Windows 8 installed in 8 minutes on a machine with 24 GB of ram

Earlier today the first images of Windows 8 hit the web and with them came a bit of information that seemed suspicious about Windows 8 M3 being installed in 8 minutes. But after looking deeper into the source of the information, the source disclosed a bit of details about the machine that was used to test Windows 8 M3.

The source said that the machine used to test M3 had 24GB of RAM and an 8 core processor, hardly commonplace at this time. But the source did state that it was not an SSD that was in the machine but instead a traditional 2 TB hard drive. Finally, it was most likely installed from local storage and not from a DVD. While an 8 minute install time is something to lust after, it is highly unlikely that end users will experience an install that is anything close to that speed. 

Even though the machine is far superior to that of the average consumer, there is still hope that Windows 8 will install faster than its predecessor. But, if you are expecting to drop the DVD in, wait 8 minutes, and be up and running in Windows 8, you will be sadly disappointed.  

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

iOS 4.3 GM seeded to developers

Next Story

Microsoft tablet OS not slated until fall 2012?

85 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I'm happy to wait the 15 minutes for it to install.
I do other jobs while it is installing, like washing up, tidying up, sorting out my DVDs and such.

This is not really impressive. W7 Installs on my crappy Dell D630 latitude in at 12 minutes from a flash drive.

Dell latitude D630
Intel Core 2 T7250 @2.0Ghz
2G DDR2 800
Seagate 250G 7200RPM.

I never have it take more than 15min from boot to install to usable desktop.

CyberWolf said,
This is not really impressive. W7 Installs on my crappy Dell D630 latitude in at 12 minutes from a flash drive.

Yep, and no read errors. WinToFlash is great. Tho Win7 rarely needs need to be reinstalled. But it's a good chance to create a spare partion or delete the recovery partion if you don't need it.

24GB of ram just to install a milestone?!. Wait, then to use the final **** you will need like 128GB or 1TB?!. And a browser will require 4GB min!!. haha. I better keep with my phone, which I dont need to update with ****. Thats why consoles are by far better!. You dont need to spend for a new hardware everytime a stupid game is released. Crysis 2 needs a lot of everything and the 360 has ALWAYS the same hardware!.

Gutierrez said,
24GB of ram just to install a milestone?!. Wait, then to use the final **** you will need like 128GB or 1TB?!. And a browser will require 4GB min!!. haha. I better keep with my phone, which I dont need to update with ****. Thats why consoles are by far better!. You dont need to spend for a new hardware everytime a stupid game is released. Crysis 2 needs a lot of everything and the 360 has ALWAYS the same hardware!.

crysis 2 has lower spec then the original crysis

Personally...24 GB of RAM is overkill...even for the most extreme of gamers. I have 12GB on my PC and tried to use up all my 12GB of RAM by running 2 different Call of Duty games and KillZone 3 all at the same time and never came close to using up my RAM.

I just find it humorous that by the time Windows 8 comes out..there will be PCs with 8 cores and probably 64GB of RAM.

That's just silly to have that kind of power when you will never come close to utilizing all of that.

texasghost said,
Personally...24 GB of RAM is overkill...even for the most extreme of gamers. I have 12GB on my PC and tried to use up all my 12GB of RAM by running 2 different Call of Duty games and KillZone 3 all at the same time and never came close to using up my RAM.

I just find it humorous that by the time Windows 8 comes out..there will be PCs with 8 cores and probably 64GB of RAM.

That's just silly to have that kind of power when you will never come close to utilizing all of that.

Yea well, 24GB is the last spec that matters during the install of the system TBH, even if it had 2GB ram it would have installed just as quick.

texasghost said,
Personally...24 GB of RAM is overkill...That's just silly to have that kind of power when you will never come close to utilizing all of that.

Remember though, people said this about 500Mb hard drives.

These days, you'll be hard pushed to find (a modern/new) one under 500Gb.

Why dont they say, the new op.sys will be 2,5 times faster, and uses half amount of memory. Somehow I miss these kind of adverts from MS...
I don't care about the 20-30minutes install, most people do it once in one or two years.

2011 and 2012 will be the year to see 4 core 8 thread and 6 core 12 threads become common place once AMD drops bulldozer.

