Slashdot Mirror
Inside Vista's Image-Based Install Process
KrispyGlider writes "Vista's installation process is dramatically different from any previous version of Windows: rather than being an 'installer,' the install DVD is actually a preinstalled copy of Windows that simply gets decompressed onto your PC. It is hardware agnostic, so it can adjust to different systems, and you can also install your own apps into it so that your Vista install becomes a full system image install. APCMag.com has published an interview with a Microsoft Australia tech specialist on the inner workings of it as well as a story that looks at some of the pros and cons of image-based installs."
You can format, delete, or leave anoutched any partitions you want. becisally the same as in Windows XP, except they added GUI to that, and also you can't format into FAT32, it must NTFS from now on. As far as Boot Sectors go, I think Vista still does not give you any choices...
LiFe iS bEAuTiFul
frankly im waiting for someone to give me the ability to "Alt Tab" between OSs. i'd love to run linux primary and just alt tab to windows when i need to do MS shit.
Have you tried VMWare (or any other virtualization system)?
This guy's the limit!
Fedora will help you setup dualboot.
Gentoo users [like me] just don't run Windows, e.g. not an issue.
tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
The thing is that unlike the Windows' MBR, grub can actually be configured to run the other OS if the user wants. Most distros autodetect and add the appropriate configs, so that there's zero effort needed.
Installing Windows just nukes the existing MBR and the only thing you can do is run Windows, or start searching for a rescue cd/floppy.
I know XP actually offers to NOT format the install partition for you, which is nice if Windows has bricked and you don't do backups as often as you should.
Vista can install to a secondary hard drive (from what I read it's the first MS OS to be able to do so, probably thanks to the new boot loader) and it automatically supports dual booting with older Windows' (NT based at least) and will detect them and automatically set up the boot loader (it can be changed with bcdedit.exe and there are a couple unofficial GUI tools as well).
I don't know if it supports Linux. bcdedit.exe allows you to specify a drive and path to the OS loader file, but I'm guessing the boot loader probably only supports NTFS and FAT32...
Also it's worth noting Vista's bcdedit.exe can be used from within XP successfully,
I'd say it is much different from copying files because it has to test for all kinds of hardware, generate a lot of configs and other file structures.
The alternative to the image based install? Up until recently the betas have used the traditional installer and it was like watching paint dry - literally, it took 2 to 3 hours (with a non-working progress bar to boot). The latest beta took about 20min to install and an extra 10min to do first boot configuration.
Compared to XP's install, Vista takes maybe 10 minutes longer and that's not bad considering the astounding 12GiB (for the x64 version. I think x86 takes 8GiB) it copies to the HDD.
Simple solution - immediately before you upgrade a major component, run:
sysprep -nosidgen
You have the choice of running with existing settings or running mini-setup if you're running XP SP2. The only thing I can't recall is what effect that'll have on activation...
Otherwise the only other thing you'll have problems with is changing the underlying HAL from ACPI to non-ACPI.
See: MS sysprep kb article and more usefully Killian's sysprep guide
Booting another OS from the NT boot loader is significantly more difficult than using a Linux boot loader GUI setup tool.
The difference is quite extreme. Using tools like DD to generate copies of boot sectors, and then learning the NT boot.ini conventions is beyond most power users.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
The new duo core CPUs have facilities for this. See Parallels for the first signs of alt tab'ing between OS'es.
In addition rumor has it that Leopard (the next version of OS X) will have something like this built in.
On linux responding better when upgrading MB, or CPU...No, Not really. I have tried, and it pukes just as readily.
----- I have bad karma for a reason! -----
He mentioned corrupt boot sectors (no boot sectors or boot sector virus), but primarily emphasized the user freindliness for those users who try to install/upgrade. He also mentioned that it wasn't possible for MS to code for every single "foreign" boot sector out there.
Prove it.
FTFA:
(bold emphasis = mine)
If a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind, what does your empty desk signify?
This is no different; currently it doesn't support multicasting and so although it's 'revolutionary' (read: RIS) it still doesn't beat the ability to push down and image to a workstation is less than 20 minutes...oops, did I say a workstation, I meant a lab.
Windows Deployment Services, the replacement for RIS that will be comming out around the same time Vista ships, does exactly that. RIS only does the OS install well. Once you create your master image, you can place that onto a WDS server and multicast it out to as many computers as you have bandwidth. My current image when run deployed with imageX comes in at 25% less space (both images on max compression) and deploys in aprox 12 min for the image copy, plus the normal mini-setup time.
Ghost aint going away, but it will be eaten away from at the bottom with WDS.
and that's not bad considering the astounding 12GiB (for the x64 version. I think x86 takes 8GiB) it copies to the HDD.
Not to nitpick, but it's GB, not GiB. The OS uses the term Gigabyte, and since that is the unit of measure as defined by the environment you are testing then it makes sense to use it and not another term.
Yes, I know Gigabyte doesn't follow the standard SI units, but that's language for you.
Microsoft generally thinks you should buy another copy of Windows if you change motherboards for any other reason than a defective board.
Why? The term "convicted monpolist" is correct. Feel free to browse the DOJ website
There's really no debate on the matter. Legally, MS is a convicted monopolist. Additionally, you won't find market analysts who would qualify Microsoft as anything but a monopoly. Furthermore, one can statistically demonstrate Microsoft's collection of monopoly profits. And the courts have repeatedly found (including appeals) that Microsoft abuses its market position.
Once again, I love Microsoft trolls. However, it'll be more fun if you try and make arguments, rather than simply using your Authority as an Anonymous Coward. So please, discuss.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
If you're not a Windows user, this can be confusing. Not confusing on the order of Linux, but I digress...
First, copy everything from the old drive to the new drive. Remove the old drive. Boot off of a Windows cd, and tell it to do a repair install. A few minutes later, you're done.
WDS doesn't support multicast - first poster was right.
Depending on how you set up your system, the maximum file size in NTFS is either 18EB or 32*16EB.
NTFS is, was, and always has been a 64-bit file system -- 11 years and counting.
Most (all?) versions include security permissions (user/group/other, etc). Not sure about ACLs, I don't use them on *nix.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
One is a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. The other is in our quadrant a few centuries into the future. There is no mention there of alternative universes.
Rule 1 of arguing about sci-fi on the internet: all sci-fi is true. Where there is a seeming contradiction, it must be explained away somehow (other dimensions, etc.). It's a lot like religion, but we don't start wars, and our arguments are at least partially based on reality.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.