Microsoft: Win11 is 2.3 times faster than Win10 - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2025, 01:01:13 pm
content: ... but only when you compare Win10 on an old PC with Win11 on a new one.Sources:- Microsoft says Windows 11 is 2.3x faster than Windows 10 -https://www.ghacks.net/2025/06/26/microsoft-says-windows-11-is-2-3x-faster-than-windows-10/- Microsoft’s sketchy Win 10 vs Win 11 performance claims pit a 9-year-old PC against a modern machine to claim 2.3X gain -https://www.tomshardware.com/software/windows/microsofts-sketchy-win-10-vs-win-11-performance-claims-pit-a-9-year-old-pc-against-a-modern-machine-to-claim-2-3x-gain

author: Lightages
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 30, 2025, 07:17:04 pm
content: Microsoft lies? I can't believe it!Maybe they have been taking a lesson from NVidia.I fortunately left that mess behind a few years ago now. I only run Linux and Windows when it is the only choice to check something.

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2025, 10:40:55 pm
content: But this is true! By forcing users to newer hardware, Microsoft makes their systems faster!

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2025, 10:52:11 pm
content: QuoteAnd has always been that way since windows was born,how well did 95 run on a 386 sx 20?

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2025, 02:51:12 am
content: Given MS have done all they could to force people to upgrade their hardware to be able to use Win 11, this is consistent.The sad part is how ridiculous their marketing claims are, this are reached new levels. What they said about their Majorana chip was also hilariously dumb.It's hopeless.

author: kmoonwalker
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2025, 03:57:11 am
content: some more reasonable coding, not using .net etc for OS parts and main apps and system would run waay faster - but we have "modern day programming solutions" (not only in MS)I miss the times when person learning programming was given uC like Z80 or simplier and had to count every kB of RAM etc so software would even fit into

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2025, 07:48:37 am
content: Quote from:https://www.ghacks.net/2025/06/26/microsoft-says-windows-11-is-2-3x-faster-than-windows-10/

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 02, 2025, 08:04:43 am
content: Oh wow, did they honesty think people wouldn't check and validate their "tests"?I think Microsoft are seeing Linux and Apple MacOS as a real threat to their ecosystem and rightfully so. I even know of a major (big four) bank in Australia that is transitioning away from PC-based hardware to Apple Macbooks for their staff, beginning with the senior executives and certain teams, for now.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2025, 09:34:47 am
content: Microsoft at the top hardly even cares about desktop windows. The cloud and SaaS transition is bringing in ungodly amounts of money and covering up the rot. Admitting the fundamentals are rotting away while they are patting themselves on the back for record profits is not going to happen.An additional problem is that the rot is deep. WinRT was a shitty high overhead fix to C++'s non existent ABI, a shitty fix every modern slow Windows API is build around now. They have to completely throw away a decade of work to fix things, which no one is going to commit to while Microsoft is doing so "great". Combine this with the lack of competetiveness of PC hardware development and support (the hardware components are fine, but with a million different configurations nothing ever gets truly optimized) and the fact that for consumer electronics this is the age of ecosystem and they need to have their own mobile platform and there is simply no future.PS. still never buying Apple.

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2025, 10:02:29 am
content: Linux, mac, windows or android. Pick your poison.I choose Linux and I prefer to stick with "the devil I know"...

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2025, 10:38:28 am
content: This is obvious nonsense, but in the earlier days, it's possible newer versions of an OS would both be slower on old hardware and faster, compared to the previous version on new hardware. If the newer version, preloaded more into RAM, then it would run faster on newer hardware, since code doesn't have to be copied into RAM when used, but it would be slower on old hardware, with less RAM, due to higher swap usage.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 02, 2025, 10:38:57 am
content: Quote from: Marco on July 02, 2025, 09:34:47 amI said that once before too. ;-)

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2025, 12:03:53 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on July 02, 2025, 10:38:57 amI'll be dead before alternative computing platforms disappear and I'd be spiritually dead if I used Apple, either way not using Apple in this lifetime.Just to sum up my thoughts of what Microsoft needed to do 5 years ago :-Reboot Windows Phone and also use it on tablets. Need to buy some mapping business and start doing street view collection, it's an integral part of a mobile platform.-Market 2 consumer Windows versions. Windows 365 and normal windows. Windows 365 should get its long promised offline mode and the ability to run legacy win32 applications in a VM.- Create an entirely new online versioned backup&sync system and never promote OneDrive again. To the maximum extent possible, syncing to a new system should be as simple as logging in.-Adopt Rust as the new native language, stabilize an ABI with forking if necessary, with new Rust APIs to start replacing Win32 and WinRT for new development.-Adopt the Chromebook development model for Windows 365 and Windows Mobile devices.

