It could take more than 20 hours to perform an upgrade installation of Windows 7. But for most, it'll take about two or three. [Chris Hernandez]
9 Comments
Leave a comment
RECENT COMMENTS
"Do they assume Powerusers will not have a "low-end" system? And since when is a ..."
daniel.dee on ...
"No, the amount of time this will take out of my life will be zero...."
"I like how that website doesn't work unless your horizontal resolution is gre..."
"I have never found anything other than a clean install to be worth the inevitabl..."
"The upgrade took about 90 minutes for me on two different machines (I'm a develo..."
"@3 So did installing Service Pack 1. Heyo!..."
"Upgrading from Mac OS 10.4 (Tiger) to 10.6 (Snow Leopard) took 45 minutes. Ju..."
"I imagine the Win 7 install shuffles some data around to try and install in a co..."
dculberson on ...
"Seems odd that the amount of data files would affect the upgrade time. What, do..."
AT |
|
- Student kills burglary suspect with Samurai sword
- Ariel: the unabridged, DRM-free audiobook of the classic swords-and-sorcery post-apocalyptic adventure
- List of books read by backpackers
- BBC wants to put DRM on the TV Brits are forced to pay for
- 1917 Beekman Street Subway collapse
- RFID Rube Goldberg device
- Amateur science tools and resources at Make's new Science Room
- Treehugger profiles off-gridders Abe and Josie about their desert homestead
- The Planet of Storms - 1962 Russian science fiction movie
- Bulletproof glass demonstration
dculberson
#1 – 7:29 AM September 14, 2009
Seems odd that the amount of data files would affect the upgrade time. What, does it need to play each movie through to make sure it's non-infringing?
(And if the data files don't affect the upgrade time, why mention them?)
Agies
#2 – 8:41 AM September 14, 2009
I imagine the Win 7 install shuffles some data around to try and install in a contiguous area. Plus it probably re-indexes any indexed folders and most likely rebuilds the user directories where data files are often stored these days.
Alan
#3 – 9:16 AM September 14, 2009
Upgrading from Mac OS 10.4 (Tiger) to 10.6 (Snow Leopard) took 45 minutes.
Just saying.
Agies
#4 – 9:45 AM September 14, 2009
@3 So did installing Service Pack 1. Heyo!
stjarna
#5 – 10:14 AM September 14, 2009
The upgrade took about 90 minutes for me on two different machines (I'm a developer, so get these things early!). I can imagine 20 hours being a bit of an extreme case (lots of fragmented files, slower hardware...).
Stuart
#6 – 10:54 AM September 14, 2009
I have never found anything other than a clean install to be worth the inevitable grief down the road (because it never hard-fails immediately, it's always something subtly fatal over days or weeks).
2-3 hours for an upgrade are times that I would consider unacceptable, but more than 20!? No effing way!
Anonymous Anonymous
#7 – 6:32 PM September 14, 2009
I like how that website doesn't work unless your horizontal resolution is greater than 1610 pixels... It doesn't even display right on 1600x1200, you need a bigger monitor or a two monitor setup or else some of the text is cut off.
I actually had to stretch the window across two monitors to read it... Isn't HTML designed to accommodate such things, or did this guy miss the memo?
daniel.dee
#8 – 7:54 PM September 14, 2009
No, the amount of time this will take out of my life will be zero.
roguecnidarian
#9 – 10:26 PM September 14, 2009
Do they assume Powerusers will not have a "low-end" system? And since when is a 64-bit processor "low-end"? (Says me, who still thinks his G5 PowerMac is a fast thing). And what, exactly, is x64? Is this a new architecture? The only current 64-bit processor architecture I know of is x86-I64.
I mourn the passing of the RISC PowerPC age more every day.