Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Installing Windows 7 From Scratch

Mar 18, 2016 11:41AM PDT

Did you know it will take you more than 1GB of online updates to bring Windows 7 up-to-date if you start from scratch? This ZDNET article goes over that problem. Seems there's no DVD for the updates you can order, and the method Windows uses of doing some updates, then rebooting, then more updates, then rebooting and so on, it can take 24 hours or longer online to complete the task. There may be a way to cut that time down.

"There is a workaround, as I discovered. Download two updates before starting the installation process, KB3083710 and KB3102810, and copy them to a USB flash drive. Install Windows 7 with SP1 and leave the network cable disconnected. Install those two updates from the flash drive before connecting to the network and running Windows Update for the first time, and you can cut that horrendous delay down to a matter of a few minutes.

Even then you have many hours of work ahead of you. When I started over, using that workaround, it still took nearly three and a half hours from the time I started the clean install until those 216 important updates were finished downloading and installing."


Have fun!

(I use linux and avoid all that)

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Sounds painful
Mar 18, 2016 6:33PM PDT

Pain is what motivates folks to do something.

Think image/clone....even if you only do this every six months it's still a lot better than starting from bare metal.

I try to avoid pain.

- Collapse -
Last month a XP (no SP1) install
Mar 18, 2016 6:45PM PDT
- Collapse -
Not surprised
Mar 19, 2016 9:56AM PDT

Unless they changed something, you have to at least have SP1 on before SP3 can be added. SP3 broke the activation program, creating a loop if you lost activation, where you could no longer do anything other than the phone activation if even that. I always had to use regedit if some change after SP3 caused loss of activation and remove part of the WPA to get it to allow me to activate it again. It was like Win2000 with a demon in it.

- Collapse -
My other observation.
Mar 19, 2016 10:01AM PDT

Microsoft is back in the 90's still in regards to drivers and the rest of the PC. Microsoft has left this issue on the block for decades.

My comment in question form is this:
Isn't it time for Microsoft to tackle the drivers as well?

- Collapse -
they want a slim kernel
Mar 20, 2016 8:21AM PDT

unlike the larger monolithic kernels used in Linux. Their argument seems to be that is better, less bogged down, since ONLY the drivers needed are then added.

Theoretically one can take a Linux kernel and start dropping "mods" out of it to slim it down more, being careful to only leave the ones you want, but in truth, any gain in performance is minimal when doing that.

You can add drivers to the Linux kernel using something like the modprobe command, maybe you can find a linux kernel that's "mod free" and then just add the ones you need to it. It's just more practical in Linux view to have most of the main ones needed, and if some very current hardware won't work with what's there, add a "mod" for that particular item, but design the kernel so most hardware will work with it "right out of the box".

The monolithic kernel is what makes the LIVE versions of Linux on DVD and CD's work so well.

- Collapse -
This is now colliding with today's users.
Mar 20, 2016 8:30AM PDT

Today's users do not want to become computer jockeys. I'm seeing a lot more ditch the PC for other things. Most of them seem to go get a phone or an Apple.

While I know you and Linux, that seems to scare folk, even though we know it can be easier than the work we need to do after installing Windows.

- Collapse -
I boot my linux drive only 3 or 4 times a week
Mar 22, 2016 2:38PM PDT

I have two distros on the same drive so select one or the other. I know I'll encounter 1/2 dozen updates available almost every time I use the OS. My Windows 7 updates come once a month and usually amount to anywhere from 10 to 25 needed. What this means is that my Linux drive gets more updates per month than Windows. The saving grace is that a reboot is rarely needed unless I do a kernel update. The downside is the number of times I may need to enter my password during a session. An update that leads to another update requires my password again. Hey! It's me. I'm still here. Why are you asking me again for my password when I gave it to you a minute ago? Another thing I find more convenient with Windows updates is that I can pretty much start them running and walk away. I may need to restart when I return. Some linux updates pause and require the user to make a decision. If I walk away and come back, that decision still needs to be made so it can continue. Sometimes I need to make lots of decisions which are generally just a default keystroke. Thus, I can't really say there's much difference between Windows and Linux in regards to updates or needs to do clean installs. It's tedious either way.