author: sanleontexas
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2025, 02:36:22 pm
content: How true! Microsoft has never written an operating system if you look at Windows as an uncompletedproduct. Every update is a bunch of corrections to a bunch of screwups and every new Windows isnothing but a collection of screwups with lipstick and a few new features that should have been updates.If they had ever written a bug free operating system they wouldn't made enough money Billy Boy andhis cronies to have their 400' yachts and 20,000 sq ft mansions.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 03, 2025, 05:03:26 am
content: Quote from: Marco on July 02, 2025, 12:03:53 pmNot trying to convert you, I'm just curious of your views as to why?

author: paul cotter
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2025, 01:11:30 pm
content: My question would not be about speed but stability. In my very LIMITED experience with microsoft OS systems Windows 3.1 was the last stable system and it has gone downhill since.

author: coromonadalix
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2025, 03:26:58 pm
content: Win 3.1loll did you travel in time ? you had 3.11 32bit package lollW2k Sp4 was stable for company uses, not end users, and surely not for gaming lollThe W9x era ... mmm 98Se was good, and adding the last updates, or post updates for usb drivers helped a lotXP Sp3 and W7 was the most loved ones, you had access to registry to unlock or mod almost everything you needed, reg files, tweak settings and so many things, and some added post service pack helped to extend their lifesW10 to some extents was good, still good, but not comparableW11 is the new VistaW12 mmmm well seefor now well get 25h2 builds ... i'll see, 24h2 is already a crappy one, core isolation, invalidate unknown or unsafe drivers, even if it worked well on W10, try to force HW makers to update their things, sure i can understand, but there is a limitthis one i'm not passing this huge irritant, it suck big time, i use a paid Startallback and yes that sucker is blocking some Ms update WTFMsoft obviously don't listen to it's consumer base, and they claim around 400 million customer losses ....W98Me, Vista, and the W8 - W8.1 versions sucked a lot, still running an old TEK tds7404 with 98Se loll, stable if you don't mess a lot with driversnot played a lot with the Nt3.51, Nt4 variantsFor the speed lovers, you need to search and check all running background processes, you have many who's not essentials, you can put many of them in the manual mode or not automaticYou can find on the web many ps1 or batch files who can help reduce the memory clutters, but some are dangerous, they go too far, you absolutely need to understand what you're doing ...Mac : i've played with ones, but it always seems i can't do all i want as configurations and look and feelNix variants : some are very good looking on the gui side, it's a matter of finding the right one(s)I like Zorin Os, for me it's the most user windows look a like ... but when you go command line, i totally hate that, command names are totally changed, sure it's their name conventions(s) i'm too old to learn equivalents, i try/tried but it get conflicting in my old brain loll

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2025, 04:27:47 pm
content: Quote from: paul cotter on July 03, 2025, 01:11:30 pmIf a tiny bug in a single process crashes or hangs the entire system, I don’t call that “stable.” While advertised and often referred to as such, technically Windows 3.x wasn’t an operating system. It was hardly more than a fancy GUI layer on top of MS-DOS. Sharing all of its downsides and introducing new problems.The only good thing in Windows 3.1 was the icon aesthetic. It was excellent pixel art. One of the best I’ve seen. Of course it’s a bit biased view: 3.1 was also the first graphical environment I ever used. So naturally that icon set is burned into my brain.Windows 95 would be better. If it didn’t crash due to various issues with drivers, which made it less stable by default. Windows 98 SE wasrelativelygreat. At least for the pre-internet, single-user workstation mindset, and 90s/00s needs. I skipped 2000 and ME, though from people’s experience ME was a tragedy, 2000 was “good enough”. I then shortly used XP, which of course finally brought a proper operating system to desktops, and remotely Server 2003. Again both were fine, but I was no longer feeling as comfortable. I was grown on Win9x and MS-DOS, and understood the APIs and system behavior well. Since XP the environment was getting more hostile and shifting towards corporate vendors. While a minor gripe, the aesthetic and attempts to mold users into a different styles of interaction didn’t help either. To be able to work and not be irritated constantly, I began to move towards FOSS tools and MinGW/Cygwin. One day I said that “Windows is shitty, because advices for Linux don’t work on it” (sic!), I ditched XP and moved to Arch.I shortly had to use Vista on other machines, but that didn’t last long due to general complains from everybody and this system basically not being usable.(1)Occasionally I had to interact with other versions, but not long enough to have any opinion.I never used Apple’s systems for long enough to have any opinion either. I appreciated some technical decisions they made, but both the aesthetic and user’s position in the ecosystem are off-putting to me.(1)That’s what you get, when you copy Apple without understanding their decision process.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2025, 05:16:21 pm
content: Quote from: paul cotter on July 03, 2025, 01:11:30 pmYour experience must be very limited indeed to make such a sweeping statement.I've been using Windows 7 for a couple years now and find it to be extremely stable.Not saying it's 100% fault-tolerant or anything ridiculous like that; but for my purposes it's more than suitable.Certainly a *lot* more stable than Windows 3.1, that's for sure.

