The computers get faster and the software gets slower. Tale as old as time.
Speed test pits six generations of Windows against each other — Windows 11 placed dead last across most benchmarks, 8.1 emerges as unexpected winner in this unscientific comparison
Submitted 3 days ago by throws_lemy@reddthat.com to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
reddig33@lemmy.world 3 days ago
morto@piefed.social 3 days ago
- as old as unix time
Alabaster_Mango@lemmy.ca 3 days ago
Markdown formatted that as a bullet point. You can avoid that by putting a backslash in front of the asterisk.
Typing this: \* Test Message
Will get this: * Test Message
Without backslash:
- Test Message
Wispy2891@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Even the older Windows XP managed 50 tabs, and that’s because it kept crashing past that number because of its paging file failing to keep up, not because it had hit the 5GB memory ceiling.
Windows XP 32bit can’t hit 5gb memory ceiling, the 32bit memory addresses don’t allow that
TroublesomeTalker@feddit.uk 3 days ago
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension
Not at release. It came later though for certain chipsets.
stoy@lemmy.zip 3 days ago
Wasn’t there a bug that made XP unable to hit even 4GB, I seem to recall a limit of 3,5GB ram…
frongt@lemmy.zip 3 days ago
Short answer, no, there were artificial limitations to ensure compatibility. Plenty of long-form answers if you care to search.
Decq@lemmy.world 3 days ago
It was 3.2GB and afaik it wasn’t a bug, but 800MB was reserved for hardware IO
carrylex@lemmy.world 2 days ago
PSA: In the video (not the retarded posted article that has 0 proofreading) it’s stated that he used Windows XP 64 bit
yaroto98@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Fascinating that the browser using so much RAM is the OS’s fault, not the browser’s. Though, it using more RAM could be considered a good thing if it sped up page loading, but apparently that’s not the case with Win11.
acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 days ago
Yes and no. The browser is a complex virtual machine + OS in itself.
ekusea@lemmynsfw.com 2 days ago
🍓Нerе уou саn undrеss anу GirІ аnd sее hеr Nakеd) РІease rаte ➤ Ja.cat/nunge
arararagi@ani.social 2 days ago
Seems like every hardware upgrade just makes software worse because they can just brute force it.
Landless2029@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Optimization?
What’s that?
carrylex@lemmy.world 2 days ago
At first: Stop posting Tomshardware! They just bulk repost ad-enriched low quality clickbait content without validating anything (cough 9700X3D). Just post the original video.
As the video creator said in it’s disclaimer, the test is probably not accurate:
- I’m having serious doubts about the test setup. The laptops are all on a carpet directly facing a wall. There is 0% that their is proper air circulation and this will likely effect heat dissipation.
- Some tests (e.g. Video editing, Battery life) are extremly hardware dependent and shouldn’t be used in a OS comparison.
Rooster326@programming.dev 2 days ago
Okay but can’t we just an article?
Why does everything need to be a video? I am more such of Everything needs to be a video then I am of This meeting could’ve be an email.
sexhaver87@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
I think their main issue lies with Tomshardware, not the medium of an article
python@lemmy.world 1 day ago
It’s the same exact laptop, the tests ran sequentially but were edited so that the video shows them in parallel. Since it’s the same hardware in each test and only the OS changes, it’s a perfectly fine setup for comparison.
Damarus@feddit.org 3 days ago
This is not a proper test. Windows does optimizations on the first few boots which makes the startup take longer. As it’s not mentioned in the video, we have to assume this was not accounted for, which completely invalidates the results.
xthexder@l.sw0.com 2 days ago
Well considering almost every time I reboot it seems to do a windows update, those optimizations are probably running every time anyway. It’s almost fare.
Bakkoda@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
I thought it being Toms was enough to discount any actual evidence.
AceBonobo@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Tom’s has become a disappointment. It’s been like that for years, since the buyout.
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I have fond memories of Windows XP working well.
Do not have fond memories of the multi-dvd game installations, but I still have my library of physical games. :)
Denalduh@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Nothing sucked more than buying a used game only for it to asked for disc 5 to be inserted to continue, when it only came with 4!
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Oh, true, but back then game companies would sell you those single disks you needed. My copy of Baldur’s Gate 2 was missing one that I was able to replace for a few bucks.
In hindsight, I kinda miss the awesome customer service that used to exist.
Rooster326@programming.dev 2 days ago
Idk a tiny almost imperceptible scratch causing you to retry installing 3 or 4 times might a winner. At least missing disk is a clear error.
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
There’s a circle in hell for game publishers that only wrote “disc 1” on a CD or DVD (or floppy, back in the day) and not “disc 1 of 3”. I think it’s the one where they have to wade forever in shit.
ICastFist@programming.dev 2 days ago
Multi dvd? Those are from 2007 and later, iirc. Multiple cds were common by 2000 already, tho
Rooster326@programming.dev 2 days ago
Windows 98 came on 28 floppy disks… We definitely felt the pain property to 2007…
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 2 days ago
And before that, there were games that spanned multiple floppies. Plus, floppies were less reliable, so there was a higher chance one of the disks would fail to read, leading to the Retry, Fail, Abort menu.
