Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Core i7 1280P Windows 11 vs. Ubuntu vs. Clear Linux Performance

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • win10pwrusr
    replied
    Let's face it birdie, nothing will ever convince you. You made up your mind already and if something comes along that goes against that made up reality you will disingenuously dismiss it just like you dismissed the 2 weeks update by making the deflective statement of "does not happen daily".

    I have a work mate who is a big microsoft fanboi and even he admits that win update fucks up shit and a reboot magically solves the issue, how come you can't? Already too invested in your made up fairyland of the windows?

    It's actually so very funny to read these comments from people who absolutely can't handle being even the slightest bit wrong about something and instantly resort to goalpost moving, hahahahahahah

    Leave a comment:


  • Anux
    replied
    Originally posted by birdie View Post
    At the very least 1.3 billion PCs run Windows. If it were laggy as you prescribe it to be, people would be talking about that from every orifice on the Internet. I frequent numerous forums and subreddits with millions of subscribers (r/hardware, r/nvidia, r/intel, r/amd, youtube/LTT, superuser.com). I've yet to see any widespread reports of such "lags".
    No, many users have a strange form of patience, they don't even complain if the system is extremely slow. They tell me everything is fine if I ask them how they could even work with such a slow system.

    Maybe I'm overly sensitive but if I die in game because of a windows update stutter I get really angry. I also play a lot of slow paced games where a little stutter does nothing bad but its still noticeable.
    Also 300 systems are not anecdotal evidence.
    And at witch number of systems does it become anecdotal? We have over 1000 PCs and Laptops at work, does that count more than your 300?

    That doesn't happen daily.
    Which I never said.
    That doesn't lead to lags unless your system is already stressed.
    So what do you think gaming does with the system? Run it at idle?

    absolutely not. I need to know everything about your system ...
    I thought so ...

    In a perfect world I'd love to connect via MSTSC/VNC/Any Remote Desktop software to check everything out.
    Giving random strangers access to my systems? No thanks I'm fine.

    Almost all the slowdowns I've ever heard about or dealt with have been down to either insufficient RAM, bad thermals/throttling or failing storage.
    Meaning all the systems I mentioned even newly bought have hardware defects? Also if it where a hardware defect why does that only occur during update (in case of Win update stutter) and than go away? And why can Linux run smooth on defect hardware?

    Lastly, there is a bug in the install original media of Windows 7 SP1
    Oh yeah I remember that one, Windows update taking forever and then failing. But at least it wasn't a problem on all systems and it was a clear bug with a solution to it.

    I don't think we ever come to a conclusion here. You say Win is exceptionally fast with no lags and stutters when trying to interact with it and I see the contrary every day. You don't believe a thing I say and vice versa.

    Leave a comment:


  • birdie
    replied
    Originally posted by Anux View Post
    X
    At the very least 1.3 billion PCs run Windows. If it were laggy as you prescribe it to be, people would be talking about that from every orifice on the Internet. I frequent numerous forums and subreddits with millions of subscribers (r/hardware, r/nvidia, r/intel, r/amd, youtube/LTT, superuser.com). I've yet to see any widespread reports of such "lags". Also 300 systems are not anecdotal evidence.

    "searching for updates is enough and that happens at least daily" - It happens daily but it takes maybe a few seconds of your CPU time. Again with the lowest possible CPU priority.

    "Where is your evidence for that, i can show you a screenshoot of 2 updates in 2 weeks" - Microsoft sometimes releases out of order updates. That doesn't happen daily. That doesn't lead to lags unless your system is already stressed.

    "Would a short gif suffice or would you question its authenticity?"- absolutely not. I need to know everything about your system, a task manager snapshot, the type of our storage, its parameters (SMART), level of fragmentation (for HDD) or wear (for SSD), your RAM, your CPU, your thermals (and whether the CPU is throttling, e.g. HWiNFO64 information), your running apps and services, etc. etc. etc.

    In a perfect world I'd love to connect via MSTSC/VNC/Any Remote Desktop software to check everything out. If you have just e.g. 8GB of RAM and you're running games without closing your web browser, telegram, programming IDE, etc. etc. etc. your system will naturally start swapping out heavily and you will have lags. My desktop has 64GB or RAM, my laptop has 16GB and both have swap files disabled (I last used swap/page file in ~2005 or something). The desktop is lightning fast, the laptop is OK'ish - it's Core i5 6200U and with all the mitigations it has slowed down considerably to the point I want to replace it. I decided to skip ADL/Zen 3, so if I survive what has been happening to my brain (I feel like it's started to fail completely), I will buy a Meteor Lake/Zen 4 based laptop.

    I can slow down to a crawl any system if I needed to. That doesn't say anything about the OS, it says everything about abnormal/inappropriate (for a certain HW configuration) workloads.

    Again, since Windows 2000 I've had 0 lags with Windows on any of my over 300 systems. Almost all the slowdowns I've ever heard about or dealt with have been down to either insufficient RAM, bad thermals/throttling or failing storage.