author: paul cotter
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2025, 05:53:24 pm
content: Yep, I did emphasise that my experience is limited and I will also state that I am not computer savvy. I never had any problems with windows 3.1, certainly none that I can remember but then again that must be ~35years ago. My biggest beef with later windows versions is that when a problem occurs it is frequently impossible to get to the root of it , with little more than "windows can't.........". I am also using an old windows 7 system and I'm pissed off with the degree of command failure, ie you select something and nothing happens. Could be hardware related I suppose as I definitely have had problems due to whiskering.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2025, 06:09:05 pm
content: Quote from: paul cotter on July 03, 2025, 05:53:24 pmI'm curious about that: what are you trying to select where nothing happens?"Command" to me implies that you're using a command window (cmd.exe). Yes?And what's "whiskering"?

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2025, 06:09:40 pm
content: Quote from: golden_labels on July 03, 2025, 04:27:47 pmFun fact: a whole lot of the icons and widgets in Windows 3.x were designed by Susan Kare, the same artist who designed all the icons and fonts for the original Macintosh (updated versions of which still exist in the Mac today), and who also did a bunch of work at NeXT, which Apple eventually purchased, and whose OS became macOS. So Kare’s work has been spectacularly influential.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 03, 2025, 06:11:24 pm
content: QuoteYeh, 2.3 times faster at hoovering up your personal data and exporting it

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2025, 06:27:57 pm
content: Giving it a bit of thought, Windows 3.1 might have been perceived by some users as more stable. Blame the sampling bias.In early 1990s most users would stick to the same software for a long time. This means that the entire long-time experience may be considered a single sample, predetermined close to the moment they got their computer.(1)If the person happened to receive a stable configuration, it would stay like that “forever.” At the time much less programs were used too and they’re uncomparably simpler, so the initial exposure to breakage was also lower.(2)This is one of the factors, that makes MS-DOS, Windows 3.x, and Windows NT 3.x all still being in use in some solutions in the 2020s. And perceived as the most stable systems that ever existed! Overall they were horrible and most such systems got torn down. But a few extreme cases, ones that happened to be stable, remained.(3)So perhaps paul cotter did observe his Windows 3.1 to be the most stable system ever. It’s not that unlikely.(1)Strictly speaking, it’s still randomized, but the initial selection chooses very different probability distributions.(2)Being pedantic one might argue the programs are not system, but we should remember that an average user reports the overall experience as “system stability,” not the strict technical term.(3)Distinct from thepuresurvivor bias. With those the selection happened at the beginning. While with survivor bias we’re usually talking about later factors failing to eliminate all specimen, despite each event had a reasonable chance of causing that.

author: paul cotter
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2025, 07:23:20 pm
content: Analog kid, have you not come across tin whiskering? These are filaments of tin that grow out of tin solder over time causing intertrack shorts. It does not happen with 60/40 solder. As regards my problem with windows 7 I am probably not using the correct terminology: I am simply talking about clicking on something and no action results and this has happened since day one.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2025, 08:14:51 pm
content: 1. Metal whiskers: yes, I know about that. Didn't realize you were talking about hardware there.2. Clicking on something and nothing happens? Wish I could help you there but don't think I can.I've never had that happen to me (well, except when an application, like my web browser, suddenly goes unresponsive for no good reason); sounds like some kind of misconfiguration issue.

