One criticism of my last Vista installation time blog was that I performed an upgrade over an existing Vista beta. Fair enough comment though I think a lot of people are going to upgrade existing XP boxes instead of performing a clean installation. In any case, I decided to perform a clean installation with Build 5728 (the previous build was 5600) on the same Pentium 4 2.8GHz PC with 512MB RAM (performance rating = 1). Here’s what I saw.
- 1140 Booted PC with DVD inserted
- 1143 See Install Now screen
- 1144 Formatted the hard drive
- 1145 See message Expanding Files
- 1155 100% files expanded
- 1156 Unattended reboot after briefly seeing the message Installing Update
- 1158 Completing Installation
- 1208 Created user account
- 1210 Account login screen appears
- 1211 Desktop appears. Elected to install updates which consisted of installing the sound device driver, Windows Defender, and Windows Defender definition updates
- 1212 Vista ready to use
So, it took a grand total of 32 minutes from start to having a useable desktop to install Vista RC-1 Build 5728. I’m not sure I attribute all of the time savings (compared to nearly two hours for Build 5600) on performing a clean install though. Once at the desktop, Vista seems much more responsive than previous builds (including 5600).
The desktop PC I’m testing on is low-end (Performance Rating = 1) according to Vista. So, I’m pretty impressed by the speed at which applications like Internet Explorer and Firefox are launching and running (web page refreshes, etc.). Media Center, which was more than a little pokey in earlier releases seems faster too.
Heard from http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34626 Vista RC1 Build 5728 was not stable and it show the old "Blue Screen of Death", is it true? How many hours you have been using 5728?
Heard from http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34626 Vista RC1 Build 5728 was not stable and it show the old "Blue Screen of Death", is it true? How many hours you have been using 5728?
What is your opinion between 5600 and 5728? Which one is more stable and perform batter?
Chew: I haven't had any blue screens with Build 5728 or any other build for that matter. I have had a couple of frozen screens many builds ago but not with 5728 so far. How many hours? I built it mid-day Monday, today is Wednesday, I'd guess it has been in use for about 4 to 6 hours. So, of that time was as a Remote Connection Client to a Windows Server 2003 server. It has been turned on (but idle) for some additional number of hours. So, far it is definitely the best performing build I have tried and seems stable (no crashes).
I got BSoD's many times on 5600 but i've done a clean install of 5728 and it's working pretty well. a few minor inconveniences:
1. the DAP download basket doesn't work. it worked in 5600.
2. alcohol installs but the virtual drive drivers don't work (alcohol never even installed in 5600)
3. keyboard has started to act up, especiall the apostrophe key. i have to type twice to make anything appear and then i get '' instead of '. (used backspace once to get rid of the extra '. what the heck ?
otherwise, i agree the system is much more responsive.