They were only 1.44MB so a 50GB game would take like 40k floppies.
vivalapivo@lemmy.today 2 days ago
Windows Vista walked away as the fastest.
My girl
ivanafterall@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I ran Vista for years, but recall people hating it.
Honytawk@feddit.nl 2 days ago
At the end of its life, Vista was quite competent.
But during the early years, the added animations and transparent features really tanked the performance on the hardware of that time. Combined with the issues any new OS has, it received much hate. Only after much optimization became it somewhat stable.
vivalapivo@lemmy.today 2 days ago
I remember her as a sip of fresh air. No other OS was this appealing
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 days ago
i still like 7 better
PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world 2 days ago
7 was peak
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
7 was about the last time that it felt like Microsoft was trying to make a good product that was useful for its customers. They’ve always been anticompetitive sniveling greedy little shits that would buy out or otherwise kill competition, but used to be they’d try to sell new versions of Windows or Office on features they could reasonably expect customers to want. “It does spell check in real time now! We’ve included USB plug-and-play! Your PC with a modem is also a fax machine now! We made a 3D graphics library for gaming enthusiasts! We ship or OS with a media player that can play DVDs and MP3s out of the box! Here’s a free video editor!”
I…don’t remember that happening after Windows 7. Windows 8 was an attempt to cash in on the mobile craze, they’re gonna make Windows a tablet product now! Except a lot of computers didn’t have tablet controls, and a lot of desktop PC software doesn’t work with tablet controls. They made a confusing annoying buggy hell mess. Win 10…I remember people hating it when it came out, they REALLY preferred 7, I was on Linux by that time and didn’t care that much, and Win 10 was almost a rolling release; it changed a lot over its lifetime. They’d go all in on something, pack Win 10 full of features, and then the fad would fade and they’d pull it back out. 3D, AR, a couple other things. And now we’ve got the openly user hostile Windows 11. “It Harms Your Family!^®^”
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 2 days ago
The UI of 7 plus the kernel of 10, and the marketing approach of XP, would make a windows that might come close to being as good as linux today and certainly wouldn’t be enabling linux to steal even a few % of market share.
REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 days ago
Interesting. I’ve always said that I liked 8.1 the most out of all Windows versions. With classic startup, it was basically a more stable, faster Win7 that had newer DirectX and fastboot. Too bad it died with 8.0 and so 8.1 never got any market share, but damn was it awesome.
Kjell@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I also liked 8.1, but I kept 7 until 8.1 was released so I never experienced 8.0. Personally I was disappointed with Windows 7 when I moved from Vista because I had heard that it would be faster but for me 7 was slower before I upgraded to a SSD. I used a debloated version of Vista and compared it with the standard 7 so not really a far comparison.
pyrinix@kbin.melroy.org 2 days ago
Windows 11 a newcomer?
Dude it's already like 5-ish years old.
Also, I'm going to be very technical here and I don't care if people hate it. But Windows 10 and 11 both outpaced XP and I believe that once the OS reaches a user login, that still counts as the OS as booted up.
Other than that, yeah it's really a no-brainer why Windows 11 lost in just about every category except the boot sequence, save being behind 8.1
raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I believe that once the OS reaches a user login, that still counts as the OS as booted up.
This is exactly the kind of gullibility for which the login is displayed before the OS is done booting / starting all background processes. Don’t be gullible.
parzival@lemmy.org 2 days ago
the problem is that specifically in Windows 11, it isn’t booted up when the login is shown, as integral processes aren’t started. Some of these include: the start menu, the search menu, file explorer, and many other background processes
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Yeah, I’d consider time from boot to login prompt to be a useless metric. You could design an OS to show a prompt before anything else to “win” this pointless race.
Boot to usable is the only one that makes sense.
Ok, one case where boot to login is useful: you want to boot up and walk away for a bit, so less waiting for a login means you can login before walking away. Though, personally, I find RAM training takes a long time these days if you’re not waking from suspend, so still think boot to login is moot.
kieron115@startrek.website 2 days ago
I “early adopted” Win 11 when the Ryzen 5600X came out (late 2020 i think?) and it was objectively better at release. All MS had to do was fix the start button and then not fuck with it and I’m sure there would have been way less hatorade flowing.
Rooster326@programming.dev 2 days ago
I “early adopted” Win 11 when the Ryzen 5600X came out (late 2020 i think?) and it was objectively better at release. All MS had to do was insert AI
- All that Satya Nadella read… probably
rdri@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I always said that 8.1 is the most optimized even compared to 7 (mostly because they launched it together with phone version which shared a lot of stuff with 8 so it includes a lot of optimizations under the hood). Most people never cared to use it apparently.