Well, the machine's spec is quite impressive... if (as rumored) W8 is expected to be released as soon as possible to recover MS disvantage in the fast growing segment of tablet and ultraportable computing, even in 2012 those specs will probably widely outperform the average machine types targeted by the new release, which makes such comparison a bit senseless.

Anyway, per-se it is not an impressive result, as instead of a full installation from scratches from a generic (and slow!) disk the installation process shifts more and more toward being a restore of a minimal standard system from image on a fast unit (i.e. a SSD), skipping the time consuming peripherals setup and configuration and all that stuff.
This, even on a tablet, would be very fast and very feasible as ultraportable computers usually comes with few costomisation options and producers could release machines containing very good and complete "factory restore" images.

hmm.
8-Core > Sandybridge
24GB Ram > DDR3
*sigh* and here I am still using a Core 2 Duo E8500 w/ 2GB of ram and still think its pretty nice.
This next upgrade better be worth the $$, I want to floss with Win8

netsendjoe said,
hmm.
8-Core > Sandybridge
24GB Ram > DDR3
*sigh* and here I am still using a Core 2 Duo E8500 w/ 2GB of ram and still think its pretty nice.
This next upgrade better be worth the $, I want to floss with Win8

My laptop has an Intel Core 2 Duo T5450 (1.66) w/ 2 ram, and it runs fine and all, but I've had it about 5 years now, and with the mouse, battery, and power cord starting to die, I'm finding even more incentive to upgrade, haha.

A full install from scratches is far slower either for Windows, Linux or BSD systems, and the more pheripherals you support the more it will take to test the whole database of hardware.
The whole point is that starting a disk image is much more faster, if you restore a Norton Ghost image of a Windows' disk it would not take longer than restoring an image of a Linux distribution or to start a Linux live image.
MS is trying to close the gap with other systems that makes the whole thing simpler than it is with Windows (WinPE in fact cannot even touch the usefulness of a Linux live image) making the whole install process more relying on disk images, and making simpler (with 7, and I bet with 8) to build up preloaded images for third party distributors without needing to rely (and pay royalties for every machine...) on third parts solution like Norton Ghost.

A full install from scratches is far slower either for Windows, Linux or BSD systems, and the more pheripherals you support the more it will take to test the whole database of hardware.
The whole point is that starting a disk image is much more faster, if you restore a Norton Ghost image of a Windows' disk it would not take longer than restoring an image of a Linux distribution or to start a Linux live image.
MS is trying to close the gap with other systems that makes the whole thing simpler than it is with Windows (WinPE in fact cannot even touch the usefulness of a Linux live image) making the whole install process more relying on disk images, and making simpler (with 7, and I bet with 8) to build up preloaded images for third party distributors without needing to rely (and pay royalties for every machine...) on third parts solution like Norton Ghost.

I don't think that you can improve the speed of the installation with RAM and more cores...if they use a usual hard-disk that is still damn fast...

windows 8 + 24 GB ram?
well, I guess it will worth every penny, since we will get smart sticky notes...
Jesus *** Christ

I see it coming: MS will tell as that Win 8 will boot much faster as its predecessors. Again. Like they did for Vista, like they did for 7. I wished they'd deliver some day.

With a dual core AMD Athlon 7850 Black 2.8 GHz CPU, 4 GB of RAM, I installed Windows 7 from a jump-drive to my SSD in 10 minutes flat from first boot to first login screen. So I can see the 8 in 8 with a faster machine and 6 times as much RAM, even on a SATA drive.

This really isn't that special. I just tested out the install time for Windows 7 x64 SP1 on my Core i5 2500K with 8GB RAM and a 5900RPM 2TB drive. It took 11 minutes from first boot of the install DVD to the welcome screen for Windows 7 where you set up your username and timezone.

As long as it don't come on 14 floppy disks and crash every 3 hours (ala Windows 95) I don't mind how long it takes, long as it works

Windows 7 installed in about the same time under the similar condition, local storage. Seriously Windows 7 installation is fast already and we are very limited to DVD speed.

This guy had to be using a USB thumb drive to install or from a network. My installation took about 15 minutes using the standard DVD drive.

