I need to have a rant.

[thenewoc]

Just out of interest does this laptop have any problems running windows 8 compatibility test, if not, it would be better to wait a couple of months and put that on.

 

[Dervious]

Just out of interest does this laptop have any problems running windows 8 compatibility test, if not, it would be better to wait a couple of months and put that on.

He's currently not in work after surgery, so I'm trying to help him out. Anyway, he's paid for Vista, so I think he would expect it do the job for him.

And although he's in no hurry, I think he'd like to be using his laptop within a few days, rather than months.

Anyway, it's currently installing another 60 updates after managing to get SP2 installed last night. Things are looking promising. As soon as there are no more updates, I'll be making a disk image pretty sharpish. No way do I want to go through this again if there are serious problems in the future.

 

[MikeB]

The main problem isn't the number of updates, it was the speed it updated at, 150mb of updates on my connection should flow through in less than aminute, it took at times over 5 minutes to find the updates then 30 mniutes plus to download them.

I probably had to download about a gigs worth overall, should have took less than an hour

 

[div0]

The main problem isn't the number of updates, it was the speed it updated at, 150mb of updates on my connection should flow through in less than aminute, it took at times over 5 minutes to find the updates then 30 mniutes plus to download them.

I probably had to download about a gigs worth overall, should have took less than an hour

I don't believe that the problem with slow/stuck downloads is usually anything to do with connection speed. I'm pretty sure there's loads of stuff on the web about possible causes - the fix I ended up using was to tweak a setting in the bios. I forget exactly what is was though I'm afraid.

 

[Raumarik]

I'm trying to install something 5 years old, and I certainly do expect it to take longer than it would have done 4 years ago (more patches). What I also expect is for the patch process to not throw a wobbly half way through. I have had to download and execute SP1 as a standalone file. Surely after 5 years, MS would have pretty well perfected the update process, and not required the user to "lift the bonnet" to get the thing working properly. After all, I'm not trying to install Vista onto a ZX81, and I`ve performed many, many XP/Win 7 installs over the past decade or so. I think I know what I'm doing when it comes to a (Microsoft) OS install, so I'm rather annoyed that I`ve had to "get my geek on" to get Vista to update properly.

I've had some terrible, terrible windows updates from XP but it's generally the local PC's hard disk which is slowing things down, only ever made worse by my employers requirement that Mcafee AV was used before anything went near an internet connection.

I have had experiences like yours, it does suck but generally there's no absolute cause, it's a mixture of components, slower web services than usual etc. The thing is you're helping a mate out so at least you get a pat on the back - even if there's no money forthcoming for your time

 

[Dervious]

I can put up with slow downloading of updates.

I can't put up with Vista's update issues, which I have encountered on several occasions on different machines. Failed updates, repeating updates etc. Googling the subject reveals load of users having loads of different issues.

And what baffles me is why MS haven't made the installation process a lot more efficient (for all of the OS's). Why can't the update system "look" at a machine and download all of the main updates in one block ? Once the updates are downloaded, there should be the option to start the installation process and allow the PC to carry out the updates in the correct order and reboot itself when required. I know that the service packs ask for the user to click next and to accept some terms and conditions. The same goes for internet explorer updates. Why can't the user have the option to accept all agreements at the beginning, then leave the machine to do it's thing, instead of having to "nurse" it ?

I suppose it could be argued that it might put some IT staff out of work !

 

[thenewoc]

If you did a windows 8 compatibility test and it didn't show any issues then you could put windows 8 enterprise on it for free if it's still available to download from technet. This would give you 90 days use which would see you ok until end of october when w8 should be available to buy at an upgrade price. W8 takes very little time to install. No point in over configuring the initial install as it will need doing again in october. Between now and october you should check website for brand / model of laptop to download latest drivers & utilities if you can get w8 ones. If it has 4 GB of memory or more put the 64bit w8 on. Shouldn't take more than half hour once you've made a bootable usb with w8 enterprise on.

 

[markweatherill]

A friend's laptop with Windows 7 hadn't been used for months.
Of course after switching it on, it wanted to install 60 or 70 updates, and always repeatedly failed after the same kind of rigmarole.

The solution was to uninstall all the .NET stuff from the computer and then reinstall the latest version. The updates it was choking on then either disappeared or succeeded, and allowed the others to proceed.

 

[ubersonic]

Vista was released six years ago, of course the are a lot of updates for it. Vista is a very good O/S, I have almost a hundred workstations on site running XP/Vista/7 and Vista is easily superior to XP despite what people with rubbish spec computers said when it launched, Vista with the latest service pack running on decent hardware with no buggy third party software is practically uncrashable (though to be fair XP SP3 isn't far off).

If you need to install it from scratch and don't have an O/S disc with service packs available to you then install the O/S then SP1 then SP2 then the platform update (adds lots of W7 features) and save time by downloading them to a usb stick beforehand.

If you think this is bad you should try updating an fresh Windows 98 install on a legacy machine...

 

[Dervious]

Vista is a very good O/S

When it's working properly, it does seem to be.

Mind you I still see a lot of disk thrashing, sluggish performance, failing updates etc with Vista based machines. When I get a "trashed" XP machine in for repair, it seems to be a faster and easier process to get the OS re-installed and updated. Also, XP machines (such as my old Sempron based laptop) seem to boot up quicker and are more responsive than Vista machines with more BHP under the bonnet. I know there are "tweaks" that can help remedy the disk thrashing, but I still feel that Vista isn't a very efficient OS.