Why are Windows updates so slow (and long) with VISTA

I have just bough a second hand Windows Vista laptop,and I have exactly the same problem.

The laptop has Windows Vista Home Premium but it does not have any service packs installed. And it took me 3 hours to download and install 100 updates. And after the computer restarts to configure the updates, this also is slow and takes longer than this does on my Windows 7 laptops.

So it seems that I am not the only one who has found Windows Vista to be slower than Windows 7 and Windows XP. I have several other laptops both Windows 7 and Windows XP. And on Windows XP it only takes about 30 minutes to install over 100 updates, you have to install on first time set up. And on Windows 7 it takes 40 minutes or 1 hour if you are unlucky.

But on Windows Vista it has taken me twice as long to install all of the updates that I have had to. Because I only bought the laptop 2 days ago.So I am setting it up for the first time.

But it could be because the laptop is second hand and must be quite old. As it only has got Windows Vista home premium WITHOUT Service Pack 1 and Service Pack 2. So when I have finished updating. I will have to install both Service Pack 1 and Service Pack 2. As you have to have Service Pack 2 installed to get any further updates. And you cannot install Service Pack 2 without installing Service Pack 1 first. So in addition to the updates I will have to install 2 service packs.

But on Windows 7 I don't have this problem,as updates take a lot less time to install. And so did the service pack. But it seems on Windows Vista it is a different story.

But it could be the laptop that is the problem.Because it is second hand and an older model. Not the Windows Vista operating system it comes with. But I have all of the Windows Vista software on my Windows 7. That I have installed myself-Windows Mail,Windows Movie Maker 6 and 2.6,Windows Calendar and Windows Sidebar are all running on Windows 7 without any problems.

But it does seems that Windows Vista is slower than Windows 7 and Windows XP. But as I mentioned it could just be the laptop I am running it on. But if I could run Windows Vista on a new laptop it may be different. Andrea Borman.

Thank you for visiting the Microsoft Windows Community site. In an effort to focus more attention on your particular situation create a new thread here.  This will mitigate confusion caused by more than one posting about similar   topics, allowing us to focus on each customer individually

Thank you for visiting the Microsoft Windows Community site.

Dear Moderator,

Sorry but this thread that I initiated is still quite narrowly focused on its initial topic (Why are Windows update so slow with Vista or Win7 compared to WinXP). 

I do not see the reason for creating a new thread. 

Some of the answers were instructive but not definitive. 

Rather than suggesting to start a new thread, I guess that it would be more constructive if you, as Moderator, could get authoritative information from experts about this problem (that seems to affect many of us).

Understanding is often the beginning of curing... 

Very cordially yours,

Paul.

Thank you for visiting the Microsoft Windows Community site. In an effort to focus more attention on your particular situation create a new thread here.  This will mitigate confusion caused by more than one posting about similar   topics, allowing us to focus on each customer individually

Thank you for visiting the Microsoft Windows Community site.

you didn't answer the question.  I have the updates on my Laptop set so the need my approval before downloading.  I just downloaded a 12 mb update and it took 15 minutes on a wireless network with a speed test results of 11 mbps.

Please answser the question ths time?

Why do they take so long?

Thank you for your contribution.

I do not entirely agree with you concerning the duration of a "whole process" of updating with Vista vs. XP.  I have timed it several times with two computers (one Vista and on XP) using the same connection (but in succession, to make sure one computer is not slowed down for downloading because of the other) and each time XP has been much faster in all respects (downloading, installing and return to effective work).

Nevertheless, your point is well taken about the long pauses Vista has during the downloads.  If what you say is correct (Vista is installing in the background during downloads), it would have been more sensible to tell the user about that (by a simple pop-up that wold say "Installing - Download will resume after this step...") rather than simply showing what looks like a "idle download" that misleads the user.

Coming to redistributable service packs, this is a good idea ... but you have to really search to find them and o all Microsoft sites, its is stated that using automatic downloads is the preferred way (see  http://support.microsoft.com/kb/935791).  So, what is the best ?