I would say .. by the time Windows 8 is release 6 core processors will be standard, 8 and 12
cores will be for power users. Most likely hard drives will be hybrid design using tech from
blue-ray drives. Using lasers to read and write to the disk platters and hybrid flash chips for
storing, buffering the data streams. Maybe even Intel's new Thunderbolt tech could speed
up the blow of data too.

Intel just released Thunderbolt tech in Apples laptops. I can see that tech moving over to
the PC in the coming months. Having a Blue-ray drive with transfer rates around 10GBs
would increase the overall install of the next release of Windows.

Better, faster hardware is always a plus ..

GenBlood said,
I would say .. by the time Windows 8 is release 6 core processors will be standard, 8 and 12
cores will be for power users. Most likely hard drives will be hybrid design using tech from
blue-ray drives. Using lasers to read and write to the disk platters and hybrid flash chips for
storing, buffering the data streams. Maybe even Intel's new Thunderbolt tech could speed
up the blow of data too.

Intel just released Thunderbolt tech in Apples laptops. I can see that tech moving over to
the PC in the coming months. Having a Blue-ray drive with transfer rates around 10GBs
would increase the overall install of the next release of Windows.

Better, faster hardware is always a plus ..

A Blu-ray drive today cannot even fill up a SATA 1 data channel which is 1.5Gbps, a 12x Blu-Ray is roughly the max and only reads at a little over 400Mbps, there is just no way a Blu-Ray drive is going to come close to Thunderbolt's initial speed cap. A conventional hard drive is still faster generally than a Blu-Ray reader, plus the dye would ever sustain the usage a HDD gets put through.

I'd see more hybrid drives like the Momentus XT with SSD and HDD put together, and people wil be using the Intel SSD caching to build a hybrid from a small SSD witha large HDD.

the article doesn't really make much sense... I don't think 24GB RAM would make much difference at all to install time... CPU would make a little difference from an old slow processor, but once again, not much.

It is more likely that Microsoft is doing away with the cumbersome configuration processes that run during installation and pretty much doing just a straight copy of the operating system files and some basic driver stuff. All this sort of thing is probably more geared towards simplifying rollouts in the enterprise than caring how long a home install takes considering average joe would probably install the OS only once anyway

kowcop said,
the article doesn't really make much sense... I don't think 24GB RAM would make much difference at all to install time... CPU would make a little difference from an old slow processor, but once again, not much.

It is more likely that Microsoft is doing away with the cumbersome configuration processes that run during installation and pretty much doing just a straight copy of the operating system files and some basic driver stuff. All this sort of thing is probably more geared towards simplifying rollouts in the enterprise than caring how long a home install takes considering average joe would probably install the OS only once anyway

That's already how Vista and 7 install. They still have to do driver installations for all the devices though, and they can't pre package that. The ways to improve it is to increase the data transfer speed and to make things like installing drivers go faster. A faster CPU will help a bit too, because the files are stored compressed on the disc.

24GB of DDR3 might sould droolworthy, but it's only $225-$300 now. When it dropped down to $600, we upgraded all of our servers to 24GB; when it dropped below $300, we went and upgraded all the workstations that could possibly benefit to 24GB. Mostly, it makes a difference on the number of virtual machines you can run.

I highly doubt that an OS would install much faster on 24GB than 12GB...

Talys said,
24GB of DDR3 might sould droolworthy, but it's only $225-$300 now. When it dropped down to $600, we upgraded all of our servers to 24GB; when it dropped below $300, we went and upgraded all the workstations that could possibly benefit to 24GB. Mostly, it makes a difference on the number of virtual machines you can run.

I highly doubt that an OS would install much faster on 24GB than 12GB...

I'll go out on a limb and really say I doubt that more than 4GB would really make a difference right now considering the RAM usage Windows 7 has out of the box.

Martog said,

I'll go out on a limb and really say I doubt that more than 4GB would really make a difference right now considering the RAM usage Windows 7 has out of the box.

I agree. I think that the single slowest part of install is "Expanding Windows files". The 8-core processor would be helpful here, if the Windows installer had support for it. Really, the person should try installing 7 on the same rig, and seeing how long it takes. Comparative data is always more useful.

