7 ms·

This will break a bunch of stuff. Microsoft has put some bloat in Appx packages, but this is definitely throwing the baby out with the bathwater, you're essent

This will break a bunch of stuff. Microsoft has put some bloat in Appx packages, but this is definitely throwing the baby out with the bathwater, you're essentially nuking stuff based on its installation method rather than anything meaningful. But, sure, go right ahead remove .Net Native Runtime, VCLIbs, the ability to login to guest WiFi, and Parental Controls at minimum. Who needs THAT stuff? Then just go ahead and start changing random things in gpedit because a blog told you to. Honestly, my biggest pet-peeve with these debloating things (articles, scripts, tools) is that they never explain WHY for each thing. That is seemingly because the people building these things just copy/pasted someone else's without really understanding the original WHY of it. Multiple of them make Windows objectively less secure. Maybe someone should build a debloater that describes exactly what [thing] is and if you want [thing]. Then also confirm that removing or disabling [thing] won't cause Windows Update to get into an install/rollback/install death spiral.

gjsman-1000 4y ago
> is that they never explain WHY for each thing Hello, author here. I don't understand this criticism, because I specified in the article exactly why I was using this command, for this use case. I am setting up a computer specifically for CAD and CAM software, and it serves no other purpose - all I want it to do is run my industrial applications, and that's it, anything else is bloat to me. I don't advise everyone use it for every computer, but rather that it works for me very well when setting up PCs for industrial settings. As for the VCLibs, and .NET Native, they can be reinstalled afterwards from an Appx package, so if it ever became an issue, it's easier for me to nuke and add back, but that's just my opinion. Both, however, are libraries for running applications, not security updates, which are left intact by this method as this does not remove or affect Windows Defender or Windows Update. Therefore, if my CAD software doesn't need VCLibs or .NET Native to function, I don't have any loss in security - just in the number of apps I can run. > Multiple of them make Windows objectively less secure. I wrote this article because it does not mess with Windows Update, or run any random de-bloating scripts from the internet. For many people, not running a random internet script for de-bloating is a desirable attribute, and I don't see how this would make a PC less secure.
- saint_fiasco 4y ago
  As for the why, I think the parent commenter means that they would want to know the reason a package was installed by default on Windows in the first place. We know the reason you removed it is that it is not related to CAD and CAM software. However, if we don't know the details about what that software IS (not just what it IS NOT) then as soon as we want to do something other than CAD/CAM we cannot be sure if the bloat is OK to delete.
passwordoops 4y ago
Yes! That is the most frustrating part of debloating - searching "what does {program} do" usually ends up with a laundry list of removal how-tos with no explanation. It actually made me wonder if these posts are social engineering on the part of hackers to get people to unwittingly introduce vulnerabilities
scotty79 4y ago
> remove .Net Native Runtime, VCLIbs, the ability to login to guest WiFi, and Parental Controls at minimum. Who needs THAT stuff I'm perfectly fine with removing those things and many others from my computer.
bentcorner 4y ago
The Kindle Fire Toolbox on XDA[1] is a good example (IMO) of doing this right - it shows a bunch of stuff that you can remove with no impact, and with everything else it tells you what the thing you're removing is used for, so you can decide if the thing you want to remove is important to you. That said, it's community driven so I have no idea how technically correct it is. But it is a good attempt at a "debloating" tool that informs the user of the consequences of what they're doing. [1] https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/windows-tool-fire-toolbox-v30-2.3889604/ https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/windows-tool-fire-toolbox...
technion 4y ago
It will break a bunch of things, but half these "debloat" scripts around include a verbose version of this, and it is very common to see a complaint some application won't run and the fix is to rebuild the computer, because the store can not always be reinstalled. It doesn't matter what warnings you give, naive people will run it. He'll I've seen windows ameliorated in businesses.
CamperBob2 4y ago
Does it remove anything important that you can't put back later? If not, well... there you go. It doesn't break anything. If it does, well... good point, maybe you should mention that somewhere in the midst of all the FUD. There has to be a way for users to take control of their PCs back from Microsoft, short of installing Linux. Try to make positive suggestions of your own in addition to calling out the pitfalls of other people's suggestions.
salawat 4y ago
It irks me that people are not. more vocal about getting Microsoft to do that, rather than expecting some FOSS dev to spend time picking apart proprietary software and documenting Microsoft's particular brand of madness for what? Kudos? You want that? Tell Microsoft QA is important to you, meat grinding said team is not acceptable, and to start hiring bloody tech writers again! We're where we're at because everywhere is under the impression that both of those groups are unnecesary cost centers. I'd be daft enough to do it, however, there is a bit of resentment at how everyone is happy to throw someone under the bus, as long as it isn't them.

