What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
70 Comments
- Xorsist, on 10/12/2007, -5/+53so you would rather them not implement this?
- borninda818, on 10/12/2007, -11/+48They are the pack
- bdub92, on 10/12/2007, -1/+34It may not be innovation, but who ever said that taking a good idea from a company and using it to better your product was a bad idea? This is a great method, and so what if "LINUX DID IT!" what really matters is what the consumer is getting.
- apotropaic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28This is great news. I have installed previous versions of windows on the same box, 2 times within an hour and gotten different restults. I also just understand that it was this way because it tried to figure everything in a sub-par kernel version. So now instead it decompresses the image and then boots into Vista and then installs all the correct drivers and all the good stuff.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25Stupid jerks are still using the 'M$' thing?
When will they grow the hell up?? - Mikekuul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19@baugles:
Not everyone expects to get dugg, and not everyone has the money for it either. - KWhat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20From a sys-admin point of view, I hope this is going to make windows easier to deploy across hardware from custom images. Windows xp is a headache to image on different hardware. If even the memory is different it freaks out and wont boot. Linux is much more robust in this area where I can image Linux to just about anything and it will work just fine. Finally starting to move in the right direction although MS still has alot of work ahead of them.
- Vokas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10not to mention that the number of diggs it has, has nothing to do with how many people went to the site...
- Denver80203, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"Windows xp is a headache to image on different hardware"
ahh you have not learned the magic of Microsoft's sysprep! Free on the CD or as part of the uncompressed SP2 image.
I have one image that spans 15 different machine types including laptops. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9So how long is your typical install then?
XP takes me about 15-20 mins. - kevinmtu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11http://duggmirror.com/tech_news/Inside_Vista_s_new_image_based_install_3/
- waffffffle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Krakn3Dfx, while I do not want to credit Microsoft as an innovator, Active Directory is actually an intelligent combination of existing technologies. There were plenty of LDAPs out there when Microsoft released AD, but an out-of-the box kerberized deployment with a published schema and SMB integration is a nice solution, albeit exorbitantly priced.
I credit Apple with their LDAP+Kerberos combo, Open Directory, which offers much of the same for far less money. - GliTCH82, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I have been deploying Windows XP installation images across different hardware for a while now using Acronis Snap Deploy, with Universal Restore.
I'm definitely interested in the WIM standard and look forward to testing it out. - Snowcone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4KWhat
I read last week that you can modify Vista images offline instead of having to image a machine, make the changes, and then take the image again. I don't have a link to the info, but that is how i understand it. - d722002, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Fastest Windows Install:
Windows for Workgroups 3.11 from Custom-made CD
Pentium 4
512 MB RAM
~20 Seconds. - gr0ss, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12I think it is "innovating" for them, they took an idea and used it to what they wanted to do, that to me is innovation. I would call bull if they claimed they came up with the idea for OS's though.
- archer75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I have been using build 5744 64bit and it works great. As long as hardware vendors provide the drivers there is nothing to worry about.
- Alegis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Installs speeded up after beta 2. RTM now is faster than RC1 or 5728.
~10-11 minutes, it's a very nice improvement.
Bad part is though it does take a big chunk of Hard Disk space while unpacking, say 15gb. - d722002, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It actually comes with a number of recovery tools, much better than XP ever did, and they're much easier to use. Vista can even repair some XP installs in certain cases.
- Markie1006, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"I spent some time working with a similar technology recently. I spent a morning at a company that rebuilds old computers for kids who can't afford them. They have a win2k image on a network share that a program pulls off and decompresses onto the HDD."
I hope you paid your Microsoft Tax for those new installs.
I'm pretty sure it would be against the EULA to use a companies VLK like that. - pinky24, on 10/12/2007, -7/+942 diggs and it's down
- Kratos76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Botrax: maybe if you're using a sup-par machine that's several years old. Even on my 3 year old p4 2.4ghz with 1gb ram the install was finished in 20 mins. XP takes at Least 45mins, and that's if you don't format.
- deansfurniture5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2...this was published in July...
- estvir, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10@Krakn3Dfx
Basically everything you listed Microsoft had out YEARS before the things they 'copied' where out. - EGO822, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3A little off topic, but is this going to be a 64 bit operating system that is actually worth installing or should we still stick with the 32 bit version?
- robohoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I hope some geeks start putting on recovery programs onto the Vista "LiveCD" installer - if it doesn't have any.
They should make something along the lines of Ultimate Boot Disk while they're at it. - rusty075, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3From personal experience going from formatted disk to desktop took about 10 minutes. Probably less if I would sit in front of the machine as it actually loaded, instead of wandering away and checking back to see if it was waiting for input. That 10 minutes is with fairly middle-of-the-road hardware. (2.8ghzx2, 1gig ram, single HDD)
- TheG2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Time for me to get some Google stock then!