author: paul cotter
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 04, 2025, 08:32:55 pm
content: Thanks, Analog Kid, I was not expecting any help. Most of the problems, but not all, are browser related. Sometimes I will click, for example, on the task manager and nothing happens and after waiting I hit again and again- eventually it opens up multiple task managers. I have found the system to be basically unreliable but it is possible to achieve what you want if your patience holds out. Other times it is fast and flawless. This is what I call a lack of stability.

author: John B
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 04, 2025, 10:58:39 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on July 03, 2025, 05:03:26 amI quite like MacOS, but the thought of purchasing any new Apple products is off the cards now, and probably forever. They now have an ecosystem where they control the software, hardware and repair. That benefits Apple at the expense of the consumer.Their hardware configurations are clearly designed to upsell every purchase to the maximum expenditure, not to give the customer a product that is suitable for their needs.I also don't think they should be viewed more favourably than M$ in regards to data privacy. While Apple may have a reputation for protecting your datafrom third partiesit doesn't mean that Apple themselves doesn't have their hands in the cookie jar.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 04, 2025, 11:28:01 pm
content: I don't like the Mac/Apple "way of doing things". Much prefer Micro$oft Windoze.Chacun à son goût, I guess.One thing that seems objectively more sensible about MacOS: the fact that file types are set by values coded in the filesystem, and not by what the last characters of the filename after the period delimiter happen to be, as in FAT or NTFS. "Hey, I think I'll change this .exe into a .doc by just renaming it!".

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2025, 04:42:38 am
content: Desktop environments for Linux systems are on a par with Apple’s approach. They generally rely on sniffing the actual file content. Both approaches have their pros and cons, but doubtlessly both beat looking at the suffix.Type handling with filesystem metadata isalso defined by Freedesktop,(1)but I never seen it being used. No idea if this is because the “classic” method works so well, or due to concerns about litigation by Apple.(1)Throughuser.mime_typeextended attributes.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2025, 02:36:36 am
content: Quote from: golden_labels on July 05, 2025, 04:42:38 amSo now that you mention it, it seems there are (at least) 3 approaches to file-type identification:File type is given by the file's "extension" (i.e., filename suffix after the last period in the filename): DOS, Windows.File type is an embedded value in the filesystem (Apple?)File type is determined "on the fly" (i.e., "sniffed").I'm actually not sure about the last two; I thought Apple used a fixed, embedded value in the file system (where the filetype is given by the application that creates the file at creation time), but maybe no?Not sure what *nix filesystems do about this.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2025, 09:45:59 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on July 04, 2025, 11:28:01 pmThat’s how it used to be long ago, in classic Mac OS. Mac OS X ultimately went the way of everyone else, relying primarily on file extensions.In classic Mac OS, every file had two 32-bit codes (normally expressed as 4-character strings) known as thetypeandcreatorcodes. The type code is what you’d expect: the type of file. The creator code is the code of the application the file opens in if you double-click the file.For example, suppose you have a TIFF image. Its type code will beTIFF. Suppose further that the image’s creator code is8BIM, which is Adobe Photoshop. (The association was made because the Photoshop executable itself had the type codeAPPL(application) and creator code8BIM.) Now, the clever thing is that by having these two codes be separate, you could also haveTIFFfiles that would open in a different application when double-clicked (because they have a different creator code), but you could open any TIFF image, regardless of creator, in any application capable of openingTIFFfiles. (An application also had a list of file type codes it supported, so that the Finder would know whether to allow you to drag a particular document onto a particular application to let you open it. The Open dialog, on the other hand, was controlled by the application code itself.)Another example might be a plain text file (typeTEXT), with creator codettxt(SimpleText, the system text editor),R*ch(BBedit), orMSWD(Microsoft Word).The creator code????was used for files with an unknown creator.If a file had the????creator code, or if the file’s creator application was not found on the system (incidentally, something determined dynamically based on the contents of any mounted disks), then it would find another application which supported that file type and open it with that. (So, for example, aTEXTfile with creatorMSWDwould open in SimpleText if you didn’t have Microsoft Word installed.)FYI for those not familiar with the internals of classic Mac OS, these codes were part of a file’s core filesystem metadata, and consequently, on classic Mac OS, file extensions were not needed, and were usually not used except when exchanging data with non-Mac systems, especially DOS/Windows. Apple provided utilities (first standalone, later integrated/automatic) to allow Macs to read and write PC-formatted disks, and with that, a utility for associating file types and creators with file extensions. That later became useful when the Internet came along.(In classic Mac OS, every file actually consisted of three things: metadata (type and creator codes, file name, creation date, modification date, lock status, label (color tag for the Finder), visibility, and a few more), the “data fork”, and the “resource fork”. The data fork is equivalent to the file contents on most OSes, containing whatever bytes you write into it. The resource fork, on the other hand, is structured storage, using 4-character codes like the type and creator, but with OS-level support for managing them. For example, an application would have its executable code in aCODEresource, the definition of the menu bar menus in aMENUresource, all the icons in a bunch of structured (multi-resolution, multi-bit-depth)ICNSresources, sounds inSND_resources, etc. Super elegant, but entirely unsupported on other operating systems.Mac OS X initially supported the classic type and creator codes fairly robustly while the core OS fundamentally relied mostly on file extensions as the primary file type identifier. With Snow Leopard (10.6) it deprecated them in favor of a newer style of type and creator system called UTIs (uniform type identifiers) so that you can still associate an individual file to a particular application without affecting the system default. (This has filesystem-level support, including on some “foreign” file systems like NTFS.) The mechanism for finding available applications remains robust, too. In particular, I love that the Mac does not require an application’s supported file types to be registered with the OS (like in the Windows registry), but rather is determined dynamically, meaning that purely drag-and-drop installations, as well as “portable” apps on removable disks, work just as well as apps installed with an installer.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2025, 10:09:34 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on July 06, 2025, 02:36:36 amUnix filesystems store only the basic file type, i.e. regular, directory, symlink, character device, and so on. So applications need to determine if a regular file is a Word document or a JPG image. That could be the user telling the application to load a file as JPG, the application looking at the filename suffix, or the application looking for a specific signature in the file ('magic', seehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_file_signatures).

