6 ms·

I'd have to disagree with this. First the baseline: windows is very slow. Second I found later versions slower. Third (and most maddening) every version of wind

I'd have to disagree with this. First the baseline: windows is very slow. Second I found later versions slower. Third (and most maddening) every version of windows I've ever used has gotten slower over time (including not installing new s/w and defragmenting).

ocdtrekkie 11y ago
8.1 and 10 run incredibly well even on very old hardware. I will agree a given Windows install may feel slower over time, and it makes sense to rebuild the PC occasionally, though that may, again, be less so with 8.1 and 10.
- branchless 11y ago
  Or if you are a non-techie it means forced upgrade is built into your product.
  - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
    I think Microsoft has tried to address this with 8/10, which have a "refresh" feature, which tries to clean out everything besides Modern apps and your personal data.
    - branchless 11y ago
      Glad they are addressing a fundamental flaw in windows albeit not in the root cause (the need for a "refresh").
      - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
        I think it's gotten better over time, but non-technical users have an incredible willingness to push buttons they shouldn't. Unfortunately, your options are to either cripple your product's functionality (Chromebook) or accept that users have the power to do things that they shouldn't. I vastly prefer the latter, and I think the latter is better for consumers, in fact, as well. But to each their own.
ksk 11y ago
I know that people have had experiences similar to yours. It's fine to disagree, but AFAIK pretty much all benchmarks show that there is no noticeable difference in performance from 7 to 8 to 10 and this matches with my own experience. I refuse to upgrade unless I get similar or better performance. But then again, I'm not really interested in researching every single benchmark. Windows is fast, stays fast, and that's pretty much all I care about.
- trhway 11y ago
  >Windows is fast, stays fast, and that's pretty much all I care about. are you in CO?
  - ksk 11y ago
    what?
    - scott_karana 11y ago
      I suspect he was trying to imply that you're high, since cannabis is legal in Colorado ("CO"). Hence why his post is being downvoted.
      - ksk 11y ago
        Yeah, I thought they were hinting at that, but its legal here in WA too.
sz4kerto 11y ago
Windows is slow? Compared to what? In what task? Running a game? Boot time? Opening Firefox? I have problems with Windows, but it's the fastest desktop os I think, mostly because it's graphics stack is way the best of all. Running a number crunching C code is exactly the same on Windows or Linux. (See all the benchmarks on the Internet.)
- buffoon 11y ago
  It's really not that fast. The filesystem is a total dog (MFT contention) to the point that manipulating lots of small file is up to two orders of magnitude slower than ext4. This is made bearable thanks to SSDs being on the market. Also the amount of friction getting stuff built and running and maintaining it is detrimental to general productivity meaning you piss execution time out of the window regularly just fixing stuff. Note: windows programmer for 19 years now. Only because of the cash.
  - ksk 11y ago
    I can't say I'm surprised to see people eager to point out how Windows sucks. And sure, maybe it does. However, the fundamental point you're missing is that I don't think that Windows was ever positioned as this OS that was designed for every single type of workload out there (not withstanding marketing noise). Windows is a very general purpose OS meant for general purpose 'mainstream' things. Things that hundreds of millions of people might want to do. Specialty workloads are simply not what Microsoft is ever going to invest any significant amount of time in - unless they see some money there. In that sense, Windows would probably be a far better OS if users could modify it to suit their needs, but thems the breaks. Linux seems to fill that void for some. The disadvantage of NTFS which you point out, isn't because of a fuckup. It's not designed for your use case. You might even find Microsoft telling you that themselves here :- https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/Cc938932.aspx https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/Cc938932.aspx As to your point about productivity, I can't comment without knowing specifics. As a primarily C++ programmer, I haven't run into any Windows showstoppers that prevented me from shipping. I have run into showstoppers with their dev tools, but I see them as separate from the OS.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
People defrag modern SSDs?
- hirsin 11y ago
  They better not. Doesn't improve anything and certainly wears it down. Hopefully the defrag tool recognizes an SSD and refuses to do it though.

ocdtrekkie 11y ago

8.1 and 10 run incredibly well even on very old hardware. I will agree a given Windows install may feel slower over time, and it makes sense to rebuild the PC occasionally, though that may, again, be less so with 8.1 and 10.

branchless 11y ago
Or if you are a non-techie it means forced upgrade is built into your product.
- ocdtrekkie 11y ago
  I think Microsoft has tried to address this with 8/10, which have a "refresh" feature, which tries to clean out everything besides Modern apps and your personal data.
  - branchless 11y ago
    Glad they are addressing a fundamental flaw in windows albeit not in the root cause (the need for a "refresh").
    - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
      I think it's gotten better over time, but non-technical users have an incredible willingness to push buttons they shouldn't. Unfortunately, your options are to either cripple your product's functionality (Chromebook) or accept that users have the power to do things that they shouldn't. I vastly prefer the latter, and I think the latter is better for consumers, in fact, as well. But to each their own.

ksk 11y ago

I know that people have had experiences similar to yours. It's fine to disagree, but AFAIK pretty much all benchmarks show that there is no noticeable difference in performance from 7 to 8 to 10 and this matches with my own experience. I refuse to upgrade unless I get similar or better performance. But then again, I'm not really interested in researching every single benchmark. Windows is fast, stays fast, and that's pretty much all I care about.

trhway 11y ago
>Windows is fast, stays fast, and that's pretty much all I care about. are you in CO?
- ksk 11y ago
  what?
  - scott_karana 11y ago
    I suspect he was trying to imply that you're high, since cannabis is legal in Colorado ("CO"). Hence why his post is being downvoted.
    - ksk 11y ago
      Yeah, I thought they were hinting at that, but its legal here in WA too.

sz4kerto 11y ago

Windows is slow? Compared to what? In what task? Running a game? Boot time? Opening Firefox? I have problems with Windows, but it's the fastest desktop os I think, mostly because it's graphics stack is way the best of all. Running a number crunching C code is exactly the same on Windows or Linux. (See all the benchmarks on the Internet.)

buffoon 11y ago
It's really not that fast. The filesystem is a total dog (MFT contention) to the point that manipulating lots of small file is up to two orders of magnitude slower than ext4. This is made bearable thanks to SSDs being on the market. Also the amount of friction getting stuff built and running and maintaining it is detrimental to general productivity meaning you piss execution time out of the window regularly just fixing stuff. Note: windows programmer for 19 years now. Only because of the cash.
- ksk 11y ago
  I can't say I'm surprised to see people eager to point out how Windows sucks. And sure, maybe it does. However, the fundamental point you're missing is that I don't think that Windows was ever positioned as this OS that was designed for every single type of workload out there (not withstanding marketing noise). Windows is a very general purpose OS meant for general purpose 'mainstream' things. Things that hundreds of millions of people might want to do. Specialty workloads are simply not what Microsoft is ever going to invest any significant amount of time in - unless they see some money there. In that sense, Windows would probably be a far better OS if users could modify it to suit their needs, but thems the breaks. Linux seems to fill that void for some. The disadvantage of NTFS which you point out, isn't because of a fuckup. It's not designed for your use case. You might even find Microsoft telling you that themselves here :- https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/Cc938932.aspx https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/Cc938932.aspx As to your point about productivity, I can't comment without knowing specifics. As a primarily C++ programmer, I haven't run into any Windows showstoppers that prevented me from shipping. I have run into showstoppers with their dev tools, but I see them as separate from the OS.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

ZanyProgrammer 11y ago

People defrag modern SSDs?

hirsin 11y ago
They better not. Doesn't improve anything and certainly wears it down. Hopefully the defrag tool recognizes an SSD and refuses to do it though.