Talys said,

I agree. I think that the single slowest part of install is "Expanding Windows files". The 8-core processor would be helpful here, if the Windows installer had support for it. Really, the person should try installing 7 on the same rig, and seeing how long it takes. Comparative data is always more useful.


If you have desktops with 24gb ram, consider creating RAMDisks for temp files and certain software .

hmm... i think, in an average computer, W8 will late like 20~35Minutes, of course, if all the information leaked is true...

This is a smaller, unfinished version anyways, it probably has no relation to the install time for the finished build..

My Windows 7 install took like 20 minutes anyways, plenty quick enough for me.

CD/DVD drives is what slows down installations, can see a 5 to 10minute difference when using a USB key, probably is much less when using a USB3 flash key. A spinning HDD can't be a bottleneck, yet.

Salty Wagyu said,
CD/DVD drives is what slows down installations, can see a 5 to 10minute difference when using a USB key, probably is much less when using a USB3 flash key. A spinning HDD can't be a bottleneck, yet.

I agree

Salty Wagyu said,
CD/DVD drives is what slows down installations, can see a 5 to 10minute difference when using a USB key, probably is much less when using a USB3 flash key. A spinning HDD can't be a bottleneck, yet.
It certainly is a bottleneck. Decompressing the image from the install media is only part of the process after all.

waruikoohii said,
It certainly is a bottleneck. Decompressing the image from the install media is only part of the process after all.

that, but not counting the DVD drive, the harddrive is by far the slowest part of the average machine.

Super fast install method...

1.) Image unpacks into super fast RAM. Getting faster every few months. Probably 3Ghz + standard when Win8 is released.

Less than 30 seconds after clicking install you are starring at the desktop. The 30 seconds is the time it took to to hardware config to boot up the first time.

2.) Windows runs in minimal mode (as in only required bits) for a bit. Uses a max of 50% system resources, and installs itself to the hard disk when idle.

So if you just let it install. Install finishes in a few minutes. Or you can just use your computer right away. Basic functionality at this point. Like Internet, browser, office, etc. Basic hardware support like mouse, keyboard, monitor, nic. No real graphics or sound support at this point.

Leave idle it finishes quickly. As long as you don't use more than 50% of system resources it continues to install while your using it.

So you can sit there and browser around, check email, use twitter, etc. all while windows is installing.

3.) Anything you do in RAM is copied over to the hard disk once the install completes and when you reboot.

4.) On first reboot Windows install has finished and you boot normally.

Something like that. It's doable now since average computer now has 4gb of fast DDR2 or DDR3 RAM.

How much RAM or cores it had wouldn't really change much about the install time. It's very possible that even if it were installed from DVD, if Microsoft spent some time streamling the layout of files and reducing how many things had to be built or set up from scratch, install could be reduced to a very low number limited only by how fast the devices could transfer data, and minimal time for file system set up, etc. For 8x speed DVD transfer, that'd be about 4 minutes or less for the entire disc to be copied, and hard disks can handle that with ease. Take a look at modern installers from Opera and the like, those things are instantaneous and the program launches immediately - Windows could easily follow the same path, use a "drop and load" approach.

cybertimber2008 said,
That's what I was thinking. It's mainly file copies and such isn't it?

Vista/7/Server 2008/R2 all use an imaged based install, the slowest part of the install besides the copying of the base image to the HDD is the hardware detection part.

carmatic said,
maybe that is what the '8' means in 'Windows 8' ... how many minutes it takes to install it?
Yeah that's why I never bought 2008 server since it takes 2008 minutes to install. LOL

Jebadiah said,
Yeah that's why I never bought 2008 server since it takes 2008 minutes to install. LOL

And it's only going to become bigger

2012

2015

lol

Digitalfox said,

And it's only going to become bigger

2012

2015

lol

Guess you missed the announcement? In 2012 minutes = seconds and in 2015 seconds = nano-seconds.

I don't mind having a longer installation time... I mean..how often do you reinstall O_o
I'd rather have snappy performance etc while USING it

The Grinch said,

sometimes reformat and install windows once a month. it'll also be beneficial to those who redo people's computers.

