Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


NoelC

Anyone Else Noticed The Newer Windows Versions are SLOWER?

Recommended Posts

No. I haven't noticed that they are slower... just stupider. If they made them less stupid, they might appear faster.

I mean, a JPEG is gonna load faster on a newer version of Windows, simply because the OS requires more processing power and RAM. The unfortunate thing is that the newer versions of Windows lack the grace, elegance, and simplicity (and therefore speed) of the Windows ME and Windows 2000 interfaces. XP was the beginning of the stupidness.

Just my two cents. Naysayers can waste their time calling me a blankety blank. Will not listen because I don't care.

Does this make sense to the majority of the readers of this thread? The affirmation and/or its explanation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ponch, it's just one of those things you read and move on.  Everyone likes some things and dislikes others.  It's nice we all have a place where we can express our opinions.

 

I simply can't say anything authoritative about his judgment about relative speed.  Frankly I thought XP seemed faster than 2000 back when I upgraded an engineering department from one to the other.  But... I honestly don't remember any benchmark results or relative measurements, so I am probably falling into one of the categories I listed in my original post.

 

As far as I'm concerned anything older than Win 7 at this point simply isn't interesting.

 

-Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I haven't noticed that they are slower... just stupider. If they made them less stupid, they might appear faster.

I mean, a JPEG is gonna load faster on a newer version of Windows, simply because the OS requires more processing power and RAM. The unfortunate thing is that the newer versions of Windows lack the grace, elegance, and simplicity (and therefore speed) of the Windows ME and Windows 2000 interfaces. XP was the beginning of the stupidness.

Just my two cents. Naysayers can waste their time calling me a blankety blank. Will not listen because I don't care.

 

Does this make sense to the majority of the readers of this thread? The affirmation and/or its explanation?

 

I read that he was agreeing with jaclaz that in order to run a newer version of Windows you have to have to have a more powerful CPU, RAM, disc speed and space, etc than what was required for ME and 2000, so of course using an app, that would run on both old and new versions of the OS, to do things like loading a JPEG will likely seem faster to you on the newer OS than what you experienced on your older system.  But because of all of the code bloat and added "features", the UI of the newer OS can't be as fast as what the older OS could be if it could run on the newer hardware.  ie, smaller can move faster than larger.

 

I took his comment that "XP was the beginning of the stupidness" as saying that XP was the beginning of the code bloat, also agreeing with what jaclaz has said elsewhere.  I also was a long time Win2K user that has been horrified at the increasing laziness of the programmers of the later OS, but I have made my peace with that at least as far as XP and Win7 is concerned in exchange for the ease of use of being able to open any file, go to any web site and run any app I want and have things just work.  So sue me, I'm lazy sometimes. :)  I also do enjoy at least some of the personalization options available in Win 7 even if I do disable many of them.  Like Noel said, when you look at a computer for hours and hours you want to enjoy the view.  I think the comments from ido1ts that say the reversion of the UI in Win 10 back to Win 1 levels is great because now you can "concentrate better on the content" is total garbage.  Do you build a house that looks like junk so you can better appreciate the furniture and the artwork on the walls?  Sorry for the rant. :)

 

The comment about "Naysayers ..." is just a way of saying "Don't confuse me with facts, I don't care. I know what I like and what works for me."  There are many folks on this board that prefer one OS or UI over the other, including 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, etc, even Mac or Linux and the occasional MS fan boy that loves the latest that MS puts out no matter how ridiculous it is, and they are each entitled to their opinion. :)  Like Noel said, I just read it and move on.

 

Cheers and Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, but sometimes one needs to draw a line somewhere, one thing is the UI (like it or not) and the "looks" of the OS and another one is it's performance when compared to a previous version.

 

NoelC is dedicated to solve problems (or better the OS) on both these aspects, but they have (to me) different relevance.

 

Personally, I usually run my XP with a GUI that is very, very minimal (blackbox/bblean) and there are few things that I could care less about than the graphical looks of the things like (say) Aero or transparence/glow/whatever, but I do appreciate (even if I will probably never make us of them) the dedication that a lot of members are putting into making these choices available.

 

This is (as I see it) a form of freedom :thumbup , not entirely different from the idea behind the light blue ribbon for freedom of skin, there are people that like (and actually use :w00t:) the LCARS interface:

http://reboot.pro/files/file/539-lcars-library-computer-access-and-retrieval-system/

which is something that only few (non Earthly) races in the galaxy can actually believe to be "pleasing the eye" .

Still, it is within the right of everyone to have his/her/its desktop and UI set the way they like better.

 

This whole stuff pertains to "beauty" (which is obviously in the eye of the beholder) whilst performance is something "objective" that can be measured.

 

Yet another aspect is "ergonomics" of the interface, which is a separate aspect from beauty, but still largely connected to subjective user preference or habits.

 

ZortMcGort11's comment makes little sense because it is outside the initial statement, this thread is about performance of different OS on EXACTLY THE SAME hardware, it is rather obvious that on new, faster hardware a new OS will seem faster than the previous one on an old, slower hardware.

 

So, let's draw this line explicitly.

