• Damarus@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months 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 fair.

  • carrylex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months 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.
    • python@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months 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.

    • Rooster326@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Okay but can’t we just post 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.

  • GarboDog@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months 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!

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months 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.

      • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months 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!®

  • yaroto98@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months 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.

  • rdri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months 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.

    • mean_bean279@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months 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.

    • COASTER1921@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months 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.

  • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months 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. :)

    • Meeech@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Nothing sucked more than buying a used game only for it to ask for disc 5 to be inserted to continue, when it only came with 4!

      • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months 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.

      • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months 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.

      • Rooster326@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Idk a tiny almost imperceptible scratch causing you to retry installing 3 or 4 times might a contender. At least the missing disk is a clear error.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months 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.

        • Hazor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          I remember when Doom Ultra HD 8k came on 40k floppies. Back before we even had 2k displays. It took nearly 2 days to read it all into RAM (mind you, I had a cluster of 200 computers just to have enough ram…) and ran at about 0.01 FPS on my 640x480 CRT. And you had to read about 73 more floppies every time you loaded a new map.

          Ah, the good old days.

        • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Watching Basement Brothers play some old PC88/98 games and using several actually floppy diskettes is incredibly entertaining. Those also only had like 300kb of storage

        • Bruncvik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          I installed Office 97 from 49 floppies on a bunch of office computers. We didn’t have CD-rom drives, so we requested the floppies from Microsoft (this was a free of charge service). Took me a week. Got into graphic novels, as I was waiting for each floppy to load.

  • Wispy2891@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months 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

      • Honytawk@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months 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.

  • REDACTED@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months 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.

  • arararagi@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Seems like every hardware upgrade just makes software worse because they can just brute force it.

  • PissingIntoTheWind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months 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.