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

Hi bornival,

Welcome to Microsoft Answers Forum.

Time taken by Windows updates depend on the type of Internet connection you have and the size and number of updates your computer needs. However, updates are automatically downloaded behind the scenes when you're online. They do not interfere with other downloads, and if you disconnect they will continue to download in the background the next time you go online.

For answers to some common questions about updating Windows automatically, refer

UnderstandingWindows automatic updating

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-vista/Understanding-Windows-automatic-updating

For answers to some common questions about updates, see

Updates: frequently asked questions

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-vista/Updates-frequently-asked-questions

Hope this answers your question.

Regards,

Shinmila H - Microsoft Support

Visit our Microsoft Answers Feedback Forumand let us know what you think

To add to what Shinmila H said,

Most large updates require a two step proceedure based upon the nature of the install process. As a basic analogy, 'you cannot fix a car that someone is driving'. If you are simply installing a small number of updates (of small file size) then you may be experiencing something unintended with the installer.

If you could provide us with an example of a list of updates that took longer than usual, we may be able to give you a more specifc answer.

Thanks!

Ryan Thieman

Microsoft Answers Support Engineer

Visit our Microsoft Answers Feedback Forum and let us know what you think.

Thank you for these replies.

I had read most of the "common answers" before posting my question.

The main point is that I oversee a series of machines running WinXP and one running Vista.  That one is ALWAYS much slower

• to donwload the updates (sometimes it looks as if the server does not send anything for several seconds or even minutes), as if the servers on which the VISTA updates ate housed would be much less efficient (or have a lower bandwidth) compared to those housing the XP updates.  Is this a first possibility ?
• to install these updates (this may have to do with the computer, but my guess is that it is due to VISTA. Are they benchmarks for installing similar updates on XP and VISTA ?
• in imposing a first post-installation process when shutting the computer AND and a second when restarting.  This never (or almost) never happen with XP.

or a

I did not run benchmarks to compute the time ofr updating this Vista computer but the average is about 30 min for a "common" update... vs 5-10 min for an XP machine. 

Will this be improved with Windows 7 ?

Just to finish on this, I timed the length of update with XP and Vista for the last updates published by Microsoft earlier this month (about 10 days ago):

• XP: downloading, installaling and retarting: about 11 minutes
• VISTA: downloading, installing, restarting, configuring during shutting down, configuring during starting up: about 30 minutes.

This makes clear that VISTA is much slower for updating...

Shinmila's and Ryan's answers still do not address the original question... one that I've been looking for an answer to for quite some time.

The question was about a COMPARISON to the updating procedures for Xp and Vista (and now Windows 7, which appears to have the same issue).

When you use XP to download from the http://www.windowsupdate.com web site, it seems to update rather quickly.  This option is not available in Windows Vista or 7.  Windows Vista and 7 takes much longer than XP to install the SAME KINDS OF UPDATES.

First of all, why?

Second of all, is there a way to speed it up in Vista/7?  It's annoying.