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2025, 10:24:44 am
content: Quote from: sanleontexas on July 02, 2025, 02:36:22 pmI think it's not entirely accurate to say Microsoft has never built a solid operating system. In fact, during the later years of Windows XP, Microsoft reached a remarkable level of system stability and performance. XP, especially in its SP2/SP3 iterations, was a highly optimized solid OS with a very stable kernel. Blue screens were almost impossible unless unstable drivers were used, and the system was well-suited for both productivity and gaming.Windows XP offered direct hardware access for audio acceleration, and its graphics APIs, especially DirectX, delivered top-tier performance with minimal latency and frame drops. For many users and developers, it was the golden era of PC performance.Unfortunately, a major shift occurred during the transition to Windows Vista. Hardware-accelerated audio was removed in favor of software-based layers like the new audio engine, leading to increased latency. The system grew heavier with questionable background services and bloated features that significantly degraded responsiveness. The kernel became much less stable, and frequent updates sometimes disruptive turned Windows into something many users felt was out of their control, more akin to malware botnet than a user-centric OS. Later on, increasingly controversial telemetry features were introduced, multiplying rapidly and bearing a strong resemblance to spyware in both scope and behavior.As a result, modern Windows has become a troubling sight - a bloated Frankenstein-like system composed of numerous spyware "telemetry" modules and incessant updates with the behavior of a full-fledged self-modifying stealth botnet.In that context, Windows XP stands out as Microsoft’s last highly efficient and artistically engineered operating system. However, its aging architecture and lack of modern TLS support, coupled with limited driver compatibility for newer hardware, eventually rendered it obsolete for practical use today. Still, its legacy is a testament to what Microsoft once achieved - something many users continue to remember with nostalgia and respect.I think that up until Windows XP, Microsoft was genuinely focused on developing an highly optimized and great operating system as it should be - efficient, stable, and user-centric. However, once they reached a certain level of maturity and refinement with XP, it seems they decided to change the goal. Rather than improving on that foundation, they began transforming the product into a vast data-collecting botnet platform. Windows Vista marked the first significant step on that path.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 07, 2025, 04:15:52 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on July 06, 2025, 10:24:44 amI tend to agree. Windows NT and 2000 were also absolutely rock solid. It wasn't unusual to find machines tucked away in server rooms that were running continuously for years.

author: paul cotter
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2025, 04:37:26 pm
content: I have a XP(not sure what version) on an old Dell and I have to admit it's behaviour was really the best of a bad lot. It still works but gets very little use as it is quite limited. I had to format the hard disc once when it basically became unusable.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2025, 06:17:10 pm
content: Quote from: paul cotter on July 08, 2025, 04:37:26 pm"Quite limited"? How?What kind of software do you run, or do you want to run on it?The fact that you had to reformat a hard drive has nothing to do with the OS.I miss XP.

