Is Windows 11 really bad?

[ManofGod]

That's a pretty fantastic video. At first I thought it was a little long, but he covers nearly every setting of interest. I don't necessarily agree with everything he suggests (setting your background app's max FPS = screwy if you work and game simultaneously via alt+tab), but it's still a neat catch-all video.

It's worth noting that Microsoft PC Manager beta is a helpful addition when it comes to freeing up resources and tweaking autoruns and background apps in real time.
https://pcmanager-en.microsoft.com/
I'm convinced that's going to be baked into the OS at some point. It has been sorely needed for years. Right now the only weird thing about it is that Windows Defender seems to think of it as a separate program, so it's always acting like you have a 2nd anti-virus program installed.

Maybe I am wrong but, that PC Manager looks like free snake oil. I honestly do not see anything that software does would improve how Windows 11 functions but, I could be wrong.

 

[Domingo]

Maybe I am wrong but, that PC Manager looks like free snake oil. I honestly do not see anything that software does would improve how Windows 11 functions but, I could be wrong.

Try it. It has a function to kill apps that are currently running (like task manager) that are very clearly labeled so you know exactly what you're killing off. A prime culprit on my machine is Adobe Creative Cloud. It starts a half dozen processes that you have to stop in a specific order or it keeps trying to re-open them over and over again. Some of 'em are pretty power hungry, too. With this app, they're gone for good in seconds. Along with that, it has buttons to quickly clear the cache for a variety of apps and kill off automatic startup apps a la CCleaner. It's essentially like CCleaner with a task killer built in.

 

[Meeho]

If you ignore the timeline I posted and insist on being that vocal minority it says a lot about you bias and how engaging in a debate with you would be a waste of time.
You are proving my point at this time even though you seem unaware of it.

Again, Windows 10 reached higher market cap than Windows 7.
Even Windows XP had higher market cap than Windows 7.

You picked a bad "hill" to die on.

Is the goalpost heavy to move so much?

 

[darkknight302]

I've been using Windows 11 since it came out. It's got a few bugs here and there but nothing major that made me regret upgrading. I do use start11 to make it feel more like Windows 10 as I don't like the new interface on Windows 11.

 

[GotNoRice]

It took 7 less time to overtake XP, while being significantly more expensive, not nearly as forced or unwillingly shoved, nor artificially hardware limited.

You can't make these kinds of comparisons while ignoring how computing was evolving during that time. XP was mainly used on 32-bit single-core computers with smaller amounts of RAM and mechanical hard drives. The OS was lightweight because it had to be. Then 64-bit CPUs became popular, multi-core CPUs became popular, the amount of RAM in new computers increased, and the transition to SSDs began. Vista was designed to take advantage of these new advancements. Vista made 64-bit viable, and by extension, it made >4GB RAM viable. It had more background tasks, which was fine because the computers that it was designed for had plenty of RAM and extra CPU cores. Of course it felt slower when people tried to upgrade their XP-era hardware. Vista wasn't designed for that hardware. Vista was never able to escape that reputation, until it was renamed to Windows 7. The combination of XP no longer being suitable for new computers, and Vista having a bad reputation, caused Windows 7 adoption to soar. Ever since Vista there has been no equivalent massive change to x86 computers. Instead we've had small changes such as UEFI, DX12, etc. The reason why people were able to stick with 7 for so long is the same reason why I can install Windows 11 just fine on a Pentium D. No huge changes occurred that broke compatibility. If we had underlying hardware changes occurring that were comparable to the transition from 32-bit to 64-bit, you can bet that that would have a huge impact on OS adoption. We might see something similar in the future if, for example, the industry takes a huge turn toward ARM, and a new version of Windows is released and labeled as being the best Windows OS for ARM. It would see significant adoption for that reason - just like 64-bit helped Windows 7 adoption. Although there are already versions of Windows that run on ARM, it's sort of comparable to what the 64-bit version of XP was - something almost no one used or wanted at the time.

 

[mullet]

If MS gave the customer what they wanted I wonder what the OS would look like? I guess it would be a little different. Probably without a whole bunch of stuff. Just a guess.

 

[Domingo]

If MS gave the customer what they wanted I wonder what the OS would look like? I guess it would be a little different. Probably without a whole bunch of stuff. Just a guess.