- Collapse -
your linux is different than mine
Mar 22, 2016 3:02PM PDT

I don't have as many updates as you do. I never had an update stop so I could make a decision. I don't mind typing my password before updating, even if it does it twice, because that is one way linux more secure than windows. All the updates you get in linux is not for the operating system, it is updates for all installed programs. The reality is, windows have a lot more updates and more than once a month if you include all installed programs. So please get your facts right.

- Collapse -
My facts are fine because they are my own experiences
Mar 22, 2016 5:05PM PDT

Yours may be different. The fact is that Windows 7 is nearly 7 years old. I'm typing this on a PC with Linux Mint 17 with an iso that I believe was released in December of '15. Naturally, it will install and update more quickly than one that's 7 years old. A more fair comparison would be to start with a 2009 release of Mint and bring it up to today's model. Think that one over...Apples and oranges? And, no, the updates are not to just the OS in Windows as it's really a collection of what Linux versions refer to as packages. It's not like DOS that came with little more than a text editor...and a crude one at that. As I mentioned, some updates I get will pause the process and ask me to decide whether to keep or not keep something. Usually these are just configuration files as part of some package. Now don't get me wrong as I'm not being critical of the Linux OS but I am being realistic in comparing its installation process to others. I've done a few hundred installations, BTW and dozens using various distributions of Linux. The installation, however, is just the beginning as it's the tweaking to get it just right that I find to take longer. Neither is something that happens in a matter of a few hours but an ongoing process with either OS.

- Collapse -
Linux provides regular updated ISO's.
Mar 22, 2016 5:26PM PDT

Which lowers the amount of updates needed on a fresh install. One can download the ISO or order a disc from osdisc dot com for about $6. If updating, no need to do a completely new install either, you can just install the newest version on top of the older one, aka "dirty install", or in some linux distros you can do the entire upgrade to the new version using the regular update program. I will admit a full update and upgrade using apt-get from the Terminal now is probably the slowest method to use, which is why the newer package managers are preferred.

- Collapse -
Another difference from my experience
Mar 23, 2016 2:24AM PDT

When installing Windows, you don't get a lot of useful applications. You build from there. When you install a Linux distribution, you get a number of specific packages that enhance it and make it more useful than a bare bones Windows install. This isn't a bad thing but I think it's wise to try and learn exactly what you're getting. You'll probably get a lot of tools to tweak and monitor your Linux installation and some are redundant. When you do updates, they will include updates to packages you never use and often have no idea what they offer. This adds time. So now, you're faced with either living with this or figuring out how to remove unwanted applications and features. For those who grew up with Linux, this may be easy. For those trying to learn it, it's not so easy. Yes, it's possible to build your own install of Linux...kernel, shell, etc., but how many really want to do that? I thought computers were meant to be time savers and not consumers of time. Happy

- Collapse -
just use the Package Manager in Linux
Mar 23, 2016 8:43AM PDT

You can fairly easy remove any programs you don't want from there. It's not unsimilar to Windows "Add/Remove Programs" in it's Control Panel area. Here's the most commonly used Package Manager in Linux distros. Very easy graphical tool to install and remove packages/programs.

- Collapse -
best thing to do
Mar 22, 2016 3:10PM PDT

I agree, updates take forever after a new install. I did a test a few years ago. I had two computers with the exact same configuration. One computer I installed linux mint, the other I installed win7, Both computers I installed the exact same programs, firefox, chrome, libre office, gimp, vlc and a few others. The only difference was in windows I had to install mse and malwarebytes.

To install linux mint, all programs, browser addons, and all updates, It took almost 2 hours. To install windows, all programs, browser addons, and all updates, took almost 13 hours.

needless to say, to this day, I do not understand why Microsoft cannot create an operating system that can install faster than it does.