Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Inside Vista's Image-Based Install Process

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the how-the-whole-bloody-thing-works dept.

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."

13 of 519 comments (clear)

  1. dual boot? by yagu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This reminds me of other Microsoft installs I've done over the years, and it smacks of such disdain for the rest of the OS universe. Nowhere in the article, nor can I find evidence anywhere else is there an accomodation for an install where XP is just another OS. I remember my first experience with this, when I installed a Win98 on a linux box, and not only did Win98 not offer a dual boot, it (seemingly) gladly removed my linux MBR and formatted my partition without asking if it was okay, and without saying it had done so. That was quite a surprise.

    Does anyone know if there is a way to do this? (Though, knowing XP can point to more than one OS to boot, I'm guessing Microsoft is more gentle if there is a pre-existing Windows OS there.)

    I've googled for dual boot information, it looks to be similar to what I already know -- it's easier to set up a dual boot machine on a pre-existing Windows machine.

    1. Re:dual boot? by Soleen · · Score: 5, Informative

      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 :-)
    2. Re:dual boot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Windows users [like me] just don't run Linux, e.g. not an issue.

    3. Re:dual boot? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Dual booting is for people who can't really decide why they bought a PC in the first place."
      And generalizations are for people who can't see uses for things outside of their own realm...

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
  2. At last by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hopefully this'll mean Windows may actually be able to deal with changing mainboard & cpu without freaking out and throwing its toys out of the pram.

    XP takes a swift nose-dive for me when I upgrade my core components; it makes upgrading an even more painful process. As for Linux, I've yet to test this, but I gather it responds much better than XP to new hardware?

    --
    throw new NoSignatureException();
    1. Re:At last by OfNoAccount · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

  3. Pros & Cons summarized by neonprimetime · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This wasn't a Pros & Cons. It was a love-fest of the new Image-Based install process. Everything he wrote in that article was happy go lucky, no cons in site.

    • this means that the image isn't a bit-for-bit image of your disk layout, and hence you can apply the image to a new system without destroying the contents of the hard drive
    • Vista is hardware-agnostic, so you can use a single system image as a source for multiple hardware platforms, even if they have quite different hardware configurations
    • When capturing a system to a WIM file you can specify exclusions. For example, you can have a work directory on the system with temporary data.
    • Interestingly you can have as many images contained within one WIM file as you think you can manage, and any one of them can be marked as bootable.
  4. File based imaging format?!?! by brunes69 · · Score: 5, Funny

    However, all this is about to change. Windows Vista is based entirely around Microsoft's Windows Imaging Format (or WIM), a file-based imaging standard rather than a sector-based. this means that the image isn't a bit-for-bit image of your disk layout, and hence you can apply the image to a new system without destroying the contents of the hard drive.

    Wow how revolutionary.

    Oh, hang on a second while I untar this archive....

  5. By the time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Vista's released, won't DVDs be obsolete anyway?

    Maybe they can put both Vista and Duke Nuke Em 3D on the same HD-DVD/BluRay disc when they're released in a few years.

  6. Article is stupid by MarkByers · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The final linked article starts with this dubious sounding statement:

    The bottom is about to fall out of the market for imaging tools like Symantec Ghost ... The Vista install DVD is, in fact, just one big system image.

    But then immediately contradicts itself by pointing out:

    But this flexibility only extends to the installation of Windows itself. To clone a full system with apps installed, Symantec Ghost or a similar utility must be used to create that image.

    People don't use Ghost to make a copy of an unconfigured fresh install of Windows, they configure it first, then Ghost it. This new installer will have no effect whatsoever on sales of Ghost, or any other imaging software. After such a terrible start to the article, I'm not sure it's even worth reading the rest.

    --
    I'll probably be modded down for this...
    1. Re:Article is stupid by mwalleisa · · Score: 5, Informative
      When talking about using Symantec Ghost (or other), the author is referring to Windows XP installations, not Vista.
      FTFA:

      In the XP world, most advanced users are used to customising the Windows install disc. It's a straightforward, if tedious, process to slipstream service packs and patches, add extra drivers and create answer files that allow XP to install with no user input.

      But this flexibility only extends to the installation of Windows itself. To clone a full system with apps installed, Symantec Ghost or a similar utility must be used to create that image.

      However, all this is about to change. Windows Vista is based entirely around Microsoft's Windows Imaging Format (or WIM), a file-based imaging standard rather than a sector-based.

      (bold emphasis = mine)
      --
      If a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind, what does your empty desk signify?
  7. Is it the same thing that we see on Ubuntu? by namityadav · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So is this revolutionary install concept an exact copy of what we see in Ubuntu?

  8. Re: Appeal to Common Practice? by E++99 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Just to play Devil's Advocate here, but why SHOULD they facilitate the use of other OS'es? Look at the customers who make up 99% of their base:
    In logical terms this is a fallacy known as an Appeal to Common Practice.
    If Linux distros can do it then Windows should be able to do it and should actually do it.
    That's hillarious. You mislabel the argument you're responding to as "Appeal to Common Practice", and then you put forth your own arguement, which IS the fallacy of "Appeal to Common Practice"!