    Lastly, there is a bug in the install original media of Windows 7 SP1 - install it and the Windows update process will peg a single core of your CPU for forever. It's a known bug. Microsoft has released so many updates for Windows 7, it needs to download and install a new WU application to find updates properly. The original one is essentially broken. If you had kept updating W7 properly (monthly), it should have never affected you.
    Last edited by birdie; 09 August 2022, 10:22 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anux
    replied
    Originally posted by birdie View Post
    Since Windows NT 4.0 days I have had exactly zero lags/stutters/freezes, slow-downs or anything similar on any of my computers or computers of the people who are close to me. We are talking about over three hundred various systems.
    Press X to Doubt
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    he has recently started ignoring me completely for no reasons
    Thats mean of him. Connsidering you showed him the same overly courteous and friendly behavior like you do in this forum I can't even imagine why anyone would ignore you.

    I would love you to demonstrate something tangible and you continue to throw anecdotal evidence at me.
    So what is "no problem with my 300 systems" other than anecdotal evidence? And why is it ok if you do it?

    "Windows upgrading in the background"[/I] happens once a fucking month.
    Where is your evidence for that, i can show you a screenshoot of 2 updates in 2 weeks. And like earlier mentioned, searching for updates is enough and that happens at least daily.

    And recently Microsoft has made sure the upgrade process has the lowest CPU/IO priority
    Amazing, how long did it take them to get to this easy fix? And why does a background process not have low priority from the beginning? Lets see if it really fixes the problem, I guess the weekend will show me.

    He hadn't even had enough time with the handheld to say that - probably tested it for a week or two.
    Which is more than enough time.

    I've already asked you to reproduce lags/freezes/whatever on a fully updated W8/W10/W11 system and you continue to show nothing for your words.
    Would a short gif suffice or would you question its authenticity?

    Windows 7 for over a decade with zero issues
    Zero issues is highly debatable but it was the best Windows 2 years after its release. Not sure why W 10 had to be such a bad step back.

    Leave a comment:


  • birdie
    replied
    Originally posted by chithanh View Post
    This reeks of the infamous Intel "Real World Performance" marketing slideset from 2019 where they try to argue that people don't care about anything else than web browsing, office, light content creation. der8auer has a good dissection of this kind of fallacy.

    https://youtu.be/v1FfxHAuwiM?t=388 (the specific part starts at 6:28)

    Of course if you belong to the 99% who don't care about performance in heavy workloads then Windows is fine. Or if you have a vastly overpowered system for the task.

    But as soon as performance becomes important, especially storage performance, and on low-end devices, then Windows falls short. Remember how Chromebooks started to take a big chunk out of the Windows marketshare in the low-end notebook market, which was more pronounced the lower you went? Chrome OS gives you a fine user experience on a 4 GB RAM netbook with 32 GB eMMC. Windows 10 on such devices is somewhat painful, Windows 11 normally does not even install. Taking it down a notch to 2GB/16GB, Chrome OS remains usable while Windows 10 totally craps the bed, stops installing updates, etc.

    Dunno what is significant to you, but it showed performance problems to the degree where you have to lower your in-game settings or live with less than optimal framerates.

    LowSpecGamer also noted that while he uses Windows handhelds for gaming, the stuttering/freezing every time Windows decides to launch some background task contributes to the poor user experience with Windows on handhelds (and why Valve has a big opportunity with Steam OS now).

    https://youtu.be/g3KEYuqRgOE?t=507 (at 8:17)
    I don't know man. I've used Windows since MS-DOS 5.0 and I only had issues with Windows 95-98SE because they were not true multitasking OSes, had no memory protection whatsoever, and crashed often.

    Since Windows NT 4.0 days I have had exactly zero lags/stutters/freezes, slow-downs or anything similar on any of my computers or computers of the people who are close to me. We are talking about over three hundred various systems. People indeed have had issues when they ran low on RAM. That's it. RAM has been upgraded when possible or the systems have been replaced. Problems got solved.

    Let's be fair: NT4.0 and 2000 were slow to boot, that got fixed in XP. Vista was generally slow to operate but that was because at the time most of the HW wasn't ready for it. With Windows 7 the issue got solved.

    However just three years ago Linux often completely stalled when it ran low on RAM because the kernel's OOM mechanism sucks ass and the problem only got fixed because I wrote to LKML and Michael ran a story on it (he has recently started ignoring me completely for no reasons). Reddit had hundreds of comments. Fedora first pushed earlyoomd, then Lennart wrote systemd-oomd. Nowadays most distros include either of the two by default. On the other hand Windows NT based OSes have never frozen on me when it ran low on RAM as it handles low RAM situations gracefully and quite fast (less than 10 seconds).

    I would love you to demonstrate something tangible and you continue to throw anecdotal evidence at me. Some clips from no-ones, not confirmed by any media. Speaking of your last clip: "Windows upgrading in the background" happens once a fucking month. And recently Microsoft has made sure the upgrade process has the lowest CPU/IO priority, so again, nothing to write home about. "This happens really often" - the author of the video is clearly lying through their teeth. He hadn't even had enough time with the handheld to say that - probably tested it for a week or two.

