Windows 11 24h2 slows down gaming performance, older versions and Windows 10 works better also with AMD new CPU-s.

Supposedly AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D can OC to 6.9GHz with LN2 already. 😀 https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1FRDVY3Eaw/

dr_st wrote on 2024-11-06, 21:19:

So was XP before SP1/SP2 respectively, for that matter.

No, it wasn't. Even vanilla XP was a substantial upgrade after Windows 98/ME. Win2k was not targeted for regular desktop/notebook users.

Windows 10 is far worse on a spinning drive.

That was irrelevant by the time it was released.

And here's me still running Win10 (20H2) on rusty HDD. 7200 RPM, though I have a rarely used laptop that has 5400 RPM, but I find slow CPU and low RAM more of deal breaker with this one. Maybe I'm just more patient?

Honestly, in my day to day usage, which is mostly just web browsing, some text editing, media playback, the only difference between work laptop with SSD and home desktop with HDD is that latter takes forever to cold boot and login also takes longer, but when everything loads, it doesn't make much difference, at least not enough to bug me. And I suppose if you play newer games, loading times may be more bothersome on HDDs.

I only cold boot after it gets bugged, which is in about a month on home desktop. Work laptop takes much longer, up to half-year at least before issues crop up, but on it, not much time difference between cold boot and resume from hibernation.

You totally can make Vista 64-bit work with just 512 Mb RAM and fast enough SSD. Although Aero won't work.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2024-11-07, 12:24:

You totally can make Vista 64-bit work with just 512 Mb RAM and fast enough SSD. Although Aero won't work.

You can run i586 cpu-s on last "public" beta build of Vista and maybe RTM as well, probably its slower than XP.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2024-11-07, 12:24:

You totally can make Vista 64-bit work with just 512 Mb RAM and fast enough SSD. Although Aero won't work.

Which is a pity, because I recently learned that Aero improves desktop performance on Windows 7 (probably Vista as well).

dr_st wrote on 2024-11-07, 15:39:

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2024-11-07, 12:24:

You totally can make Vista 64-bit work with just 512 Mb RAM and fast enough SSD. Although Aero won't work.

Which is a pity, because I recently learned that Aero improves desktop performance on Windows 7 (probably Vista as well).

I have no Vista or 7 at the moment, but there is no way 1GB is needed for real, Aero takes max 100MB ram maybe.

Vista/7 users at low ram, hopefully some tools work to enable it.
https://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/aero_enabler.html

Wow, the guy working on ExplorerPatcher actually implemented his own taskbar!

Windows 11 is such a clunker. How the heck will Win12 look/run at this point? At least with Win8, they tried to make it perform better.

UCyborg wrote on 2024-11-16, 17:57:

Windows 11 is such a clunker. How the heck will Win12 look/run at this point? At least with Win8, they tried to make it perform better.

Whoah! Not sure how those clunky Win8 "universal apps" improved performance. And I still have PTDS from trying to work the Server 2012 GUI from a touch pad over RDP.

Windows 11 wasn't a performance release as I see it. It a security enhancement. Well, security and screwing up the interface again.

douglar wrote on 2024-11-20, 18:38:

UCyborg wrote on 2024-11-16, 17:57:

Windows 11 is such a clunker. How the heck will Win12 look/run at this point? At least with Win8, they tried to make it perform better.

Whoah! Not sure how those clunky Win8 "universal apps" improved performance. And I still have PTDS from trying to work the Server 2012 GUI from a touch pad over RDP.

Windows 11 wasn't a performance release as I see it. It a security enhancement. Well, security and screwing up the interface again.

Windows 8 had some dramatic improvements to the speed of file copying activities. I upgraded from Vista Ultimate to Windows 8 pretty much exclusively for that, and it was a very big quality of life improvement!

MadMac_5 wrote on 2024-11-20, 19:59:

Windows 8 had some dramatic improvements to the speed of file copying activities. I upgraded from Vista Ultimate to Windows 8 pretty much exclusively for that, and it was a very big quality of life improvement!

Ok, I agree that the file transfers got more robust if you were using the GUI to move stuff over a WAN, but I had been forced to switch to robocopy scripts for most of my large file moves back in the server 2003 days, so that didn't impact me too much.

I think of Window 10-->11 as something similar to Windows XP SP1 --> SP2. Wasn't pleasant and obsoleted hardware that couldn't handle it, but was kind of a good idea from a security stand point.

Although last weekend, my mother in law pulled me aside to ask me why she was getting this:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/11/micro … ndows-10-users/

She's got a 4790s CPU, so she's not really eligible.

chinny22 wrote on 2024-11-05, 22:47:

You may already know, but to fix right click menu open command prompt as Administrator and type the following.

reg.exe add "HKCU\Software\Classes\CLSID\{86ca1aa0-34aa-4e8b-a509-50c905bae2a2}\InprocServer32" /f /ve

Yeah i heard about it but not tried. i can probably do this at my home computer but doubt i can on a company computer with limited rights.

