Jump to content

Official - Windows 10 Worst Crap Ever!


bookie32

Recommended Posts

@BudwS what is so invasive about the theme of win7. sure the theme looks ugly, but I kinda dont see why it is invasive.

and you iirc replace the theme with some win7-like awesomeness (or whatever 3rd party theme you like)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Perhaps I have been mistaken for another computer person.  At present my only real PC computer has Windows 7 Pro installed on it.  If I need to use Windows, that is the computer of use.  Even the Dell laptop used for the Windows 10 Insider Preview has a dual boot Windows 7 Pro for intelligent computing when needed.  Invasive is a word reserved for Windows 10.  I don't lock down W10 as much as NoelC except when I power down the W10 computer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ghostery is an Invasive meter that can be used with a browser to see how many invaders are trying to use your computer.  A few sites have logged up several hundred invasive strikes.  So far, MS sites seen to be facilitating invasiveness the most. However, there are other sites that count up into the hundreds as well.  Perhaps Ghostery could be used as a Crap meter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎16‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 0:30 AM, NoelC said:

Got a tweaked Win 10 v1703 build 15063.413 down to 66 processes and 1.3 GB of RAM to host an empty desktop.  It's now utterly silent online unless I do something that initiates communications. 

66Processes.png

That took heroics; when I started it was at over 100 processes.

I updated a tweaked Win 7 VM earlier today and glanced at Process Hacker while I was in there.  38 processes.  That took a lot less effort than wrangling Win 10.

Win 8.1:  42 processes.  More effort than Win 7, but not nearly as much as 10.

In Win 10 v1703 now almost all the svchost.exe wrappers are now hosting just one service.  I can't measure or sense an improvement in performance because of this - and I've tried.

They claim it'll make a system that has crashing services more stable.  I haven't had services crash in a very long time.  Justification?  "Most computers have more than enough RAM now".  Yeah, THAT's a good reason to make something more wasteful for no practical benefit.  NOT!  Maybe we have more RAM because we need to do more work with our computers.

I keep trying and trying to find a way to want to adopt the latest Windows for my workstation and they keep working and working to ensure I just can't love it - or even like it.

-Noel

SvcHostSplitThresholdInKB @ HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control

change the entry (decimal) to your installed amount of ram in kb and reboot, services (svchost) will go back to being grouped like previous versions of windows.

Edited by RanCorX2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks.  I knew about that (that tweak is on AskVG or similar).

At this point, having gotten used to the new organization, it doesn't really matter whether the services are hosted one per process or multiples, and frankly seeing them as mostly separate processes tends to spur me on to try to trim more.  Chances are, since the split-up is mainstream now, it'll probably run better in this form.  Certainly it has more beta testers users running it this way now.

I stand firm in my conviction that Microsoft is among the best managers of mediocrity on the planet now...  Note that the June patches to the older operating systems are breaking things for people far and wide (who'd want to print from Internet Explorer, or search for things in Outlook?).

-Noel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

W10 Crap Update or Downdate, Whichever:  No problems to report on the 2 W10, 16226 test computers in the last 4 days.  No, wait.  Both have been powered off.  I guess that tells you something.  :cool: (Arizona: 115-120 degrees)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all metro stuff using small files make more iops needed to make the performance like normal application

explorer also based on metro and more handles and more unneeded stuff attached to this

Edited by aviv00
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, UCyborg said:

Can anyone here say with absolute certainty that Win10 is significantly crappier experience if you don't have SSD to run it from?

One example of power on to W10 desktop usable:  Both computers have W10, 16226 Insider Preview.

1.  SSD.  Apple MacBook, Late 2006.  2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo.  4 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM.  Power on to Apple host; select Startup device BootCamp and Restart; logon to W10 and Desktop is usable.  Time:  2 minutes 45 seconds.

2.  HDD.  Dell Inspiron 1720, Ship date, 5/28/2008.  2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo.  4 GHz 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM.  Power on to dual boot; select W10.  logon to W10 and Desktop is usable.  Time:  4 minutes 35 seconds.

Yes, a simplistic comparison but gives an indication of the value of the SSD.  Crap differential, about 2 minutes waiting for the HDD to spin.  :cool: (Arizona: 106 degrees, nice cool down)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the result but i would check with hdd tune to check performance, health

just to be sure, 10 years old hdd could have those problem specially in laptop

Edited by aviv00
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I had no idea folks were waiting literally minutes for Win 10 startup...

As a comparative reference:

On my (now aging) workstation with virtual machines hosted on a 4 SSD array, if I start VMware Workstation cold, select the tab for my Win 10 v1703 VM, press the > (play) button, see VMware go through the startup including a 5 second wait for F8, then Windows 10 presents the lock screen, click and enter password, hit return, system logs in and presents an empty desktop:  Time:  42 seconds.

What's interesting is that if I do the same sequence for a Win 7 VM the time is:  42 seconds.

Remember how we were told over and over that Win 10 is SO much faster than its predecessors?

-Noel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NoelC said:

Wow, I had no idea folks were waiting literally minutes for Win 10 startup...

Which was the reason why sometimes times I had to remind you how some of your perceptions, when using powerful systems with an array of SSD's (and/or a gazillion Gb of RAM), can be very different from those experienced by a large part of the users base.

As you well know, history repeats itself, one of the reason why Vista at the time was such a huge delusion for most people (much more than what it deserved) was that it was installed by users (and even installed by OEM's on new machines) on too low power machines, and as such it was slow as molasses.

jaclaz
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, BudwS said:

2.  HDDTime:  4 minutes 35 seconds.

1 hour ago, NoelC said:

Time:  42 seconds.

O_O. My boot time on HDD (laptop from 2010) with tweaked windows 10 is only between 26 and 30 seconds (with WarpDisk installed).

Edited by kosamja
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kosamja said:

O_O. My boot time on HDD (laptop from 2010) with tweaked windows 10 is only between 26 and 30 seconds (with WarpDisk installed).

It seems to me like a very good result :).

Warpdisk (AFAICT) is essentially a boot optimizer, as I read it (but I may well be wrong of course) all the stuff about defragmentation is the usual mumbo-jumbo and commercial bull§hit[1] but a read ahead cache AND making files sequential does make a big difference (the bigger the slower is random access times vs. random access ones).

In the good ol'days of BartPE (and of real CD's) using a "sort.txt" with mkisofs did make miracles, by simply writing to the CDFS (where files are already contiguous by definition) the files in the exact same order they were requested by the booting OS.

jaclaz

[1]a file ( a single file)  is either fragmented or it is contiguous, once every file in the boot sequence is made contiguous there is no fragmentation, the difference maybe in the contiguity (and right sequential order) of several files
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Transition from HDD to SSD will surely speed up any PC. It just seems to me that SSD might be even more mandatory for Win10 to compensate for its overall sluggishness. I got the following results on my VMware virtual machines, counting from the end of the BIOS screen to desktop (cold startup). Only have plain HDD, relatively fresh installs, no extra startup apps, except Aero Glass on 8.1 and 10:

Windows 7: 31 seconds
Windows 8.1: 51 seconds
Windows 10: 48 seconds

The increase of cold startup time is the first thing I noticed with recent systems, although it seems the results vary over different configurations. What's strange is that on my real PC, Windows 10 felt noticeably slower - the time spent on welcome screen to be precise (without extra startup apps of course). Never seen Win10 spend less than 2 seconds on it, except when logging off and back on. 8 seconds was more common.

Link to comment
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.
×
×
  • Create New...