People who need to reinstall once a month should really invest in more ram and Vmware for testing their software. Then use vmware to create snapshots.

:: Lyon :: said,
I don't mind having a longer installation time... I mean..how often do you reinstall O_o
I'd rather have snappy performance etc while USING it

Windows stagnates. Even the server versions do.

remixedcat said,

Windows stagnates. Even the server versions do.


If you're stagnating to the point where you need to reinstall once a month, then it's not Windows, it's you.

I installed Windows 7 on my PC on January 10th, 2010, and it still feels like the day I finished setting it up. Keep in mind that this is something that I use for at minimum a few hours every day, not some computer I have sitting in a closet doing nothing.

Oh, and about the server versions stagnating, sure, if you don't know what you're doing. Two of my servers at work have Server 2008 installs from mid 2008 and they're running as well as the day that I set them up (AD, WSUS, DNS, Sharepoint, WDS, and file server duties, so they're fairly busy). The other two servers have Server 2008 installs from early 2010, and they're running perfectly fine as well.

waruikoohii said,

If you're stagnating to the point where you need to reinstall once a month, then it's not Windows, it's you.

I installed Windows 7 on my PC on January 10th, 2010, and it still feels like the day I finished setting it up. Keep in mind that this is something that I use for at minimum a few hours every day, not some computer I have sitting in a closet doing nothing.

Oh, and about the server versions stagnating, sure, if you don't know what you're doing. Two of my servers at work have Server 2008 installs from mid 2008 and they're running as well as the day that I set them up (AD, WSUS, DNS, Sharepoint, WDS, and file server duties, so they're fairly busy). The other two servers have Server 2008 installs from early 2010, and they're running perfectly fine as well.

as corp file servers and AD servers they might not as much, however certain things will on them. some people who use them for web servers specifically. Linux machines always have higher uptimes though.

as workstations they do a little (using mine) I reinstall once a year. But I do experiment a lot.

but consumer versions stagnate a lot if you use them heavy. the casual users who never put anything on them don't notice.

remixedcat said,

as corp file servers and AD servers they might not as much, however certain things will on them. some people who use them for web servers specifically. Linux machines always have higher uptimes though.

as workstations they do a little (using mine) I reinstall once a year. But I do experiment a lot.

but consumer versions stagnate a lot if you use them heavy. the casual users who never put anything on them don't notice.


As the guy above said, if it stagnates its YOUR problem.
Go learn how to use windows.
I've had Windows 2008 running fine for months before i upgraded it to windows 2008 R2, which is still running perfectly smooth. Baby just needs some attention every once in a while, but still allot less then Debian needs.

Shadowzz said,

As the guy above said, if it stagnates its YOUR problem.
Go learn how to use windows.
I've had Windows 2008 running fine for months before i upgraded it to windows 2008 R2, which is still running perfectly smooth. Baby just needs some attention every once in a while, but still allot less then Debian needs.

wow. what was your longest uptime? mine was 6 months without a reboot and that was a power outage. it was a tad slow but still good for day to day.

The Grinch said,
sometimes reformat and install windows once a month.

Reinstalling once a month is nothing but a way of hiding basic computer skills to fix even the most basic problems....sigh

The fact that it wasn't using an SSD is a good sign. Using a decent flash drive and installing Windows 7 on my SSD only takes 10 minutes, so if they improve install time at all over Windows 7 there should be some difference.

Reacon said,
By the time W8 is out, the standard machine will be about half that - still pretty impressive.

I have a quad core and 12Gb of Ram i7 950
all this cost me only ~700$ (mobo mem CPU) next year a casual gamer PC will be 24Gb and 8 core CPU

What does it matter if it installs in 8 minutes or whatever minutes it will be? I just don't get why people have to get fuzz all over this. Most people will buy a reinstalled laptop, and beside, it's not like formatting process is a periodical ceremony. The last time i formatted was in 2009 when W7 came out. W7 is still running without a hitch. But I guess nerds will be nerds...

flexkeyboard said,
The last time i formatted was in 2009 when W7 came out. W7 is still running without a hitch. But I guess nerds will be nerds...

