why does Windows version take so long to remove?

users
#1

I am working on a Windows desktop that has 3.4.x [.5 or .6] on it.

I am using Control Panel to remove it before I install 3.5.5.

Well it has taken over 1/2 hour to remove it, and still has time to go.

This is on a Sempron 3500+ CPU, 512 MB ram, running XP.

This very slow removal is also happing on a much faster XP CPU laptop [1 GB ram] and a Vista dual core laptop [3 GB ram].

For this Sempron CPU machine, I will be installing 3.5.5 for a friend.

The drive is defraged and there is not much running in ram, like security programs.

I noticed that on the Vista dual core laptop, the Ubuntu boot version of LO removed many times faster than on the Windows version, when I did the 3.4.6 to 3.5.5 upgrade on both Windows boot and Ubuntu boot.

SO, and not to bash Windows, is there any problems/issues with LO removal on Windows, before upgrading to the next line, that makes it so much slower than it should be? The installing is so much faster, like 5 times as fast as fast.

#2

Uninstall has always taken 2-3 times longer than the install in my experience (I do a LOT of uninstall/installs, as I always uninstall the old before installing the new version)...

I've never seen it take 30 minutes though... ever...

I will say though... I consider 1GB to be the *bare minumum* on an XP box but it will still be sluggish. I couldn't use it with 512MB, it would drive me to drink.

For XP, I always recommend 2GB, and for 7 (won't touch Vista), minimum is 4GB.

#3

The system came with 512 from the factory. All the systems I dealt with that had XP from the factory has 512 for ram. I do not have Win7, but would like to replace my Vista laptop with it.

#4

I will say though... I consider 1GB to be the *bare minumum* on an XP
box but it will still be sluggish. I couldn't use it with 512MB, it
would drive me to drink.

For XP, I always recommend 2GB, and for 7 (won't touch Vista), minimum
is 4GB.

The system came with 512 from the factory. All the systems I dealt with
that had XP from the factory has 512 for ram.

Irrelevant to my point. The fact is, XP is simply a total DOG with less than 1GB RAM, and is much better with 2GB.

I do not have Win7, but would like to replace my Vista laptop with
it.

Just be sure to get 64bit with at *least* 4GB, but much better would be 8G.

#5

Actually, maximizing the RAM on any computer will improve its performance and it is relatively cheap and easy to do. It does not matter which OS or CPU.

#6

omega
  The
Omega sector
America's Last
Line of
Defense

*You have a SLOW or not much memory VIDEO CARD ! !. . . Since a 500 meg or more video card is below $25.00 get one and your computer will work better take the 32 to 124 meg video card out and burn it so no one else uses it and wonders why their computer is so slow to change screens

#7

Sorry, but my Vista laptop maxed out at 3 GB, so I will need to install Win7 with 3 GB. It was not made for Win7 but almost anything is better than Vista. I doubt that I will be able to get it to have more memory than the 3 GB installed, but I will look into it.

I want to get that system upgraded in the near future so I can deal with the Win7 people and their LO needs. It is getting to be a problem not having a Win7 system for supporting people. I prefer Ubuntu, but most of my friends use Win7 now. Only one uses Linux.

I really want to keep supporting LO under Windows, so as people buy new systems with Win7, I am loosing ground with them. One girl bought a very powerful 17" laptop, just to type notes, play videos, and browse the Net. She spent three times as much as needed for doing just that type of "work". I would love such a laptop, but I cannot afford one like that. At least she is using LO now and not get convinced that she had to have MSO.

#8

My point though is that there is generally a sweet spot, determined by OS/version and what kind of usage.

Someone on Windows 7 who only does email and web browsing will not benefit much from more than 4GB of RAM, while someone who does a lot of number crunching and graphics work and opening large files will benefit a lot.

My personal 'bare minimum and better' recommendations are aimed at casual users...

#9

There is a point of diminishing returns where more memory will not noticeably improve performance depending on usage with increasing memory. But the demands on the computer tend to increase with time as people use more graphically intensive applications/websites.

Personally, I prefer install the maximum the motherboard can handle.

#10

You clearly don't play video games :^)

#11

No argument there, especial as cheap as RAM is these days... :wink:

#12

Hi :slight_smile:
Depends which type of Ram.  'Old' DDR1 (such as for most of mine) is so horribly expensive it would be cheaper for me to buy a new mbord, plus chip, plus a healthy amount of DDR3 leaving a couple of slots for a future upgrade.

On the even older machines at work the 'ancient' sd-ram is difficult to even find.  I think you have to find an antiques shop rather than a computer store.  We bought 4 'new' Cpus for about £50, which is less than 1 decent stick of DDR1 ram so now those 4 are only horribly slow rather than being mind-bogglingly putrifying heaps of horrible slowness.  Quite a step up!!  You can ask them to do 2 things at once and it might even finish before the kettle's boiled now!  (rather than after lunch).  If those machines got newer hard-drives that spun faster than a buckled
bicycle wheel in thick mud then they might run a tad faster and with
SSDs they might only 'run' at a mildly annoying slow crawl - even on Windows.

Usually the bottle-neck tends to be Ram, or at least Ram is the easiest fix but it's not always so.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#13

Hi :slight_smile:
I think Win7 uses less resources than Vista.  it was the first time they de-bloated their OS = an attempt to fit it onto mobile devices such as tablets (ok, not very mobile but more mobile than desktops).  So upgrading from Vista to Win7 might well be a good idea without worrying about upgrading Ram.

"Just play a few games"!  It's games that typically push the limits of computers and push people into upgrading hardware. 
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#14

According to the Win 7 Upgrade Advisor - Win 7 requires:

64-bit version:
         1GHz+ CPU
         2 GB+ RAM
         20 GB+ drive space

32-bit version:
         1GHz+ CPU
         1GB+ RAM
         16 GB+ drive space

There are a lot of software installed on my Vista [32-bit] laptop that needs "paid" upgrades to work, or are "unknown" for working or not. At least their Advisor did not reject LO, like it did for my Laserjet 2300dn printer. It is a good workgroup printer and MS does not know if it will work on Win7? That is weird. IT was new a few years before Win7 came out, so it should have a reference about working.

As for real world resources, well Win7 is a better OS than Vista, but it may take more CPU power than Vista and more drive space than the "Advisor" indicated. Whatever it needs, it would be better than Vista. Also I have a 32-bit Vista and I would install 64-bit Win7, since the laptop has a 64-bit CPU. I run 64-Bit Ubuntu on it as its second boot.

I have a 14 page [PDF] printout of the report that their advisor created. Will keep it for a bit as a resource.

As for gaming, well I am not one who plays computer games or own a game playing device. Never got into it.
.