0
I am currently working on a project that involves installing a very old game from the 90s on a modern system, namely 64-bit Windows 10. It involves either mounting the ISO or burning it to a disk, and installing it using an installer that converts the files from 32-bit compatible to 64-bit compatible. The game was originally designed for 32-bit systems, hence why the installation is a long and arduous process involving a lot of conversion.
I have begun the process on two computers. On one of the computers, a HP Pavilion, I am using a mounted ISO. On the other, a Lenovo laptop, I used a CD with the ISO burned onto it.
Now, here is where I noticed a big difference in the installation speed. The Lenovo laptop began installing the software much later than the HP Pavilion, yet has overtaken by several files -- the installer displays which file is currently being converted, and it is ahead of the HP Pavilion's installation by miles at this point.
I was wondering what may be the cause of this difference in installation speed. Is it the fact that it is using a physical disk, or could it be because of hardware differences and the condition of each machine? It is not a small difference, hence why I felt the need to ask. If the physical method of installation is faster, I may as well cancel the installation on the HP Pavilion and burn the ISO instead.
Here are the machines' hardware specifications:
HP Pavilion (installing via a mounted ISO, slower installation): AMD A8-5500 APU with Radeon HD Graphics @ 3.20GHz | 14.0 GB RAM | 64-bit Operating System (Windows 10 Home) | x64-based processor | Roughly 5 years old
Lenovo Laptop (installing via a CD, faster installation): Intel Core i3-5005U CPU @ 2.00GHz | 8.00 GB RAM | 64-bit operating system (Windows 10 Home) | x64-based processor | Less than 6 months old
So, I suppose the question is essentially whether a mounted ISO or a burned ISO is a faster method of installation; or if there's no difference whatsoever, and it is due to the machines themselves.
Gabriel Saul
Posted 2017-03-01T14:59:15.947
Reputation: 1
1Why do you plan to convert the files from 32-bit to 64-bit, when all 64-bit versions of Windows, support running 32-bit applications? The only time you have a problem with some older applicaitons is when the application is actually 16-bit, 16-bit applications cannot be run on a 64-bit operating system, due to the way CPU is intialized to support 32-bit and 64-bit applications. – Ramhound – 2017-03-01T15:05:49.470
It's not that simple in regards to this game, I'm afraid. It has a lot more incompatibility issues in more than just that area. The very reason a 64-bit installer had to be made was because it was impossible to install it otherwise. And trust me, if I could have avoided it, I would have. I would just like to know whether or not installation is faster via a mounted ISO or a physical disk, as there is a distinct difference between the two current installations running on the machines. – Gabriel Saul – 2017-03-01T15:09:23.013
It's a 20-year old application, so you could understand why installing and running it on a modern system would require some tinkering. – Gabriel Saul – 2017-03-01T15:11:15.383
I'm not really sure if this is the answer, but I suppose that in the case of the ISO you copy from the HDD to the HDD, so, the bottleneck is the same HDD spinning back and forth from the ISO to the installation path. In the case of the CD, you copy from one media to the other, using two different channels and making the copy smoother – fernando.reyes – 2017-03-01T15:15:18.923
I imagined that may have been the case, as mounting an ISO simulates something physical, which surely takes up more time in the process. It is taking achingly long as it is, so I am half-tempted to cancel and start over with a disk anyway. Even just for experimental purposes. – Gabriel Saul – 2017-03-01T15:17:28.993
@GabrielSaul - The original Starcraft is nearly 20 years old, provided you used a compatability mode shim, it worked on 64-bit installations on Windows 10. Honestly I can't speak to if the tinkering is even required, the fact you say your converting a 32-bit application to be a 64-bit, sounds dubious as that typically isn't done. I am not saying, you are not actually doing that, only I don't believe it to be required. – Ramhound – 2017-03-01T15:17:49.813
Again, the game is Blade Runner 1997. If you can find a way to install it directly onto the system as a 32-bit application, and run it without any hindrances, I'd be very impressed. The main difference between Blade Runner and Starcraft is that there is zero support for Blade Runner, seeing as the developer is defunct and the ISOs are now abandonware. I don't think modern systems are equipped with dealing with the application in its scrapped-together state. – Gabriel Saul – 2017-03-01T15:19:52.480
I am not sure about the actual conversion itself. I just know that the special installer that was created for installing the game on Windows 7/8/10 is a "64-bit installer". Maybe it doesn't actually convert the application, but it takes care of all the insidious compatibility issues. Plus, that's not all. I have to install two patches and rearrange the directories and paths to create consistency. Anyhow, this is off-topic. I mainly want insight into the differences (particularly speed & efficiency) between installing from a mounted ISO and installing from a physical disk. – Gabriel Saul – 2017-03-01T15:22:03.140