Ask HN: What makes Windows 11 perform much worse than Windows XP?

>XP can use far more cores

Only for the 64-bit version, which was very uncommon for most of the XP lifetime.

Almost everybody on XP was using a 32-bit version, which only uses two cores at the most.

Using select 2014 PC's which are about the newest you could get that still supported XP and where proper XP drivers were easily available, a lot can still be done to make direct performance comparisons. These would be the first generation consumer/business UEFI PC's, originally shipped with 64-bit Windows 8. But also still offering drivers for W7, Vista, and XP if you were to prefer to install those instead or multiboot to them. Also among the first target machines to be expected to migrate to Windows 10 as soon as it became "the final Windows version going forward" from Windows 8.x. Some can have W11 installed without real difficulty too, and it runs the same apps correctly just like W10 without much more sluggishness.

But if you don't need more than 3.x GB of memory, and try W10 32-bit, you may find it's a lot less slow than W11. This is where nobody can deny it.

OTOH with XP 32-bit on the same hardware (including SSD and HD graphics) with all proper system drivers, nothing about it can be considered slow by comparison.

Much faster than almost all professional users of XP remember from back then, because 2014 hardware was so much more performant than 2004 or 2010.

On only two cores it just blows everything else away.

Except for Windows 98 of course on the same hardware without even proper system drivers (naturally only using a single core), but you have to remove all but 1GB of memory for that.

W10 32-bit will still do this (while W10 is still with us) after enabling NTVDM so it works like XP in this regard.

>setup up a WFH machine with just Chrome and nothing else.

If you really narrow your use case(s) you can disable all kinds of things that are taking up memory and distracting your processor.

I just did this for somebody too. Previously had current W11 since it came out, but the web platform was just changed, and suddently they couldn't keep Edge from interfering with the intended workflow any more.

The employer only ever claimed to support W10 and Chrome so that's what I cooked up for the multiboot menu now.

Only partitioned 32GB of space, and it's only about half full, there's nothing else installed except Chrome.

Edge has been fully neutralized, and it's smooth sailing.

No more Teams either, its webcamming in the browser now.

They've been at it doing WFH a long time, way before covid, years ago I tested a Linux distro using Chrome and it worked even though no Linux or Mac was supported.

Now with this stepwise change, for the actual tasks being accomplished, it does seem like a lot of the worker interaction with the main office which was once solely to co-ordinate with the team and all contribute very comparable value-added work independently, is now as familiar as possible while more likely being utilized to train a different entity to perform the value-added work in the future.

For this type of thing Windows 11 does appear to be offering more possibilities than ever before, but Windows 10 doesn't look like a real slouch either.

P.S. I want to add ancillary rant here about the MODERN concept of PROFESSIONAL EDITION: I also have Apple computers, a MacBook Pro for example. If I take a MacOS version from the past, let say Snow Leopard, and compare it at the one in use on that computer right now , an allegedly PRO system, do the new version improve my job ? Because this means "PRO", right? Something you use in your profession , right? REALLY, NO, let's add some details: - Snow Leopard gave me the feel of something FAST , this one only at the beginning, after some service upgrades of the OS in use, the infamous rainbow disk started to spawn;

- On Snow leopard I could use dtrace/dtruss , here if I have to investigate an application, I have to reboot the system, disable the SIP and wait that the problem manifest. This is especially stupid, I mean to force a professional to follow this workflow depriving him root privilege on it's own system. Image if Linux decide to do something like that and you have to reboot a server to use trace.

- X is still a thing, I use it at work, In Snow Leopard it was integrated , now I have to install XQuartz, that, for what I know is a one-man-project, with all the problem it implies ( and I want to thank the maintainer for the recent bug fixes , solving problem I had ); - CUDA: I can't use CUDA, an industry standard on MAC, I was able to use it on previous version of MacOs until Apple decided it's bad for us, publicizing the delusional idea that I can do the same jobs of an high end GPU on an Mxxx processor.

- ZSH: at some point, Apple also decided BASH is bad for you and your life will be better with ZSH. So, let's throw away a consolidated standard tool for some hipster stuff facilitating script kiddies to have multicoloured, fluorescent, pimped cursors on it ! Obviously not 100% compatible with BASH, so you should modify your scripts to conform. Luckily, Bash can be restored.

So I can do LESS with this MODERN OS that a 10 years older version. But now it has more vivid colours and that's good for your mood. And, again, my perception is that it's slower, doing the same tasks I did on Snow Leopard.

Are pro version adding some professional tool, capability, whatever that improve my professional experience or productivity ? NO.

So, how is justified the "professional" adjective here ? It seems more marketing gimmick to me. I feel less productive, but I have Apple TV, Siri and tons of bloatware should be present on a PRO machine and sometimes, A VENT. Yes, the difference from pro and non-pro sometimes is that the pro version can better dissipate heat.

Think about it.