- Muncher, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2How does the upgrade installation work? I've always avoided the "upgrade" versions of Windows like the plague but is this different?
Edit: Sorry, now I've read the article. Digg me down. - bevans, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2nhaas is correct. The latest isn't always the greatest.
- AzraelRenegades, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's like the episode of South Park where every plot device had already been done on The Simpsons. "Simpsons did it! Simpsons did it!"
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So...where are the screen shots?
- Denver80203, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1XP from an image takes me about 6 minutes to load. That's with the image sitting on a GB network fully loaded with all patches, office and basic applications like virus software, oracle. The image I use is about 2GB large compressed.
I would expect that vista (no experience yet) would be about the same or better fo the OS alone. - spiffytech, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I spent some time working with a similar technology recently. I spent a morning at a company that rebuilds old computers for kids who can't afford them. They have a win2k image on a network share that a program pulls off and decompresses onto the HDD. It worked a million times better in terms of hardware detection than Windows ever does with an install.
- miker71, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So the image takes up to 10 minutes to "install"? Does this include account creation with a passphrase?
What happens after the "install"? You can dive straight into websurfing, DVD authoring, mounting ISO images, watching DVDs, etc? Or do you in reality have to "wait" and "install" third party software? - BassJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1All sounds good from a system-deployment point of view - being able to have a single image to build any machine (well 2 tops, 32 and 64 bit versions) will greatly help many IT admins I imagine! I've been into a few companies now that use Ghost to recover machines and I'd have to guess how much HDD space is used on servers to allow for each machines image to be kept and even this is affected by how "organized" the company is with their IT infrastructure (consistent brand/models).
I do fear tho that this method will make it a bit easier for the pirates to get a "cracked" copy out and install some nice surprises with it! - jrbrewin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1exactly. If you have signed drivers for all your hardware, go for 64bit, it'll be worth it. Having said that, who has signed drivers for all their hardware? Practically no one.
- jrbrewin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the charity was probably sticking to the oem builds of windows, and therefore sticking to the license agreement for oem operating system installs. The live and die with the hardware, not the userbase.
- DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It just came out a few days ago...
- DucksofAnaheim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Leo Laporte is saying this is really fast...it actually blasts an .iso file right onto the HDD.
- cwiz7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I was installing the RTM and I noticed the significant install speed increase. In early beta though, it was painfully slow.
- doc99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But to be fair, Didn't Apple do this like YEARS ago or in a very simaler way?
But ... Don't digg me down i'm not being a FanBoy (which I litterly am) - jrbrewin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1despite what people who don't understand disk images say, file based disk imaging is a huge step forward, and i applaud microsoft for looking at a solution that was in place, albeit one that was clunky, and cumbersome, and realising what it could do to improve it. WIM is excellent, works well, addresses many issues, and speeds up deployment times of xp and windows. add that to business destkop deployment (BDD) (a user front end for creating images, coupled with app deployment, os deployment, network boots, and driver injection), and the desktop optimisation pack (which offers great asset management, enhanced group policy management, and the excellent application virtualisation in softgrid), both of which are free bundles from microsoft and it's not hard to see where microsoft are not only improving what came before, but making leap and bounds above everyone else too. It's just a shame they've had to buy in some of these solutions (softricity, desktopstandard, etc) instead of providing them firsthand, years ago.
BDD - http://www.microsoft.com/technet/desktopdeployment/default.mspx
DOP - http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/optimizeddesktop.mspx - jrbrewin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1even with xp images, ideally you have to go through mini setup to rejoin the domain, change computer name, etc. Add to that if you're doing a hardware re-detect it can take up to 10 minutes just for mini-setup. That's AFTER applying your image.
- jrbrewin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1suckmydigg, you sound like one of my users. Complacent and whiney. Often deployments have headaches only because the users demand to use applications which are 10+ years old, and the business doesn't want to spend a little money updating it, or users want IT to pay them to go on training courses.
Tech support in any company doesn't enjoy listening to users whine, so despite what you think, we don't update software just so you'll come and talk at us. - bultaco370, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8I would love to troll on the premise that the vista install being image based has been on digg in some form or another for over a year, but that wouldn't be the digg spirit would it?
Digg me down :) - NinjaDuck12, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2It makes sense when you realize it takes up 6 GB on install.
- nhaas, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Well wait a year to deploy, or at least until after the first fix pack. Then you will be fine. No one in the right mind installs a first version. Any good admin waits until the first round of idiots to install. Its called quality control....:>
- Siraris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Welcome to 6 months ago!
- dreadinc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0depends what u use it for EGO822
-
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is