3 ms·
On what version of Windows? Windows 7 and earlier had some issues where, as the size of the update catalog grew, the updater would start taking much longer to
by duskwuff 5y ago
On what version of Windows?
Windows 7 and earlier had some issues where, as the size of the update catalog grew, the updater would start taking much longer to "scan for updates". This was eventually fixed in an update to Windows 7 -- but this still meant that you'd be waiting a very long time to install the first few rounds of updates to a fresh 7 install.
That being said, Windows 7 is EOL. If you're still using it, please stop.
- initplus 5y agoGood old accidental exponential time complexity. Not caught in the initial release as there were not enough pending updates to notice the issue.
- hulitu 5y agoAnd no tests.
- exikyut 5y agoAnd but of course nobody's going to make the effort to internally test with super outdated installations (although a VM snapshot or two, or a new install, would've made it simple enough). Good point.
- baq 5y agoquadratic is the worst IME. will get through moderate, perhaps even large test suites, sit in prod quietly waiting for the data set to grow and only then blow up.
- cm2187 5y agoWindows Server 2019, for a VM running on a server that had nothing else to do, PCIe 4 nvme SSD, over 10 minutes waiting for windows update to do its thing on reboot. I don’t mind so much that it takes time checking, downloading and installing updates, because that’s not downtime. My beef is with what happens once you reboot.
- whyoh 5y agoI have a new PC with a NVMe drive and Windows 10. Everything is fast on it, but a ~300MB monthly Windows update can easily take 2-3 minutes, plus a reboot. Usually a software install of this size would take no more than 20 seconds. This has been my experience with Windows updates for the last 10 years or so, on different PCs and different Windows versions. It's just slow (and it's definitely the installation phase, not the downloading).