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2025, 05:05:30 pm
content: Market share shock: Is Windows 10 actually gaining ground over Windows 11?Microsoft will end official mainstream support for Windows 10 in October, yet many userscontinue to stick with the old, reliable rather than upgrade to the Copilot-heavy Windows 11experience. The OS's stubborn popularity underscores user resistance to Microsoft'spush for its latest platform.https://www.techspot.com/news/109410-market-share-shock-windows-10-actually-gaining-ground.html

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2025, 06:49:22 pm
content: Or do as I do and go back to good old Windoze 7. Reliable, doesn't phone home, does everything I need it to do.Been using it for several years now with almost no complaints.

author: coromonadalix
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2025, 08:21:02 pm
content: 7 was the next XP and i absolutely dont see any major speed difference between 10 and 11 ill say basic settings,but W11 once optimized, useless service shutted down, crap removed yada yada it get somewhat faster but not by huge margins11 just load more crap like: Telemetry Ads, AI and other gimmicks for sureif you go the w11 Entreprise you get slightly less crap (did i repeat crap loll) but ... better group policies and other thingsI personally think w12 will be worse, m$oft want absolute account registrations, they are already trying for the w10 "life extension"one big problem who got serious over time is the TEMP FOLDERS : in the %User and %Windows folders, you absolutely need to manage them and clean them,and with the WinSXS one they will absolutely suck the life / space out of your drive

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2025, 06:32:24 pm
content: My problem with using a Linux distro as my main OS is not the OS itself, it's that so many of the applications are shit.By "shit" I mean 30-year-old software with prehistoric UIs, with patches and bolt-ons rendering the workflow comprehensible only to the nerds who maintain it.Linux nerds are absolutely hopeless at designing user interfaces, and are far too happy to keep bodging on new features with never a thought for new users, who haven't got half a lifetime to learn how to use the application. Have you used OpenOffice recently? It's as ugly as fuck and although the functionality is good, it just feels messy and unpleasant.When I'm using a tool - whether hardware or software - I really enjoy one that is beautifully crafted and elegant. Many Windows and Apple programs are like that, but very few Linux apps make the grade.If I could put together a suitable suite of Linux apps that were beautiful, elegant, intuitive, smooth and easy, I'd switch to Linux in a shot. Mint or Kubuntu, probably.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2025, 06:39:13 pm
content: Just to add more fuel to that (anti-Unix) argument, here'sThe UNIX-HATERS Handbook.Now granted, this is just a bit out of date, and a lot of the glaring problems pointed out here have been fixed a while ago.But it does show the Unix mentality, which corresponds to what Steve wrote above.Plus it's funny as hell.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2025, 01:01:38 pm
content: UI/UX design isn't easy and you can't make everyone happy. I fully agree that some linux/unix applications have UI quirks. But so do also applications for Windows or any other OSs. At one company we used an insanely expensive software for network documentation (client running on Windows, more complex than any office suite) and the UI was horrid. Everyone hated it. Some companies even manage to screw up a CLI, e.g. Nortel Passport ethernet switches (originally Accelar, now Avaya). BTW, Commodore was quite progressive back then and published an 'Amiga User Interface Style Guide'. BTW #2, X11 applications usually allow admins/users to customize the GUI to some extend, some even during runtime (a few gems many don't know about, and which are actually standard features). Ancient X11 can do some nifty things.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2025, 07:32:38 pm
content: One good thing about Apple and Microsoft is that they both have comprehensive design language definitions, and both provide alotof documentation on how to develop a good UI that is modern, internally consistent, and familiar.This is not the case for Linux, not least because it comes with many different UI models, and as nobody makes a lot of money from Linux apps, there is less time and money invested in the kind of polishing that many Apple and Windows apps get.I agree that it is perfectly possible to design a terrible UI for Windows or Apple, but it happens far less often because there is money to be made if people love using your product.