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.