... I don't want to hear excuses, I just want to see improvements. That said I can see that 15 minutes with Win 7 isn't actually average at all, far from it.
That's all good and fine. However, Installing the OS is a task that you you need to do only once every 18 months or so per computer. Even if the installation time were reduced to zero, the incremental increase in our productivity would be vanishingly small.
That's all good and fine. However, Installing the OS is a task that you you need to do only once every 18 months or so per computer. Even if the installation time were reduced to zero, the incremental increase in our productivity would be vanishingly small.
Tell that to the enterprise, heck you might not care, but in my judgement most consumers do. They actually do, it's a selling point, and the faster it is the more convenient it is.
bbwi: As others have posted if you are in a lab environment and using the system disks to do your re-installs, then you are definitely doing the wrong thing. You should have an image that goes down on those computers. That way you are not only faster installing the BaseOS, but you have also put in a lot of the rest of the work of setting up individual computers as well.
As a way of comparing: Installing only the base os with the Apple-provided DVDs typically takes about 45 minutes (start to finish), but that does not include the time of setting up users, or installing software and configuration. By comparison our mac-only image takes 6-8 minutes to go onto the disk, and then about the same amount of time to verify that (can be skipped if you know what you are doing). That includes the default users, is setup for our directory services (so people can log on), and has some of our software. To get the rest of the way we go with Radmind, and that is a little longer, but that is not part of the time we are talking about here.
It's pretty clear Apple needs to work on getting Snow Leopard in install faster than Windows 7. Whatever they do technology wise to OS X (and we all can look at this page), they should probably try to make sure the installation time is faster than Windows 7 - Discuss, with vigor!
Yer joking, right?
I'm much more concerned with boot times than with installation time. It's not like I'm going to install it every day (hopefully).
That being said, I haven't noticed it installs that fast. Took an hour on 2.8GHz P4. Should be faster on new hardware, but that fast... don't think so...
As I stated in my earlier post... It's a HUGE issue for those of us who work in large environments. Problems happen, and if it takes me 15min to reinstall versus 2-3 hours to troubleshoot... the decision becomes elementary
Ah. for that, we install single PC, do sysprep and create it's image with ShadowProtect or something similar. Couple of GBs image of fresh OS setup (or even with Office and some other common software) usually takes less than 10 minutes to restore, sometimes only 5 minutes on fast hardware.
I have win7 beta, a CLEAN install(no upgrade) probably does take 15-20 mins, BUT an upgrade takes a a lot longer than that and if after the upgrade if something fails, it will then downgrade you back to your previous version of windows. OSX is still better, Win7 is basicallly vista R2 with a modofied task bar(and that isnt too hot either)
I have win7 beta, a CLEAN install(no upgrade) probably does take 15-20 mins, BUT an upgrade takes a a lot longer than that and if after the upgrade if something fails, it will then downgrade you back to your previous version of windows. OSX is still better, Win7 is basicallly vista R2 with a modofied task bar(and that isnt too hot either)
The Win7 installer only installs one language, right?
It's also a 2.44GB image whereas Mac OS X Snow Leopard is a 6.6GB image currently.
Installing Windows 7 onto a empty NTFS partition in Boot Camp on a 1st gen 1 7" MBP took about 35-40 minutes from start to finish. Most of that time was spent decompressing files. The actual configurating of the OS and setting it up was pretty quick.
EDIT: Also, after using it for a while, I think Windows 7 may be the best OS that MS has put out in a long, long while. Not good enough to take me away from OS X, but it's a huge step forward even from Vista, as they're beginning to add little touches and polish to the whole user experience.
bbwi: As others have posted if you are in a lab environment and using the system disks to do your re-installs, then you are definitely doing the wrong thing. You should have an image that goes down on those computers. That way you are not only faster installing the BaseOS, but you have also put in a lot of the rest of the work of setting up individual computers as well.
Karl Kuehn and nikon133:
I cannot comment on Apple installs because we only have a handful of them. I was commenting on Windows installs.
As a previous post of mine states, it simply isn't feasible to maintain dozens of images in large environments no matter the tool you use to image machines. It's far more efficient to use newer technologies such as System Center Configuration Manager (SCCM) to deploy Windows. SCCM does NOT use images, it installs Windows from scratch. Therefore, the install process for Windows taking only 15min is HUGE for large customers.
However, after a number of posts here, I think the 15min install has been debunked
Windows Vista and Windows 7 install by deploying a standard base image to your computer, then it scans your computer for its specific hardware build, copies over the appropriate drivers to the base image, and then finishes setup. (If its doing an upgrade, it archives your current system setup, does the install as stated before, then migrates the appropriate settings from the previous system and nukes the previous system.)
