XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy   
   From: crude@sausa.ge   
      
   On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 21:42:23 -0500, Paul wrote:   
      
   > On Sun, 1/25/2026 8:46 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:   
   >> On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 18:34:26 -0500, Paul wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> The [Windows Update] process can be accelerated by:   
   >>>   
   >>> 1) CPU speed, to the expected extent.   
   >>> 2) Memory bandwidth, typical acceleration coming from a processor   
   >>>    with a larger L3.   
   >>> 3) Some sort of magical cleaning process for your WinSxS side by   
   >>>    side tree. ...   
   >>   
   >> What it seems to me you are saying, is that a lot of the need for   
   >> newer, faster hardware for running Windows, is just to speed up the   
   >> *UPDATE PROCESS*?   
   >>   
   >>   
   > The update process has always had the same issue.   
   >   
   > As time passes and the record of packages grows in size, this increases   
   > the computational load.   
   >   
   > That's partially why the load scales with time.   
   >   
   > It's kinda like how much effort you have to put in today,   
   > to earn yourself a Bitcoin. It's a lot more effort than when Bitcoin   
   > first came out.   
   >   
   > The effort to correct it, only has to proceed with respect to the speed   
   > of the "average current hardware". They are not curating the repo in   
   > such a way, that a WinXP era E8400 runs this with blazing speed.   
   >   
   > The update process is good, in that *it never makes mistakes*.   
      
   People whose machines got an update only to have that same update be   
   offered to them after a reboot might have something to say about that.   
   It's the same with people who are offered an update and for whom the   
   update never completes and delivers some cryptic 0x4EREE error message.   
      
   > The update process is bad, in that *it is unbounded*.   
   >   
   > Can it be rewritten ? My conclusion is that the answer is No.   
      
   It needs to be; it has only gotten worse with time. My suggestion is that   
   depending on the version a person is running, a computer decides to skip   
   individual updates in favour of large service packs like they did back in   
   the day. If, for example, a person is running 21H2, the only update they   
   should be offered is 25H2 with individual updates thereafter. Instead, it   
   seems like they offer a ton of individual updates, then 22H2, then more   
   individual updates, then 23H2 and so on. It increases the load on their   
   servers and wastes the user's time. At least with Linux, if you're running   
   something like Ubuntu 18.04 and realize that it's getting old (or it's no   
   longer supported), you can just get the 25.04 version of the software and   
   install on top of it without sacrificing your /home directory.   
      
   < snip AI garbage >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)