I think old habits die hard is the issue, people don't educate themselves on Windows Vista/7 and the changes it brought and how there isn't such an issue as in the past with stuff needing to be reinstalled once a year or so.

xendrome said,

I think old habits die hard is the issue, people don't educate themselves on Windows Vista/7 and the changes it brought and how there isn't such an issue as in the past with stuff needing to be reinstalled once a year or so.

There's also the type that make frequent hardware changes or prefer to cleanly install with every major driver update. Less clutter, conflicts, and better performance is their goal.

flexkeyboard said,
What does it matter if it installs in 8 minutes or whatever minutes it will be? I just don't get why people have to get fuzz all over this. Most people will buy a reinstalled laptop, and beside, it's not like formatting process is a periodical ceremony. The last time i formatted was in 2009 when W7 came out. W7 is still running without a hitch. But I guess nerds will be nerds...

Or people need to reinstall windows often for work purposes? Not just for home, so a lower time would be much better for them?

flexkeyboard said,
What does it matter if it installs in 8 minutes or whatever minutes it will be? I just don't get why people have to get fuzz all over this. Most people will buy a reinstalled laptop, and beside, it's not like formatting process is a periodical ceremony. The last time i formatted was in 2009 when W7 came out. W7 is still running without a hitch. But I guess nerds will be nerds...

Might be useful for businesses that install it on multiple computers.. also could be useful for tablets that have dual cores and installing windows 7 would take like 3 hours and could be to hard for the machine

flexkeyboard said,
What does it matter if it installs in 8 minutes or whatever minutes it will be? I just don't get why people have to get fuzz all over this. Most people will buy a reinstalled laptop, and beside, it's not like formatting process is a periodical ceremony. The last time i formatted was in 2009 when W7 came out. W7 is still running without a hitch. But I guess nerds will be nerds...

I re format like once every 3 months on my mac and windows pc it just feels better

Lachlan said,

Might be useful for businesses that install it on multiple computers..

Any decent business will use an imaging software, and not run around with DVD's.

mikeg35 said,

I re format like once every 3 months on my mac and windows pc it just feels better

Ok, even 11 years ago, I could almost agree with this thinking, but with XP and concepts like "System Restore" and now with Win7 and several other ways to not only roll back changes but literally tools that revert the system to way it appeared when the OS was first installed - there really is no reason to reformat anymore.

Back in the 90s it was the 'bad/crap/shady' techs that fixed problems with a reformat. Good repair places and techs just fixed the problems.

If after 3 months Windows 7 has something you can't just uninstall or is running poorly, you need to stop looking at so much porn with an unsecure browser.

thenetavenger said,

there really is no reason to reformat anymore.

Back in the 90s it was the 'bad/crap/shady' techs that fixed problems with a reformat. Good repair places and techs just fixed the problems.

If after 3 months Windows 7 has something you can't just uninstall or is running poorly, you need to stop looking at so much porn with an unsecure browser.

I disagree. What if it takes an hour or two to go back to a newly installed system, or double or triple that finding each issue and resolving it. It's simply easier and quicker to fix some problems by starting again.

Odom said,

Any decent business will use an imaging software, and not run around with DVD's.

I highly disagree. Many companies use packaging and specify which software gets installed on which computer. Also they roll-out/deploy patches and updated versions of software with that. When you deploy via an image, that gets extremely fast outofdate and you have to update the image again and again AND have to update the already installed systems as well. There are some hybrid ways to do this all, but mostly companies use packaging only.
Of course admins don't run around with DVDs, thats correct of course, it all comes from the network, but this doesn't have to do anything with hdd images.

Lofote said,

I highly disagree. Many companies use packaging and specify which software gets installed on which computer. Also they roll-out/deploy patches and updated versions of software with that. When you deploy via an image, that gets extremely fast outofdate and you have to update the image again and again AND have to update the already installed systems as well. There are some hybrid ways to do this all, but mostly companies use packaging only.
Of course admins don't run around with DVDs, thats correct of course, it all comes from the network, but this doesn't have to do anything with hdd images.

doesn't everyone use virtual machines nowdays?

flexkeyboard said,
I just don't get why people have to get fuzz all over this.

Exactly. This is not the previous century in which I had to juggle with 26 3.5" floppies just to install Office...seriously....sigh