Rendered at 09:14:23 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
hn_submit 13 hours ago [-]
I'm running Linux Mint on a 15 year old desktop with 3GB RAM and it's sufficiently fast even for a software developer.
Why would anyone want or need an operating system that requires 16GB (!) of RAM to run decently? Most of the trash running is probably profiling or spying on you.
pjmlp 52 minutes ago [-]
Slackware 2.0 run with 32 MB in 1996, so lets not pretend everything is that great on Linux land as well.
cisc 15 hours ago [-]
That's great but the context menu is still slow, annoying to use, and much worse than it was in Windows 10.
doubled112 15 hours ago [-]
Why does the desktop right click menu take over 1 second to open?
My only Windows machine has a Core Ultra 7 in it, and 32GB of DDR5 RAM. It should be powerful enough to render a menu instantly, I thought.
Or better yet, who at Microsoft decided this performance was adequate? Does nobody care anymore? Or just not the right people?
tencentshill 12 hours ago [-]
It sends a network ping. Every mouse movement and click is tracked, even if not sent. Sometimes a random UI element freezes, but when I unplug the ethernet, it pops up instantly.
thereisnospork 14 hours ago [-]
Feckless leadership in action. Responsibility has been defused to the point where it's no one's job or responsibility.
mtoner23 14 hours ago [-]
wow, I hate that i now know how bad that is. its infuriating
ssdspoimdsjvv 13 hours ago [-]
the context menu.. Microsoft, if you're reading this.... why? It's objectively worse.
13 hours ago [-]
kristianp 14 hours ago [-]
Sounds like just tinkering at the edges. Still not upgrading my older X1 carbon with 16GB from windows 10.
ActionHank 14 hours ago [-]
Best upgrade you can put on there would be linux, will be better than win10 8 days of the week
kristianp 9 hours ago [-]
I agree, my other box is Linux. I keep it on Win 10 for compatibility reasons, but am thinking of reinstalling without enabling onedrive, as performance is dog slow. I'll probably try uninstalling Onedrive first.
dmitrygr 13 hours ago [-]
What worthy features have they added since win2k that justify the 7.75 GB more RAM being needed?
pjmlp 49 minutes ago [-]
The same question could be asked about modern Linux distros versus 1990's.
shakna 5 hours ago [-]
Every click, keyboard tap, and peripheral event, are now logged and (most) of those are then sent back to Microsoft.
With Windows' socket-hogging, its a miracle they can be this invasive and only use that much RAM.
hulitu 47 minutes ago [-]
Auto hiding scrollbars and useless online help even when you don't have an Internet connection. Ah, and gray on gray, 1px borders and usage of titlebars as window content. And Automatic Updates, Automatic Restarts, Automatic Encryption (they know the key), Automatic ID ( you are a good citizen and don't want to make anything stupid).
p0w3n3d 13 hours ago [-]
The architecture has been changed fundamentally. AFAIK the old windows 2000 had flaws beyond repair. On the other hand the UI overlay build on UI overlay built on UI overlay, making everything a html page etc was terrible direction
1718627440 10 hours ago [-]
Interestingly enough Windows 7 boots faster (in a VM) than both Windows 10 and Windows XP. It feels faster than Windows 10 while running too.
dmitrygr 12 hours ago [-]
You might be thinking of win9x. Win2k had no flaws and was perfect in all ways. I will not be taking questions.
degaart 46 minutes ago [-]
> Win2k had no flaw
Win2k could only display 16-color icons in its systray
winstonwinston 9 hours ago [-]
My bet is on Windows Millennium Edition (Windows ME). That was broken version. Windows 2000 was good.
While WinMe was 98 successor and meant for home use, Win2k was business oriented.
olyjohn 7 hours ago [-]
God WinME was such hot garbage. Windows 2000 Workstation ran everything that ME ran. I fucking gamed on it, and did everything. It was faster and more stable, than ME. I never understood why people I knew who were computer nerds ran that steaming pile of shit.
Why would anyone want or need an operating system that requires 16GB (!) of RAM to run decently? Most of the trash running is probably profiling or spying on you.
My only Windows machine has a Core Ultra 7 in it, and 32GB of DDR5 RAM. It should be powerful enough to render a menu instantly, I thought.
Or better yet, who at Microsoft decided this performance was adequate? Does nobody care anymore? Or just not the right people?
With Windows' socket-hogging, its a miracle they can be this invasive and only use that much RAM.
Win2k could only display 16-color icons in its systray
While WinMe was 98 successor and meant for home use, Win2k was business oriented.