  1. This thread is NOT about the looks of the UI (highly subjective).
  2. This thread is NOT about the convenience of the UI usage (mostly subjective)
  3. This thread is ONLY about performance (objective/measurable) and on comparing performance of different OS's ONLY on SAME hardware and it is also implied that it is a "fresh install" compared to "fresh install", and an "as optimized as possible" install vs. "as optimized as possible" install.

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ZortMcGort11's comment makes little sense because it is outside the initial statement,

As well, but aside of that, semantically, it makes no sense at all! There is no word about "hardware". We all understand what he says only because we make a connection with obvious things that have been said so many times before (again here by bphlpt and you), but read it with the eyes of a child and it makes no sense at all. I just wanted to point that because of the "don't waste my time" bit. I'm wasting our time as much as he was. I'm not even sure I'm doing it in a funnier way. :D  I'll move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ZortMcGort11's comment makes little sense because it is outside the initial statement,

As well, but aside of that, semantically, it makes no sense at all! There is no word about "hardware". We all understand what he says only because we make a connection with obvious things that have been said so many times before (again here by bphlpt and you), but read it with the eyes of a child and it makes no sense at all. I just wanted to point that because of the "don't waste my time" bit. I'm wasting our time as much as he was. I'm not even sure I'm doing it in a funnier way. :D  I'll move on.

 

Well, but you are going OT :w00t::ph34r:, we were explicitly allowed to waste our time by calling him a "blankety blank":.

 

 

Naysayers can waste their time calling me a blankety blank. Will not listen because I don't care.

 

 while seemingly you are wasting our time WITHOUT calling him a blankety blank, i.e. as well outside the initial statement.

 

Now, be nice :), and if you want to waste our time within the limits of the topic, do call him "blankety blank" (if you have the guts for it ;)).

 

:lol:

 

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, I have OCZ SSDs (Vertex 3 480 GB models) in continuous use in a RAID array since 2012 and they still deliver all the performance they had the day they were pressed into service.

 

-Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... I would replace the ATA cable!

 

That wouldn't help at all.

 

 

FYI, I have OCZ SSDs (Vertex 3 480 GB models) in continuous use in a RAID array since 2012 and they still deliver all the performance they had the day they were pressed into service.

 

It's a bug only detected (to my knowledge) in Samsung 840 (plain 840, non-EVO, non-Pro) and Samsung 840 EVO SSDs. Quite probably related to their TLC flash (as opposed to SLC or MLC).

 

The whistleblowing thread: http://www.overclock.net/t/1507897/samsung-840-evo-read-speed-drops-on-old-written-data-in-the-drive

 

Tons of evidence: http://www.overclock.net/t/1512915/read-speeds-dropping-dramatically-on-older-files-benchmarks-needed-to-confirm-affected-ssds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds like a doggone shame that Samsung just are ignoring the issue and not updating the firmware.  How old is the drive you're seeing it with?  What size?

 

-Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Windows 10 tweaker over at Yamicsoft looks interesting may give it a try.

~DP

 

"Windows 10 Manager is a system utility that helps you optimize, tweak, repair and clean up Windows 10. It will increase your system speed, eliminate system fault, improve system security, and meet all of your expectations"

 

Download free beta here => http://www.yamicsoft.com/windows10manager/index.html

Edited by DosProbie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
call him "blankety blank" (if you have the guts for it ;)).

I have the guts but I try to be adult and forum rules say no :angel . My dilemma was (I'll stop here, really, this is OT, I think this will be clear enough);  you can't "naysay" something that doesn't make sense.

Edited by Ponch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds like a doggone shame that Samsung just are ignoring the issue and not updating the firmware.

 

They released a firmware update and a 'performance restoration tool' last october, but it doesn't really cure the problem, just restores top performance for a while. After ~3 months read speeds go south again.

 

The same temporary restoration can be achieved using My Defrag or Diskfresh every ~3 months or less. But none of these are real cures, just botches that add writes and eat away at SSD longevity (which is already low for TLC flash).

 

 

How old is the drive you're seeing it with?  What size?

 

With superb timing  :crazy:  I got a 120GB 840 EVO just a month or so before the bug was 'discovered'.

 

Right after applying the firmware update and "restoration tool" last october, 465 MB/s:

 

d88cabc1_2014-10-3017.35.41ResultsforC.p

 

About three months later, on February 9 read speeds had dropped to 282 MB/s (SATA II levels):

 

8a2b6ce9_2015-02-0912.01.18ResultsforC.p

 

Then inmediately after My Defrag, 469 MB/s again:

 

2ab73b58_2015-02-0918.07.08ResultsforC.p

 

Something is very wrong with a SSD when you have to DEFRAG it periodically to prevent it from becoming a UDMA-33 slug. :realmad:

 

After this experience I'm not touching any TLC SSD with a ten-pole foot. :thumbdown

Edited by TELVM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may have missed following a link somewhere, but... 

 

Has anyone offered an explanation as to why it should be so?  Is it a characteristic of TLC flash that older stored blocks degrade and require additional error correction?

 

I suppose SSDs are still so new that we're just now getting to where there's relatively old (years old) data on them.  This is certainly a nasty way to fail.

 

-Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

call him "blankety blank" (if you have the guts for it ;)).

I have the guts but I try to be adult and forum rules say no :angel . 

 

You chose ...wisely. :yes:

 

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×