Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 11th Nov 2012 15:49 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 542070
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by moondevil on Mon 12th Nov 2012 07:29
in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Mon 12th Nov 2012 16:39
in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
As far as taking several hours to install & customize Windows -- that's just a silly. Unless you're being stupid about reinstalling, for example not using the most recent OS image, and you're installing a million apps there's no reason what-so-ever it should/would take all night. That's completely ridiculous.
That's assuming you have an OS-image at hand. But what if you've just gotten the PC and you don't have an OS-image yet? Downloading and installing the several hundreds of megabytes of patches alone does indeed take around two hours.
That's assuming you have an OS-image at hand. But what if you've just gotten the PC and you don't have an OS-image yet? Downloading and installing the several hundreds of megabytes of patches alone does indeed take around two hours.
I don't count ISO download time (whether it's Windows or linux) towards installation time because downloading what you need is pre-installation, not installation. None-the-less, the download time isn't that long for anyone with a decent internet connection. Also, 2 hours is a long way from an installation taking several hours to all night along. I stand by what I said -- if it's taking you all night long, or even several hours, then you're doing something wrong or are completely unprepared.
There is something, however, about the way Windows applies certain patches that slows the whole process down without any seemingly good reason: the .NET patches. For some reason even on my quad-core system those patches can take over 25 minutes to apply, and I've had the patches actually get stuck in some sort of a never-ending loop several times where CPU-usage is at zero, and even after leaving the machine on for a whole night it still wasn't finished in the morning -- only a reboot or two and then trying to reinstall the patch fixed it.
Another user already explained this so no need to do it again. Without question .NET can be the longest part, but it also has legitimate reason.




Member since:
2006-02-15
That's assuming you have an OS-image at hand. But what if you've just gotten the PC and you don't have an OS-image yet? Downloading and installing the several hundreds of megabytes of patches alone does indeed take around two hours. Of course, installing e.g. several years old version of Ubuntu and then proceeding to update it to the latest and greatest is also going to take a long time, so only complaining about Windows would be misleading.
There is something, however, about the way Windows applies certain patches that slows the whole process down without any seemingly good reason: the .NET patches. For some reason even on my quad-core system those patches can take over 25 minutes to apply, and I've had the patches actually get stuck in some sort of a never-ending loop several times where CPU-usage is at zero, and even after leaving the machine on for a whole night it still wasn't finished in the morning -- only a reboot or two and then trying to reinstall the patch fixed it.