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

Dear Forum Moderator,

Please, explain the rationale of your request to post reactions to the slow updates of Vista to a new thread. 

I initiated this thread and found the reactions quite useful (including this long post explaining what the problems (really) are). 

Although it did not help solving the problem, it was most interesting as the first reactions I got from "Microsoft Professionals" were essentially to deny what everyone could see and experience (i.e. that Vista updates ARE slow).

So, please, leave this thread open for further insights in the problem, and, hopefully, a communication from Microsoft that they have realized what the problem was and that a solution is on its way.  I guess someone in Microsoft some day said "we listen to you" ...  It is now time to really listen and this thread is where Microsoft should listen...

Regards,

Hey all,

Search google for 'Advanced System Care' install it and run 'Security Holes Scanner' Found in its toolbox. It wont find the Vista SP1 update but will find the other updates.

Good luck,

Mark

Thank you for popping up in this thread.

However, I do not really see the point you try to make.  Our question was why Windows updates were so slow with Vista compared to XP.  Would 'Advanced System Care" provide a solution (we have seen the explanation in this thread; check a few replies above).  If yes, where can we find it and is it safe ?

The main reason why Vista and Win7 updates seem to take a long time is the fact Microsoft has bundled many updates together. If you watch your status of  your internet connection while observing the update progress, the download will pause for several minutes. The reasoning why this happens is there are a set of updates that are installing in the background, in which the trustedinstaller.exe is taking priority. The download will resume until it reaches a set category of updates that need installed before other updates can be.  Rather slick actually.

If you would time the whole process vs. the XP process. I'd say its about the same. Plus this process will be painstakingly long if you are updating from a OEM install image or installation disc.

If you are really worried about this you can slipstream your Vista or Win7 installation images with redistributable  service packs which are available on MSDN TechNet.

Hope this quiets down the controversy.

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 ?