I feel having a built-in graphics card that's poor also results in terrible performance, even if its just desktop use, things just become slow and laggy.
Did Windows 10 slow down with each feature update?
271–280 of 432 posts
Re: Did Windows 10 slow down with each feature update?
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
Resize and clone the install from the HDD to the SSD. I've had the same "install" of Windows since 2011, its gone through 3 different storage mediums, two different motherboards, and three different CPUs. My go-to for a low level copy between two different drives is Clonezilla. https://clonezilla.org/ GParted is also another live OS with good tools to manage partitions. https://gparted.org/
Does windows handle it alright when the hardware (motherboard/cpu) it's running on changes out from under it?
It won't break. Activation may or may not whine at you, and if it does whine it might resolve itself after a couple days.
Re: Did Windows 10 slow down with each feature update?
#273I'm still on an 2nd gen i5 with 12gb of ram. Haven't noticed any slowdowns even with the huge amount of processes in the background. I've been updating regularly and have enjoyed Win10 for years.
Exactly my experience, but I'm a "stock" user. Meaning, I don't game, I don't have extra bells and whistles.
Re: Did Windows 10 slow down with each feature update?
#274Before we can help each other and find the culprits, we need to be more detailed in what makes Windows 10 worse.
Re: Did Windows 10 slow down with each feature update?
#275Anyone finally willing to admit that w10 is unusable on Hard Drives while Linux and W7 work fine on them?
People must have very different performance requirements than me. I've run 10 on nothing but HDD for years now with no issues. Of course, I also avoid electron apps, modify Firefox so it doesn't eat memory like an addict on a bender, and generally keep bloat off my system. But Windows, basic Multimedia programs and games all seem to run fine. It's probably not cutting edge, but I don't feel like it's dragging.
You are more patient than I am.
Re: Did Windows 10 slow down with each feature update?
#276Disappointed I didn't see fairly reasonable explanations around processor security bugs which impact broad system performance such as Spectre and Meltdown. This has a significant impact on Linux and Microsoft has even outlined that these fixes impact their performance (there have been many more security bugs identified since): https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2018/01/09/understan...
What I find most disappointing is that even processors manufactured TODAY contain these flaws and have performance hits put into the firmware. This issue is so fundamental to how CPU caches work, that there really is not a true performance-neutral fix.
What I find most disappointing is that even processors manufactured TODAY contain these flaws and have performance hits put into the firmware.
Alternatively: if you don't care about timing side-channels (which is true in a lot of applications where the only code being run is trusted, such as with HPC clusters and the like), you can run at full performance, and if you do, you can load the microcode to increase the security at the expense of performance.
Re: Did Windows 10 slow down with each feature update?
#277Some remarks: I used Hyper-V as the hypervisor of choice That is not how most end user installations are configured (aka, not as a virtual machine). 32GB fixed disk for each build. That is much much less than the typical Windows 10 hardware. the fast boot feature has been disabled for the purposes of this measurement. That is not the default and not reflective of most installations.
4 GB RAM seems impossibly tight as well. I'm not sure if 4 core and 4 GB was ever a common or representative setup for PCs; perhaps 2 core and 4 GB in the Vista timeframe...
I'm not sure why you're bringing cores into this. And 2 cores is still fine for a lot of purposes. And there were lots of 2 core machines with far less than 4GB. Even 1GB was "double" the minimum required for Vista, because OEMs pressured microsoft into lowering the vista requirements down to garbage levels.
Re: Did Windows 10 slow down with each feature update?
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
Resize and clone the install from the HDD to the SSD. I've had the same "install" of Windows since 2011, its gone through 3 different storage mediums, two different motherboards, and three different CPUs. My go-to for a low level copy between two different drives is Clonezilla. https://clonezilla.org/ GParted is also another live OS with good tools to manage partitions. https://gparted.org/
Does windows handle it alright when the hardware (motherboard/cpu) it's running on changes out from under it?
When I've done this, on first boot Windows detects the changed hardware and there's a little mini-installation screen that says "Reconfiguring Hardware" or something. Things seem to work afterwards. Changing the Motherboard may cause activation issues on OEM licenses. Changing from Nvidia GPUs to other manufacturers may require e.g. DDU to remove their drivers completely.
Re: Did Windows 10 slow down with each feature update?
#279Disappointed I didn't see fairly reasonable explanations around processor security bugs which impact broad system performance such as Spectre and Meltdown. This has a significant impact on Linux and Microsoft has even outlined that these fixes impact their performance (there have been many more security bugs identified since): https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2018/01/09/understan...
What I find most disappointing is that even processors manufactured TODAY contain these flaws and have performance hits put into the firmware. This issue is so fundamental to how CPU caches work, that there really is not a true performance-neutral fix.
An alternative interpretation is that there are no current "performance hits", just the legitimate performance is now (better) known. Those former "performance gains" were cheated, akin to Volkswagen emissions tests.
Edit: it was Volkswagen not Volvo.
Re: Did Windows 10 slow down with each feature update?
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that's also a billion+ users with much slower computers! So you need to compare the harm on both sides. And then MS could add a switch in Settings for anyone who is concerned. (I realize not many people would find it, but it seems important for the option to be accessible, without digging into the registry or some such.)
> But that's also a billion+ users with much slower computers! So you need to compare the harm on both sides. Far more likely Microsoft would be legally exposed due to a skipped patch than a patch that slows machines down. Intel on the other hand, that'd be more interesting. > And then MS could add a switch in Settings for anyone who is concerned. (I realize not many people would find it, but it seems important for t…
To be clear, I am very explicitly thinking of home editions of Windows. No GPOs.