In most cases it would look like the "Car Built By Homer." Lots of zany/bold features that don't work together and sound great to one person. That's the case for everyone, myself included. We want the stuff we do/value to be the star of the show. For instance, I value aesthetics a lot. Other people couldn't care less or even seem opposed to that idea...hence all of those people with stripped down skins or bare-bones Linux distros.

 

[SmokeRngs]

You can't make these kinds of comparisons while ignoring how computing was evolving during that time. XP was mainly used on 32-bit single-core computers with smaller amounts of RAM and mechanical hard drives. The OS was lightweight because it had to be. Then 64-bit CPUs became popular, multi-core CPUs became popular, the amount of RAM in new computers increased, and the transition to SSDs began. Vista was designed to take advantage of these new advancements. Vista made 64-bit viable, and by extension, it made >4GB RAM viable. It had more background tasks, which was fine because the computers that it was designed for had plenty of RAM and extra CPU cores. Of course it felt slower when people tried to upgrade their XP-era hardware. Vista wasn't designed for that hardware. Vista was never able to escape that reputation, until it was renamed to Windows 7. The combination of XP no longer being suitable for new computers, and Vista having a bad reputation, caused Windows 7 adoption to soar. Ever since Vista there has been no equivalent massive change to x86 computers. Instead we've had small changes such as UEFI, DX12, etc. The reason why people were able to stick with 7 for so long is the same reason why I can install Windows 11 just fine on a Pentium D. No huge changes occurred that broke compatibility. If we had underlying hardware changes occurring that were comparable to the transition from 32-bit to 64-bit, you can bet that that would have a huge impact on OS adoption. We might see something similar in the future if, for example, the industry takes a huge turn toward ARM, and a new version of Windows is released and labeled as being the best Windows OS for ARM. It would see significant adoption for that reason - just like 64-bit helped Windows 7 adoption. Although there are already versions of Windows that run on ARM, it's sort of comparable to what the 64-bit version of XP was - something almost no one used or wanted at the time.

You might have a point except that when 7 was released it ran as good or better on XP era hardware than XP did. I know this because I put 7 on quite a few systems like that just to test it out. It didn't run like complete ass thrashing the pagefile constantly like Vista did.

The amount of revisionism regarding Vista and 7 is astounding.

Vista was a pile of shit, not because of hardware drivers only, but because it was a pile of shit on its own. It had its own massive performance problems which were never fixed and 7 didn't have those massive performance problems. There was a hell of a lot more change between Vista and 7 than a simple name change and re-branding.

 

[Axman]

Vista was a pile of shit, not because of hardware drivers only, but because it was a pile of shit on its own.

Nah, I did a bunch of side-by-side hardware testing with XP, XP 64, Vista, and 2000 when Vista came out, and Vista only lost out on a couple of things to 2000 and XP 64.

Vista did have driver problems mostly with printers and monitors/projectors, early on. The bad rep for Vista was OEMs selling PCs that didn't meet the requirements for running Vista, like shipping machines with 1 gig of ram or less, and including a thumb drive for cache to bring things up to 2 gigs of "memory" as false advertising.

It was one of the better OSes to come out from MS ever, and is still mostly what Windows is today, albeit with a much different task scheduler. And Vista had the best Start Menu of them all, with a true search function that has never been replicated since.

 

[SmokeRngs]

Nah, I did a bunch of side-by-side hardware testing with XP, XP 64, Vista, and 2000 when Vista came out, and Vista only lost out on a couple of things to 2000 and XP 64.

Vista did have driver problems mostly with printers and monitors/projectors, early on. The bad rep for Vista was OEMs selling PCs that didn't meet the requirements for running Vista, like shipping machines with 1 gig of ram or less, and including a thumb drive for cache to bring things up to 2 gigs of "memory" as false advertising.

It was one of the better OSes to come out from MS ever, and is still mostly what Windows is today, albeit with a much different task scheduler. And Vista had the best Start Menu of them all, with a true search function that has never been replicated since.

And take those exact same machines that ran Vista like ass and put Win 7 on them and they ran just fine. Vista was a resource hogging piece of shit which did nothing beneficial with the massive for the time resources it gobbled up. 7 exhibited the exact opposite behavior.

 

[Axman]

7 exhibited the exact opposite behavior.

7 just hid how it used up memory. It used even more memory, it just didn't report it in the Task Manager. It had a better scheduler, though, that's true.

 

[SmokeRngs]

7 just hid how it used up memory. It used even more memory, it just didn't report it in the Task Manager. It had a better scheduler, though, that's true.

