News - Deployment of Windows 8 much faster than its predecessors

[HEXUS]

Basically cuts upgrade and install times in half!

Read more.

[Apex]

20 mins to install Windows 7 ?

10 mins from start to desktop on my Dell D620 (4gib ram 128gb ssd and a dual core 2.33ghz cpu) and the 2nd D620 i built/refurbed was 12 mins (4gib ram 40gb hdd and a dual core 1.6ghz chip)

Granted this was from a USB stick but that stick was a very slow usb stick and remember this is a laptop that is from 2006 age....

[shaithis]

Another version of the vista/7 installer from what I have seen.....which probably means that there will be no "Upgrade" repairs again.......

I really really really miss that feature

[bridges009]

I'm sure I can install Windows 7 from DVD my SSD in less than 20 minutes. I'm not checking though.

[howdee]

As more and more Microsoft installations (any recent MS software really, not just OS related) seem to require C++ libraries and less so VB ones, in the recent years at least, I have reasons to believe this speed bump is mostly due to changes in the underlying tech for the OS installer, namely the transition from VB scripted engine to pre-compiled C++ installation libraries. I didn't do any research (free time is in short supply) so I might be completely wrong here, however it does seem to be the most probable "culprit". Would be nice though, if you investigated the “There have been some fundamental changes to the upgrade process that will improve the upgrade time regardless of how much you throw at it” line a bit more. I'd be glad to read on your findings t/c

Another version of the vista/7 installer from what I have seen.....which probably means that there will be no "Upgrade" repairs again.......

I really really really miss that feature

Seems you're in luck If you look at the picture of the installer screen more closely, there's a "Repair your computer" option on the bottom left part of it... not sure if that's what you meant, though.

[shaithis]

Yeah, but that the "Vista/7" repair method I am pretty sure.....Which is a "keep fingers crossed and pray" repair.....which in certain circumstances will be able to do absolutely nothing....even when the only problem is Windows is missing a single driver...

[dangel]

As more and more Microsoft installations (any recent MS software really, not just OS related) seem to require C++ libraries and less so VB ones, in the recent years at least, I have reasons to believe this speed bump is mostly due to changes in the underlying tech for the OS installer, namely the transition from VB scripted engine to pre-compiled C++ installation libraries. I didn't do any research (free time is in short supply) so I might be completely wrong here, however it does seem to be the most probable "culprit". Would be nice though, if you investigated the “There have been some fundamental changes to the upgrade process that will improve the upgrade time regardless of how much you throw at it” line a bit more. I'd be glad to read on your findings t/c

Nope, the big change in the installer was to switch to an image based installed - XP had to run up a temporary kernel, load a basic set of drivers, sort out the partition, copy lots of files and then reboot into the install proper (which would then go on to copy even more files to the disk as it installed, reboot, do more etc etc). Vista and onward merely dumps an image to your drive and then that boots (which is why you can removed the install media on the first reboot in most cases) and given how it's basically an unattended install you don't worry about being asked about, say, networking half way through.

I don't see anything crazy in the claims - obviously work has gone into the installation (like every other facet of the OS) and on the same hardware they're claiming it's faster.

[dangel]

As more and more Microsoft installations (any recent MS software really, not just OS related) seem to require C++ libraries and less so VB ones, in the recent years at least, I have reasons to believe this speed bump is mostly due to changes in the underlying tech for the OS installer, namely the transition from VB scripted engine to pre-compiled C++ installation libraries. I didn't do any research (free time is in short supply) so I might be completely wrong here, however it does seem to be the most probable "culprit". Would be nice though, if you investigated the “There have been some fundamental changes to the upgrade process that will improve the upgrade time regardless of how much you throw at it” line a bit more. I'd be glad to read on your findings t/c

Nope, the big change in the installer was to switch to an image based installed - XP had to run up a temporary kernel, load a basic set of drivers, sort out the partition, copy lots of files and then reboot into the install proper (which would then go on to copy even more files to the disk as it installed, reboot, do more etc etc). Vista and onward merely dumps an image to your drive and then that boots (which is why you can removed the install media on the first reboot in most cases) and given how it's basically an unattended install you don't worry about being asked about, say, networking half way through.

I don't see anything crazy in the claims - obviously work has gone into the installation (like every other facet of the OS) and on the same hardware they're claiming it's faster.

Yeah, but that the "Vista/7" repair method I am pretty sure.....Which is a "keep fingers crossed and pray" repair.....which in certain circumstances will be able to do absolutely nothing....even when the only problem is Windows is missing a single driver...

To be fair, it's a god send for non booting systems more often than not. Compare that to the NT prompt of old..

[howdee]

Nope, the big change in the installer was to switch to an image based installed - XP had to run up a temporary kernel, load a basic set of drivers, sort out the partition, copy lots of files and then reboot into the install proper (which would then go on to copy even more files to the disk as it installed, reboot, do more etc etc). Vista and onward merely dumps an image to your drive and then that boots (which is why you can removed the install media on the first reboot in most cases) and given how it's basically an unattended install you don't worry about being asked about, say, networking half way through.

I don't see anything crazy in the claims - obviously work has gone into the installation (like every other facet of the OS) and on the same hardware they're claiming it's faster.

That would seem obvious for a speed bump on clean installs. It doesn't, however, explain these "regardless of how much you throw at it" claims on upgrades. As I said, I was merely speculating and have nothing to substantiate it, but have a feeling there's more to it than a simple switch to image based installation procedure. Besides, that's nothing new since the Vista days. They claim speed improvements in comparison to Windows 7 installation/upgrade. I think we best leave this for some official explanation, that is - whenever their developers find time and patience to speak with their PR guys.

[dangel]

That would seem obvious for a speed bump on clean installs. It doesn't, however, explain these "regardless of how much you throw at it" claims on upgrades. As I said, I was merely speculating and have nothing to substantiate it, but have a feeling there's more to it than a simple switch to image based installation procedure. Besides, that's nothing new since the Vista days. They claim speed improvements in comparison to Windows 7 installation/upgrade. I think we best leave this for some official explanation, that is - whenever their developers find time and patience to speak with their PR guys.

Yeah.. they already did: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2...xperience.aspx

Have a read, it tackles your issue under "Improving upgrade performance"

MS Blog a lot about their dev process.

[howdee]

That's a big thumb up, thanks dangel My annoying presence would've been for naught if it wasn't for your investigative skills!! LOL I read that part of the blog pertaining to performance upgrades and, as much as I gather, the switch to hard-linking instead of actually moving files around would make for the biggest difference IMHO. That, and the fact they're now doing this on complete folders and not individual files. In other words, MS finally started using NTFS features to the benefit of the average user as well and not just limiting these capabilities to speeding up file system operations in MS SQL server and alike. Good stuff!

[dangel]

That's a big thumb up, thanks dangel My annoying presence would've been for naught if it wasn't for your investigative skills!! LOL I read that part of the blog pertaining to performance upgrades and, as much as I gather, the switch to hard-linking instead of actually moving files around would make for the biggest difference IMHO. That, and the fact they're now doing this on complete folders and not individual files. In other words, MS finally started using NTFS features to the benefit of the average user as well and not just limiting these capabilities to speeding up file system operations in MS SQL server and alike. Good stuff!

You're welcome (and no, you weren't annoying!) I end up reading their blogs anyway (it's part of my job to keep up with Windows developments for our platform) and I find them really rather good. I'm sure marketing approve them etc but they do go into some decent depth and it really gives you a feel for what's new with each version of Windows. They're at least worth a skim as an end user (some of it is too technical). I only wish other companies were anywhere near as forthcoming!