5 ms·
I feel like if you're going to use LTSC there is no point in using 11. Windows 10 LTSC will still get updates for years, and uses less than half the resources
by mapontosevenths 11mo ago
I feel like if you're going to use LTSC there is no point in using 11.
Windows 10 LTSC will still get updates for years, and uses less than half the resources that 11 does.
- kachapopopow 11mo agoit's also using the exact same kernel, the only difference is explorer.exe and default apps funny enough. But I have to admit that the file explorer (not to be confused with explorer.exe the desktop), is nicer with the new tab functionality.
- mapontosevenths 11mo agoI know it's subjective, but I care less about the tabs and more about the missing right click options. I'm also annoyed that 11's explorer uses literally double the memory to perform the same function with less options. I know you can add the missing right click options back. I just shouldn't have to.
- mapontosevenths 11mo agoJust to double check... I loaded the same folder in Windows 10 IOT LTSC and Windows 11 Pro retail. Explorer.exe used ~500Mb peak working memory. In Windows 10 it was less than 200Mb. In windows 10 it also loaded about 2x faster, despite the system I'm using being objectively worse hardware in every single measurable way. With Windows 11 you get less, and pay more.
- vel0city 11mo agoOh no, its going to use 1.8% more of my system's memory, what a nightmare, totally unusable. Why is 200MB acceptable but peaking to 500MB just totally unacceptable and problematic? The original Macintosh had a graphical desktop with 128KB of RAM, shouldn't anything more than 50KB be unacceptable? EDIT: Just checked on a couple of my Windows 11 machines, all of them have Explorer using <200MB of memory. So no, explorer.exe isn't necessarily using 500MB of memory. Something else is going on with that system.
- kachapopopow 11mo agobecause the same thing applies to the new terminal, new settings app, new everything, it slowly adds up.
- hulitu 11mo ago> Why is 200MB acceptable but peaking to 500MB just totally unacceptable and problematic? Because only 200MB are reserved for this application. /s That 300MB may be taken from another app (CAD) which needs it badly.
- vel0city 11mo agoShouldn't you then also complain that explorer.exe is consuming 200MB when previous graphical desktops managed it in handfuls of kilobytes? Once again, why is 200MB OK, but 500MB, oh boy, that's just far too much. Couldn't that CAD software also make use of that other 200MB? Why not demand 20MB? Or 2MB? Or 20KB? How much of that extra 300MB is paged out and not actually in active memory? On both systems, how much of the total is actually paged out and not in current system memory? Are you trying to run a modern CAD system on a device with only 512MB of RAM or something?
- mapontosevenths 11mo agoWhat do I get out of it using double the memory? It has zero new features that a normal human would want. There's supposed to be a benefit in a cost/benefit comparison or you just get a divide by zero error. See my other comment in this thread for a list of the many, many, many ways Microsoft continues to chose not to improve.
- vel0city 11mo agoThere's a number of new features to the Windows desktop experience, I'm not really interested in reenumerating all of Microsoft's marketing here. Personally I find the Windows 11 desktop experience far better than 10, despite it possibly using 1% more of my system memory at peak times. And FWIW, on my Windows 11 desktop explorer.exe is using 110MB, not even 200MB.
- kachapopopow 11mo agothe stupid right click menu is a single registry key (and i think it's also in settings now), but yah dumb new defaults.