Anyway it is completely idiotic and is a telltale sign that this menu will not exist (even with hacks) in future releases if windows.

I suppose they all want us to work in the cloud or something but im a real engineer, not a power point engineer. (yells at clouds)

Joakim wrote on 2024-11-21, 11:06:

Anyway it is completely idiotic and is a telltale sign that this menu will not exist (even with hacks) in future releases if windows.

I doubt the part in bold. Microsoft has a very large base of power users, and has been extremely conservative when it comes to removing features.

dr_st wrote on 2024-11-22, 10:42:

Joakim wrote on 2024-11-21, 11:06:

Anyway it is completely idiotic and is a telltale sign that this menu will not exist (even with hacks) in future releases if windows.

I doubt the part in bold. Microsoft has a very large base of power users, and has been extremely conservative when it comes to removing features.

Hmm good point, I didn't really think/worry about future releases, much like more and more things are been removed from the Control Panel to the (inferior IMHO) Settings menu.
But as dr_st said, if that does happen someone will create a tool, much like how Classic shell restored the start menu in Windows 8

marxveix wrote on 2024-11-07, 21:22:

I have no Vista or 7 at the moment, but there is no way 1GB is needed for real, Aero takes max 100MB ram maybe. […]
Show full quote

dr_st wrote on 2024-11-07, 15:39:

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2024-11-07, 12:24:

You totally can make Vista 64-bit work with just 512 Mb RAM and fast enough SSD. Although Aero won't work.

Which is a pity, because I recently learned that Aero improves desktop performance on Windows 7 (probably Vista as well).

I have no Vista or 7 at the moment, but there is no way 1GB is needed for real, Aero takes max 100MB ram maybe.

Vista/7 users at low ram, hopefully some tools work to enable it.
https://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/aero_enabler.html

I wouldn't even run Windows XP with less than 1GB, if it can be avoided.
Our ancient Pentium III at home had 768 of MB at end, which XP SP2 was grateful for (it was horrible slow with original 128MB in the beginning).

Edit: I may add that I originally had Windows XP SP0 or SP1 running on a Pentium MMX 166 with 64MB of RAM and an SCSI drive (NCQ feature).
This was still an improvement over Windows 98SE, despite Windows XP being more heavy.
My applications themself ran fine after XP was tweaked to get along with the given hardware (and no, I didn't use classic theme).

Back in ca. 2010, my father's office PC ran both Windows XP and 7 x64 in a dual-boot configuration and we installed 8GB of RAM to max out memory.
Windows XP on 3,2GB of RAM ran better than it ever did before.

Aero takes max 100MB ram maybe.

You're not taking Vista and WDM 1.0 drivers into account, I'm afraid.
A duplicate of graphics card memory was held in RAM.
It needs Windows 7 and WDM 1.1 drivers to not have this duplicate anymore.

That being said, I have a hard time to understand why people in IT are in general so obsessed with low-RAM configurations and outdated hardware.
Question shouldn't be "how much RAM do I need ?", but "how much RAM can I have ?".

In the business field (not at home), it used to be normal that PCs had an average life time of 5 years.
Also because the migration can take years to complete, so it's too late to start to move on shortly before the current stuff is EOL.

This upgrade cycle was normal in the 70s and 80s, already.
By 1985, a 1977 Commodore PET was barely usable anymore for an office use (but still ok as a special purpose machine in a back room).
Not because of processing power, but because of change of media and software standards.

It's just legitimate that Microsoft demands a recent PC for Windows 11.
Or rather: demands for recent CPU/mainboard.
The rest of the hardware can likely be moved over, including RAM and SSDs.

I mean, it's all understandable.
The company, Microsoft wants to push new technologies, be succesful in big data business and so on. That's why the TPM 2 chip is so important.
Let's think about it, we're living in 21th century, in the internet age.
Encryption and algorithms are very important.

Those who don't want to participate are free to stick to Windows 10 and use it offline. Or get LTSC 2019.
Linux is an alternative, too. Using Windows 11 is not a must in the legal sense.

I wonder if we can expect Chromium to require SSE 4.2 soon, because Windows 11 itself bumped the requirements. Maybe after Windows 10's EOS next year.

On somewhat related note, I recently dusted off my Steam account, Steam takes whooping 800 MB of RAM due to Chromium. Chromium used to be disableable and Steam would still function fine as a launcher for games. Why does this monstrosity have to be everywhere? 🤮

Chromium is platform agnostic, so very unlikely. Also you can still use Steam via developer tools (SteamCMD) with console. As intended.

I don't trust those fuckers at Google. I'm sure they'll say at some point most users have SSE 4.1 and bump them up like they did 4 years ago for SSE3.

SteamCMD isn't a replacement for Steam Client AFAIK. And doesn't change the fact that Chromium is way overused.

"The Steam Console Client or SteamCMD is a command-line version of the Steam Client."