Mac OS X does not use an image, it installs everything from scratch based on your computer's hardware, firmware, and your installer selections in the setup program. This takes a lot of extra time.
Mac OS X does not use an image, it installs everything from scratch based on your computer's hardware, firmware, and your installer selections in the setup program. This takes a lot of extra time.
It does install everything. A MacBook doesn't get anything a Mac Pro doesn't and you can use an install on another machine without problems.
These are the things that could help Apple differentiate themselves from the Wintel companies.
Instant install and Instant-On machines!!
Some form of High Speed/High Capacity solid state chip installed like a SIM Card containing the OS. Linked to apps and documentation on a second internal SSD/HDD.
(Optical Disks or USB Drives could be offered for older machines)
I cannot imagine these are technological sticking points in 2009, more of an outdated/historical/legacy way of thinking from computer companies?
well, actually you can choose the language (most people only need one), and on top of that, you can download all the languages you want on windows update. Also, the list of drivers is close to 10x the amount of macs, because it is an open system. I installed 7 on a ten year old 533mhz cpu (AMD K6) with and upgraded to max 384mb of memory, and it runs about the same as xp (a nine year old system). you guys love to hate vista, but it was built from the ground up a couple years ago. they just tried to do the apple thing and load a ton of junk software that most people dont need. they figured that out and stripped the operating system down, and it runs smooth. no driver problems, and it deals with a lot more that macs 100 drivers. think in the thousands.
vista was hated because it was an upgrade that manufacturers didnt support. nobody made drivers for it. All of the drivers are there now for windows 7. if people would stop being idiots and drop a grand on a new laptop, which is less than they would do on a new macbook, no one would complain because they would actually have decent hardware to run the system.
A new installation of Vista or Windows 7 should take about 20 minutes because Windows does only copy the image from the DVD. This image-based installation was introduced with Vista.
Upgrading a system will take much longer, about an hour on an average machine.
But yes, installation time isn't sooo important. Important is, that it does not need user action before it's finished so you can enjoy a coffee or two
Just use NetInstall on Leopard Server. As a speed guidline, over Gigabit Ethernet, you can fresh install about 3 machines simultaneously with a 20GB image in about 30 minutes. With the right architecture for corporate setups, NetInstall scales a lot more than just this.
well, actually you can choose the language (most people only need one), and on top of that, you can download all the languages you want on windows update.
And? It was just to explain why Windows 7 Beta is faster to install.
Comments
... I don't want to hear excuses, I just want to see improvements. That said I can see that 15 minutes with Win 7 isn't actually average at all, far from it.
That's all good and fine. However, Installing the OS is a task that you you need to do only once every 18 months or so per computer. Even if the installation time were reduced to zero, the incremental increase in our productivity would be vanishingly small.
That's all good and fine. However, Installing the OS is a task that you you need to do only once every 18 months or so per computer. Even if the installation time were reduced to zero, the incremental increase in our productivity would be vanishingly small.
Tell that to the enterprise, heck you might not care, but in my judgement most consumers do. They actually do, it's a selling point, and the faster it is the more convenient it is.
As a way of comparing: Installing only the base os with the Apple-provided DVDs typically takes about 45 minutes (start to finish), but that does not include the time of setting up users, or installing software and configuration. By comparison our mac-only image takes 6-8 minutes to go onto the disk, and then about the same amount of time to verify that (can be skipped if you know what you are doing). That includes the default users, is setup for our directory services (so people can log on), and has some of our software. To get the rest of the way we go with Radmind, and that is a little longer, but that is not part of the time we are talking about here.
It's pretty clear Apple needs to work on getting Snow Leopard in install faster than Windows 7. Whatever they do technology wise to OS X (and we all can look at this page), they should probably try to make sure the installation time is faster than Windows 7 - Discuss, with vigor!
Yer joking, right?
I'm much more concerned with boot times than with installation time. It's not like I'm going to install it every day (hopefully).
That being said, I haven't noticed it installs that fast. Took an hour on 2.8GHz P4. Should be faster on new hardware, but that fast... don't think so...
As I stated in my earlier post... It's a HUGE issue for those of us who work in large environments. Problems happen, and if it takes me 15min to reinstall versus 2-3 hours to troubleshoot... the decision becomes elementary
Ah. for that, we install single PC, do sysprep and create it's image with ShadowProtect or something similar. Couple of GBs image of fresh OS setup (or even with Office and some other common software) usually takes less than 10 minutes to restore, sometimes only 5 minutes on fast hardware.