COASTER1921@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
They made so many terrible Windows 8.1 tablets which they had to support. I used one of these with an atom z3735f and 2GB of RAM as my only Windows computer for a long time, and Windows 8.1 was completely smooth on it despite the anemic hardware. Some even cheaper tablets and mini PCs released with 1GB RAM and 16GB emmc yet somehow also were also able to run Windows 8.1 okay.
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Was that Windows 8.1, or Windows RT?
mean_bean279@lemmy.world 2 days ago
If I could just experience the high of having Windows Phone sounds and experience… I would be so happy. For all the shit it got, Windows Phone is still the most beautiful mobile OS, and the way it utilized sound is still next level.
Teknikal@eviltoast.org 2 days ago
Personally I don’t think an Os has any business but tying my hardware together and running apps I install myself.
The amount of services/bloat on Windows now is completely ridiculous and your pc is basically 70 percent their spy device and 30 percent what you bought it for.
GarboDog@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Saw this video on YouTube a few days ago, it’s really interesting. Seemed like XP, 7 and (somehow 8.1) ran pretty good. Here’s the video for anyone wanting to see it :P https://youtu.be/7VZJO-hOT4c
Tho while 8 may be more performant, it’s also less usable imo. Would like to see how this stacks up with different OSs!
LemmyEntertainYou@piefed.social 2 days ago
Windows 8.1 was great. My favourite iteration of Windows ever.
Tja@programming.dev 2 days ago
Yes officer, this comment right here.
PissingIntoTheWind@lemmy.world 2 days ago
My father bought my nephews laptops for Xmas and didn’t talk to me about it before purchasing. He got them an i3 for one and a Ryzen 7 for the other with both having 8gb of ram for the memory and I just sighed. Like what sales person convinced you to go with 8gb of ram for Windows 11? So sad for their use.
tehevilone@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Of course Win11 ran slow, the CPU the tests were done on is 6 generations behind the official cutoff. I’d rather see the results from the same experiment run on a i5-8400, which is min specs.
BaraCoded@literature.cafe 2 days ago
[Screaming in linux]
MuskyMelon@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I’m more impressed that the same hardware ran so many versions of Windows.
darkevilmac@lemmy.zip 3 days ago
Not sure why it would be unexpected? 8.1 was not a good OS from a UI perspective, but it was the last version before Microsoft went all in on making Windows a service and not a product you paid to use.
They still had the incentive to make the OS better and faster. I remember videos from Microsoft at the time showing how fast Windows 8 could get to the desktop compared to 7. They don’t really even try to work on stuff like that anymore.
fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 days ago
Windows 8 also had to run on atom CPUs with fire CPU performance and even more dire memory configs. So even once it was booted it needed to be relatively slim and quick. I actually preferred it at the time because it was faster than 7.
ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip 3 days ago
I miss the Intel Atom, not because I wanted to use it, but because of the positive impact it had on big tech and software bloat. I wish we could bring it back, but it seems nowadays, even Chromebooks have 16 GB of RAM and an i5.
morto@piefed.social 3 days ago
Those 2 in 1 baytrail laptops were so underpowered, but damn, they’re so cool
laurelraven@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
I actually really liked 8.1, preferred it to 7 once I got used to the Start Screen. Surprisingly well designed, actually found myself preferring the menu over 7’s
10 had the best start menu in my opinion, but the quality was just an ever advancing downward spiral.
Now, I can’t even stand it, deal with it at work as much as I have to, but at home, the only Windows machine left is only still on it because simulator peripherals are a pain to get working right on Linux sometimes, so my dedicated simulator machine still uses that, but it’s used for nothing else
kalleboo@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Windows 8 was where Microsoft went all-in on optimizing Windows to run on low-power tablets to compete with the iPad. It’s mostly remembered for the terrible tablet-first full-screen “start menu”, but also continued the work to trim away all the Vista bloat that had started with Windows 7 (where the motivation was to make it work on netbooks so they could finally stop shipping XP)
ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 days ago
The fuck?? Vista predates Win7, that sentence makes no sense
banazir@lemmy.ml 3 days ago
I basically jumped from XP to 8.1 and I was amazed how much of an improvement 8.1 was on a technical level. Yes, the UI was horrendous, and any usability expert should have been able to tell you it was a terrible idea, but apparently they weren’t listened to. Luckily there was Classic Shell that restored a proper Start Menu, so I never had to use the horrible touch interface.
8.1 was the last good Windows (with caveats). When support ended I went back to Linux, because 10 and 11 are enshittified to all hell.
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I agree, 8.1 with Classic Shell was good. I also liked Windows Media Center.
I hung on through 10, but last year, as I learned more about Win 11, I decided to finally bite the bullet and figure how to switch to Linux.
darkevilmac@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
Yeah I think Windows 8 in general is just what happens when you don’t have proper user testing and go entirely based on what the shareholders think the next big thing in computing is going to be.
At the time everyone thought that touchscreens and tablets were going to take over everything, at this point though it’s become pretty clear that tablets are for media consumption and some creative work. For productivity they just aren’t as good as a full on desktop environment.
baatliwala@lemmy.world 3 days ago
The underlying work on Win 8 was really good… Just not the front end