21–30 of 109 posts
There are actually a lot of factors here, although if I had to sum it up in one, it would be "the hardware can support it." But more seriously: 1. There are a lot of security mitigations in modern Windows that add sometimes substantial runtime overhead, but offer significant protection. Writing an exploit for modern Windows is hard compared to XP SP1 and below. 2. The graphics are a lot more sophisticated. Animation…
One thing to do is to turn off unnecessary services and startup programs. Once you do this, the system becomes amazingly fast. I had to recently setup up a WFH machine with just Chrome and nothing else. I ended up using Win10 (Win11 didn't support the mobo) and went through and uninstalled everything that was activated by default. I also set up autologin and fastboot. The system ends up booting from a cold start in a…
Until the next update.
You people told me if I bought windows pro, I could forever turn off ads. Welp, the update happened and I got more ads.
I would be on Fedora if not for a customer requiring Windows software. Its such a garbage OS, Linux is literally better now. Even for grandma.
Btw does anyone else have some weird UX/UI bug where the right clicking makes the text the same color as the background? I don't have bugs in Fedora.
Answers will be about the same as if you had asked "What makes Windows XP perform so much worse than Windows 3.11?"
I don’t remember Windows 3.11 being that performant… do you?
There are actually a lot of factors here, although if I had to sum it up in one, it would be "the hardware can support it." But more seriously: 1. There are a lot of security mitigations in modern Windows that add sometimes substantial runtime overhead, but offer significant protection. Writing an exploit for modern Windows is hard compared to XP SP1 and below. 2. The graphics are a lot more sophisticated. Animation…
Linux isn't afraid to break backward compatible. I'm pretty sure Win32 is going to outlive me.
There are actually a lot of factors here, although if I had to sum it up in one, it would be "the hardware can support it." But more seriously: 1. There are a lot of security mitigations in modern Windows that add sometimes substantial runtime overhead, but offer significant protection. Writing an exploit for modern Windows is hard compared to XP SP1 and below. 2. The graphics are a lot more sophisticated. Animation…
Plus backward compatibility. They add code but never take it away.
There are actually a lot of factors here, although if I had to sum it up in one, it would be "the hardware can support it." But more seriously: 1. There are a lot of security mitigations in modern Windows that add sometimes substantial runtime overhead, but offer significant protection. Writing an exploit for modern Windows is hard compared to XP SP1 and below. 2. The graphics are a lot more sophisticated. Animation…
Linux isn't afraid to break backward compatible. I'm pretty sure Win32 is going to outlive me.
I had a weird experience where I had to use a device stuck on a 2.6.x kernel, and I was able to run a modern distribution on top of it.
Similarly, running old userlands on new kernels works just as well.
The issue with backwards compatibility isn't with the kernel, but ensuring that whatever you want to run is compatible with the surrounding userland environment. Dynamic linking can break backwards compatibility, for example, but that's an issue above Linux.
Answers will be about the same as if you had asked "What makes Windows XP perform so much worse than Windows 3.11?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't remember the difference being that large between them.
Try and run XP on a machine that shipped with 3.1.
But if you just bump up the RAM until XP is comfortable, maybe 64 or 128 megs, there isn't much difference between Windows 3.11 and XP in speed. (If you disable the fisher price UI in XP.) If you run more than one program at once, XP definitely starts winning. Win 3.11 is shit at multi-tasking.
There are actually a lot of factors here, although if I had to sum it up in one, it would be "the hardware can support it." But more seriously: 1. There are a lot of security mitigations in modern Windows that add sometimes substantial runtime overhead, but offer significant protection. Writing an exploit for modern Windows is hard compared to XP SP1 and below. 2. The graphics are a lot more sophisticated. Animation…
Including things you like quite a bit, such as WiFi support, thread scheduling, and suspend modes that are worth a damn.
XP could be snappy, but I haven't forgotten how poorly my old XP two-thread laptop multitasked, how the battery didn't last more than an hour, and so on.
Also worth remembering everyone always has a browser open today. In the XP days, you were running Firefox 1.0, a 5MB program.