I have win7 beta, a CLEAN install(no upgrade) probably does take 15-20 mins, BUT an upgrade takes a a lot longer than that and if after the upgrade if something fails, it will then downgrade you back to your previous version of windows. OSX is still better, Win7 is basicallly vista R2 with a modofied task bar(and that isnt too hot either)
The Win7 installer only installs one language, right?
It's also a 2.44GB image whereas Mac OS X Snow Leopard is a 6.6GB image currently.
EDIT: Also, after using it for a while, I think Windows 7 may be the best OS that MS has put out in a long, long while. Not good enough to take me away from OS X, but it's a huge step forward even from Vista, as they're beginning to add little touches and polish to the whole user experience.
bbwi: As others have posted if you are in a lab environment and using the system disks to do your re-installs, then you are definitely doing the wrong thing. You should have an image that goes down on those computers. That way you are not only faster installing the BaseOS, but you have also put in a lot of the rest of the work of setting up individual computers as well.
Karl Kuehn and nikon133:
I cannot comment on Apple installs because we only have a handful of them. I was commenting on Windows installs.
As a previous post of mine states, it simply isn't feasible to maintain dozens of images in large environments no matter the tool you use to image machines. It's far more efficient to use newer technologies such as System Center Configuration Manager (SCCM) to deploy Windows. SCCM does NOT use images, it installs Windows from scratch. Therefore, the install process for Windows taking only 15min is HUGE for large customers.
However, after a number of posts here, I think the 15min install has been debunked
The Win7 installer only installs one language, right?
It's also a 2.44GB image whereas Mac OS X Snow Leopard is a 6.6GB image currently.
yes, only one language, and limited drivers.
Mac OS X does not use an image, it installs everything from scratch based on your computer's hardware, firmware, and your installer selections in the setup program. This takes a lot of extra time.
yes, only one language, and limited drivers.
Vista and 7 have almost 2GB of drivers within the WIM file, so I wouldn't say it's "limited."
With vLite, one can remove a large chunk of drivers from being installed on the hard drive.
Vista and 7 have almost 2GB of drivers within the WIM file, so I wouldn't say it's "limited." ...
The degree of limitation is determined by the percentage of the installed base that is supported, not by the size of the WIM file.
Mac OS X does not use an image, it installs everything from scratch based on your computer's hardware, firmware, and your installer selections in the setup program. This takes a lot of extra time.
It does install everything. A MacBook doesn't get anything a Mac Pro doesn't and you can use an install on another machine without problems.
These are the things that could help Apple differentiate themselves from the Wintel companies.
Instant install and Instant-On machines!!
Some form of High Speed/High Capacity solid state chip installed like a SIM Card containing the OS. Linked to apps and documentation on a second internal SSD/HDD.
(Optical Disks or USB Drives could be offered for older machines)
I cannot imagine these are technological sticking points in 2009, more of an outdated/historical/legacy way of thinking from computer companies?
yes, only one language, and limited drivers.
well, actually you can choose the language (most people only need one), and on top of that, you can download all the languages you want on windows update. Also, the list of drivers is close to 10x the amount of macs, because it is an open system. I installed 7 on a ten year old 533mhz cpu (AMD K6) with and upgraded to max 384mb of memory, and it runs about the same as xp (a nine year old system). you guys love to hate vista, but it was built from the ground up a couple years ago. they just tried to do the apple thing and load a ton of junk software that most people dont need. they figured that out and stripped the operating system down, and it runs smooth. no driver problems, and it deals with a lot more that macs 100 drivers. think in the thousands.
vista was hated because it was an upgrade that manufacturers didnt support. nobody made drivers for it. All of the drivers are there now for windows 7. if people would stop being idiots and drop a grand on a new laptop, which is less than they would do on a new macbook, no one would complain because they would actually have decent hardware to run the system.
Upgrading a system will take much longer, about an hour on an average machine.
But yes, installation time isn't sooo important. Important is, that it does not need user action before it's finished so you can enjoy a coffee or two
no driver problems, and it deals with a lot more that macs 100 drivers. think in the thousands.
The Vista DVD (pre SP1) has 19,000 drivers on board and 78,000 devices and components are supported via Windows Update (source: http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/win...vista-sp1.aspx)
XP "only" had 10,000 drivers.
It's a real challenge to find hardware that's not supported.
well, actually you can choose the language (most people only need one), and on top of that, you can download all the languages you want on windows update.
And? It was just to explain why Windows 7 Beta is faster to install.