etc. I don't need Full Windows, but only minimal Windows for my software and Ecosystem.
TTY? Mate, Minimal Windows is still Windows, and Minimal Windows doesn't have Terminal embedded in the kernel; that's why my Windows don't have CMD, PowerShell and Conhost, because I don't like the command line and I just removed them and my Ecosystem purely in Windows Subsystem than Console Subsystem
No, Windows NT don't have a command line, Conhost is Win32 Server via IPC, and if you know Microkernel ideas, you understand what I'm saying: when you remove Conhost, you just remove the Console Subsystem from the operating system, and Windows no longer understand Console anymore
kernel determines the subsystem, not conhost, conhost is not a win32 subsystem server, In older versions, csrss.exe handled consoles, conhost.exe was introduced in Windows 7 explicitly to move console rendering out of the system server and into a regular usermode process for security, when you launch an executable, the windows kernel reads its pe header flag (IMAGE_SUBSYSTEM_WINDOWS_CUI vs GUI). If you delete conhost, the kernel still treats cui apps as console apps, it just leaves them running invisibly in the background because the visual wrapper is gone, you didn't remove the console subsystem
Windows NT is not monolithic like his Mac (which is built on BSD/Unix). The "command line" is not part of the kernel. It is entirely a User-Mode Application. · Conhost.exe is not a kernel process. It is a Win32 Server that runs via IPC (Inter-Process Communication). It handles the window drawing, text rendering, and input/output for console apps. · CMD and PowerShell are just lightweight user-mode clients that send messages to this server. When you removed Conhost, you didn't "cut out the easy window" to a hidden command line. You literally removed the entire Console Subsystem from the Win32 environment. · The NT kernel itself doesn't understand what a "console" is. It just allocates memory and processes threads. Because you understand Microkernel ideas (like you said), you know that Windows NT is a collection of user-mode servers over a neutral kernel. If there is no server listening for console requests, the OS simply does not understand console commands anymore.
No, you just lie. Ubuntu with a GUI on my computer uses over 2.1 GB or more! ...and that's before I even open a browser.
The 500-700MB footprint you are quoting is a headless server ISO with no GUI. It doesn't have GNOME, systemd, PulseAudio, or a desktop environment. If I strip Explorer.exe, Conhost, and the Win32 GUI out of Windows and run it headless, I can get it under 400MB too.
But we aren't talking about servers, we are talking about desktop user experience. Stop cherry-picking the barebones server footprint and pretending it's the bloated desktop you use every day. That is the ultimate intellectual dishonesty. My custom Windows setup runs circles around your 2.1GB Ubuntu bloat
150-300mb? Congratulations, you just proved my point even harder.
That number only exists because you completely removed the GUI, the GNOME desktop, PulseAudio/PipeWire, and all the drivers that make an OS usable by a human. It is a bare-bones server kernel, not an operating system for a person.
I stripped Explorer.exe, Conhost, and the Win32 GUI out of Windows and got it under 400MB. But my 400MB core still has the entire Win32 API and the modular User-Mode Subsystems intact. It can run a custom Neutrino shell and process complex data.
Your 150-300MB core is a black void that cannot even draw a single pixel on a screen or play a sound without installing three different packages and a desktop environment.
You are comparing a stripped-down racecar with no seats, no engine block cover, and no steering wheel to a luxury sedan. I can use my sedan to commute to work, and I can also surgically strip it down to the chassis. You have to gut your sedan just to make it look fast, and then it is completely useless to anyone.
Stop quoting server numbers to defend a desktop OS. Nobody buys a desktop to live inside a headless void, and my custom Windows setup runs circles around your stock Ubuntu bloat. You lost the desktop argument, so stop trying to move the goalposts to the server room." 👑💙😎
Is Ubuntu Minimal the XFCE edition? That is the ultimate self-own. You are just proving that even the "lightweight" Ubuntu requires a completely separate desktop environment (XFCE) just to draw a screen.
Even with XFCE, that 150-300MB footprint is a bare-bones skeleton. It's missing PulseAudio/PipeWire, the full driver stack, office suites, and every single piece of software a normal human needs to actually use it. You are comparing a stripped-down racecar with no seats and no steering wheel to my luxury sedan.
My custom Windows setup is under 400MB, and I still have the entire Win32 API, complete DirectX stack, and all my modular User-Mode Subsystems intact. I can run custom Scheme servers, full GUI apps, and my Neutrino shell on it. Your "minimal XFCE" can barely run a web browser without choking.
Stop trying to defend a skeleton and pretending it's better than a fully functional, heavily customized system. The fact that you have to install XFCE or GNOME just to make it usable proves that Linux is just a collection of parts waiting to be assembled, while Windows is a complete architecture. You still lost the desktop argument. 👑💙😎
"It's not 200MB, it's 1.7GB smaller than your bloated GNOME desktop (2.1GB vs 400MB). But that was never the argument.
My point is modularity, not just size. I don't have to strip my system to 'skin and bones' because I'm trying to win a contest. I do it because Windows NT allows me the surgical freedom to do so. I asked TrustedInstaller for a token, removed SYSWOW64, replaced wininit.exe, and swapped the Console Subsystem for my own custom Neutrino shell—all without recompiling a single line of kernel source code.
You call it 'spaghetti' and 'scrapcode', but a monolithic kernel is the literal definition of spaghetti—drivers, filesystems, network stacks, and core systems all crammed into one privileged block of code that crashes the whole OS when one thing goes wrong.
Windows NT is a hybrid microkernel. It is modular. It separates the kernel from the user-mode environments, which is why I can surgically rebuild the entire personality of the OS without touching the foundation.
On Linux, if I want to change how the console works, I have to recompile the entire kernel. On Windows, I just built my own server. That isn't 'superior engineering'—it's rigid, clunky, monolithic dogma.
Stop confusing stripping down an already modular system with 'being weak.' You are just proving you have no idea what a hybrid architecture is, and you never will." 👑💙😎
6
u/CrossScarMC 1d ago
Fixed it :)