gjsman-1000 4y ago

> is that they never explain WHY for each thing Hello, author here. I don't understand this criticism, because I specified in the article exactly why I was using this command, for this use case. I am setting up a computer specifically for CAD and CAM software, and it serves no other purpose - all I want it to do is run my industrial applications, and that's it, anything else is bloat to me. I don't advise everyone use it for every computer, but rather that it works for me very well when setting up PCs for industrial settings. As for the VCLibs, and .NET Native, they can be reinstalled afterwards from an Appx package, so if it ever became an issue, it's easier for me to nuke and add back, but that's just my opinion. Both, however, are libraries for running applications, not security updates, which are left intact by this method as this does not remove or affect Windows Defender or Windows Update. Therefore, if my CAD software doesn't need VCLibs or .NET Native to function, I don't have any loss in security - just in the number of apps I can run. > Multiple of them make Windows objectively less secure. I wrote this article because it does not mess with Windows Update, or run any random de-bloating scripts from the internet. For many people, not running a random internet script for de-bloating is a desirable attribute, and I don't see how this would make a PC less secure.

saint_fiasco 4y ago
As for the why, I think the parent commenter means that they would want to know the reason a package was installed by default on Windows in the first place. We know the reason you removed it is that it is not related to CAD and CAM software. However, if we don't know the details about what that software IS (not just what it IS NOT) then as soon as we want to do something other than CAD/CAM we cannot be sure if the bloat is OK to delete.

passwordoops 4y ago

Yes! That is the most frustrating part of debloating - searching "what does {program} do" usually ends up with a laundry list of removal how-tos with no explanation. It actually made me wonder if these posts are social engineering on the part of hackers to get people to unwittingly introduce vulnerabilities

scotty79 4y ago

> remove .Net Native Runtime, VCLIbs, the ability to login to guest WiFi, and Parental Controls at minimum. Who needs THAT stuff I'm perfectly fine with removing those things and many others from my computer.

bentcorner 4y ago

The Kindle Fire Toolbox on XDA[1] is a good example (IMO) of doing this right - it shows a bunch of stuff that you can remove with no impact, and with everything else it tells you what the thing you're removing is used for, so you can decide if the thing you want to remove is important to you. That said, it's community driven so I have no idea how technically correct it is. But it is a good attempt at a "debloating" tool that informs the user of the consequences of what they're doing. [1] https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/windows-tool-fire-toolbox-v30-2.3889604/ https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/windows-tool-fire-toolbox...

technion 4y ago

It will break a bunch of things, but half these "debloat" scripts around include a verbose version of this, and it is very common to see a complaint some application won't run and the fix is to rebuild the computer, because the store can not always be reinstalled. It doesn't matter what warnings you give, naive people will run it. He'll I've seen windows ameliorated in businesses.

CamperBob2 4y ago

Does it remove anything important that you can't put back later? If not, well... there you go. It doesn't break anything. If it does, well... good point, maybe you should mention that somewhere in the midst of all the FUD. There has to be a way for users to take control of their PCs back from Microsoft, short of installing Linux. Try to make positive suggestions of your own in addition to calling out the pitfalls of other people's suggestions.

salawat 4y ago

It irks me that people are not. more vocal about getting Microsoft to do that, rather than expecting some FOSS dev to spend time picking apart proprietary software and documenting Microsoft's particular brand of madness for what? Kudos? You want that? Tell Microsoft QA is important to you, meat grinding said team is not acceptable, and to start hiring bloody tech writers again! We're where we're at because everywhere is under the impression that both of those groups are unnecesary cost centers. I'd be daft enough to do it, however, there is a bit of resentment at how everyone is happy to throw someone under the bus, as long as it isn't them.