    I've already asked you to reproduce lags/freezes/whatever on a fully updated W8/W10/W11 system and you continue to show nothing for your words.

    It's beyond me why people stick to Windows myths from the 90s when the OS was barely functional, very unstable, rife with malware, and often required reinstallation. In the meantime I know plenty of people who ran Windows 7 for over a decade with zero issues, including myself. I only upgraded to Windows 10 when I got a system which was incompatible with Windows 7. Lastly DirectX 12 is a Windows 10 exclusive feature, so even if I'd tackled incompatibility I still wouldn't have been able to play most new games. And NVIDIA/AMD/Intel dropping support for W7/W8 doesn't help either.
    Last edited by birdie; 09 August 2022, 07:22 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • chithanh
    replied
    Originally posted by birdie View Post
    99.9% of Windows users never ever compile software. So, again, any proofs of "horrible performance due to Windows Defender"?
    This reeks of the infamous Intel "Real World Performance" marketing slideset from 2019 where they try to argue that people don't care about anything else than web browsing, office, light content creation. der8auer has a good dissection of this kind of fallacy.

    https://youtu.be/v1FfxHAuwiM?t=388 (the specific part starts at 6:28)

    Originally posted by birdie View Post
    Actually don't bother. Windows 10 alone has over 1.3 billion of users which is roughly 100 times more than the users of all Linux distros combined. I find it hard to believe that a billion of users use an OS which is slow as molasses. Must be something endemic to Linux users who cannot stop shitting on Windows and making stuff up.
    Of course if you belong to the 99% who don't care about performance in heavy workloads then Windows is fine. Or if you have a vastly overpowered system for the task.

    But as soon as performance becomes important, especially storage performance, and on low-end devices, then Windows falls short. Remember how Chromebooks started to take a big chunk out of the Windows marketshare in the low-end notebook market, which was more pronounced the lower you went? Chrome OS gives you a fine user experience on a 4 GB RAM netbook with 32 GB eMMC. Windows 10 on such devices is somewhat painful, Windows 11 normally does not even install. Taking it down a notch to 2GB/16GB, Chrome OS remains usable while Windows 10 totally craps the bed, stops installing updates, etc.

    Originally posted by birdie View Post
    The video about W10 v W11 did not show any significant W11 slowdowns either. And it's ~ten months old. This is just utterly ridiculous.
    Dunno what is significant to you, but it showed performance problems to the degree where you have to lower your in-game settings or live with less than optimal framerates.

    LowSpecGamer also noted that while he uses Windows handhelds for gaming, the stuttering/freezing every time Windows decides to launch some background task contributes to the poor user experience with Windows on handhelds (and why Valve has a big opportunity with Steam OS now).

    https://youtu.be/g3KEYuqRgOE?t=507 (at 8:17)

    Leave a comment:


  • Anux
    replied
    If you compare a W7 to a W10 the differences also are easy to spot. In W7 we had fast start menu search and the display of control.exe was instant (still is under W10). Just overall a smooth experience like any Gnome/KDE from that time. You also could control when to update your system.
    You could even deny sending private data to MS and W7 kept that setting forever instead of changing it with every few updates like W10 does.

    Leave a comment:


  • birdie
    replied
    Originally posted by lyamc View Post

    I work in tech support for a software and hardware company. Many-a-time have users complained about the installer being really slow, like taking 10-15 minutes to install kind of slow, and I remote in only to find the installer pinning the CPU core along with defender which is clearly doing some sort of real-time scan of the installer.

    I cancel the install, disable the AV, rerun the installer and no problem.

    The calls I get are from people who A) Notice the problem, B) blames the new version of software, and C) is bugging them enough to call.

    Like I said before, most users don't understand the source of the problem. They might blame Windows for a hardware problem, or blame hardware for a Windows problem. All they know is their computer is slow and due to marketing and sales, often will just buy a new computer.
    Will you be able to reproduce this on a brand new fully updated W8.1/W10/W11 install with a software title of your choice? Something tells me you're retelling me the old myths. I listed the CPU which is atrociously slow by today's standards, yet the four users of that PC have never reported "installing being really slow".

    Linux fans adore retelling decades old myths about Windows.

    Leave a comment:


  • lyamc
    replied
    Originally posted by birdie View Post

    99.9% of Windows users never ever compile software. So, again, any proofs of "horrible performance due to Windows Defender"?
    I work in tech support for a software and hardware company. Many-a-time have users complained about the installer being really slow, like taking 10-15 minutes to install kind of slow, and I remote in only to find the installer pinning the CPU core along with defender which is clearly doing some sort of real-time scan of the installer.

    I cancel the install, disable the AV, rerun the installer and no problem.

    The calls I get are from people who A) Notice the problem, B) blames the new version of software, and C) is bugging them enough to call.

    Like I said before, most users don't understand the source of the problem. They might blame Windows for a hardware problem, or blame hardware for a Windows problem. All they know is their computer is slow and due to marketing and sales, often will just buy a new computer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ghjnut
    replied
    Cool, not a single legitimate comment about where the discrepancy originates or what needs to be addressed. Party on.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X