Better in which way? It doesn't seem like the RNG is much of a bottleneck[0]. So this code is just more complicated than the original[1] IMO. It is also most li

Better in which way? It doesn't seem like the RNG is much of a bottleneck[0]. So this code is just more complicated than the original[1] IMO. It is also most likely more costly by involving a bunch of extra divs, logs and (for XP-level HW) floating points, though admittedly the bottleneck on XP-level HW was most likely still the disk. Trying to best Windows devs on performance becomes almost comical if you read the comment for the RtlRandomEx: it is faster than RtlRandom() since it saves one multiplication, one addition and one modulus operation. This almost doubles the performance since it halves the number of clocks even on a pipelined Integer Unit such as the P6/ia64 processors i.e. ~ 52% perf gain. [0]: https://github.com/tongzx/nt5src/blob/daad8a087a4e75422ec96b7911f1df4669989611/Source/XPSP1/NT/base/ntos/rtl/random.c#L120 https://github.com/tongzx/nt5src/blob/daad8a087a4e75422ec96b... [1]: https://github.com/tongzx/nt5src/blob/daad8a087a4e75422ec96b7911f1df4669989611/Source/XPSP1/NT/shell/shell32/userpict.cpp#L458 https://github.com/tongzx/nt5src/blob/daad8a087a4e75422ec96b...