With the exact same hardware you could put XP, Vista and 7 on the same machine. XP would run fine, Vista would spend the whole time thrashing the shit out of the pagefile and 7 would run just fine. It had nothing to do with how any OS reported RAM usage. There was no need to look at resource usage because the difference was felt, seen and heard before you could even start Task Manager to see what was up.

 

[GotNoRice]

You might have a point except that when 7 was released it ran as good or better on XP era hardware than XP did. I know this because I put 7 on quite a few systems like that just to test it out. It didn't run like complete ass thrashing the pagefile constantly like Vista did.

They were still releasing new versions of the Pentium 3 CPU up until about 4 months before Windows XP came out. The very first Athlon XP CPUs were released the same month that Windows XP was released. In many cases, people were installing XP on hardware that was even older than that. On the flip side, the Core 2 Duo (a CPU that can run Windows 11 just fine) was released over 3 years before Windows 7 came out, and some people ran XP on them until that time. So if you are talking about the later hardware that some people ran XP on, then obviously Windows 7 would run fine. But let me know how well a Pentium 3 with 256MB - 512MB of RAM works when trying to upgrade to Windows 7. The majority of Pentium 4 computers came with 512MB RAM and didn't handle Windows 7 well either. I have plenty of old computers sitting in my garage that ran XP just fine but couldn't be upgraded to Windows 7 because even just booting up took several minutes.

With the exact same hardware you could put XP, Vista and 7 on the same machine. XP would run fine, Vista would spend the whole time thrashing the shit out of the pagefile and 7 would run just fine. It had nothing to do with how any OS reported RAM usage. There was no need to look at resource usage because the difference was felt, seen and heard before you could even start Task Manager to see what was up.

Well then, maybe you can inform us of the specs of this "same hardware"? I'm betting that you have no actual hardware in mind and simply pulled that out of your ass.

The amount of revisionism regarding Vista and 7 is astounding.

Sounds more like you forgot your history and have chosen to latch onto stereotypes and hyperbole instead.

Vista was a pile of shit, not because of hardware drivers only, but because it was a pile of shit on its own. It had its own massive performance problems which were never fixed and 7 didn't have those massive performance problems. There was a hell of a lot more change between Vista and 7 than a simple name change and re-branding.

Once 64-bit drivers were up to par, Windows Vista 64-bit ran fantastic on the modern hardware of the time, basically the same as Windows 7 did. When Windows 7 was released, it benefited from years of drivers that had been created for Vista and thus was great from the start. I spent that era actually trying to upgrade the computers in question, so I'm pretty damn familiar with how older hardware ran newer operating systems and your posts are full of bullshit. Sounds more like you upgraded maybe one enthusiast computer with decked out hardware and based all of your conclusions on that. Meanwhile the majority of people who bought their computers at BestBuy or from Dell, etc, had a much different experience.

 

[Domingo]

I have zero idea how it performed on low-end hardware, but I always liked how Vista looked. To me, it felt like a push toward something that looked more modern after XP. Windows 7 kept most of that, which I appreciate. Then Windows 8 came along and gave us that ugly ass Android Cupcake looking interface that Samsung apparently still thinks looks cool. I still think Windows 8 set OS's back 15 years from a visual standpoint.

 

[staknhalo]

tabbed file explorer is leaving me with too many russian nesting dolls everywhere

i can't adapt to one or the other i open a new window and load it with tabs go to do something else and muscle memory open a new window and doing whatever load it with tabs

looking around my open file explorer windows like:

 

[HumanBias]

Is the goalpost heavy to move so much?

I am sorry, I failed to locate your data about users complaining?
All I found was an attempt to convert a different metric (time) into said "argument" while ignoring all other datapoints.
Feel free to link the data I missed if I am mistaken?

 

[GoldenTiger]

I am sorry, I failed to locate your data about users complaining?
All I found was an attempt to convert a different metric (time) into said "argument" while ignoring all other datapoints.
Feel free to link the data I missed if I am mistaken?

Meeho has fled the chat.

 

[Domingo]

tabbed file explorer is leaving me with too many russian nesting dolls everywhere

i can't adapt to one or the other i open a new window and load it with tabs go to do something else and muscle memory open a new window and doing whatever load it with tabs

looking around my open file explorer windows like:

View attachment 537768

Considering you can't drag and drop between tabs, I don't really understand why tabs were even implemented. If I'm gonna have to copy/paste normally, the tabs don't really save me any time or effort.