Why Microsoft Says Windows 11 is Faster Than 10

Back to Giveaway of the Day

Giveaway of the Day Forums » Technical notes

Why Microsoft Says Windows 11 is Faster Than 10

(9 posts) (2 voices)

Started 2 years ago by mikiem2
Latest reply from mikiem2

mikiem2
Moderator

petri[.]com/windows-11-is-faster-even-on-identical-hardware

Gamers with the money to spend will opt in for Win11, because it'll be the only version of Windows fully supporting the next generation of Intel CPUs, and the Alder Lake-S Core i9-12900K is expected to be a beast. For the [probably AAA] games that might support it, there's also Direct X 12 Ultimate & Direct Storage, though it'll be expensive to take full advantage, e.g. Nvidia's latest, top graphics cards & the highest end NVMe drives. Then there's AutoHDR, intended to give you the best 4K HDR display gaming, allegedly improving the looks of games that support HDR along with those that do not. Problem is that for real, full HDR you'll need a decent 4k TV that meets the HDR specs -- most 4k PC monitors do not.

So while there'll be plenty of loud, sometimes obnoxious Win11 fanboys with deep pockets shouting about how wonderful it is, what does Win11 hold in store for the rest of us? Limited compatibility and support for a limited selection of Android apps *someday*, and some incremental improvements that'll be mostly noticed on lower end hardware. Slower or less powerful CPUs spend more time at 100% utilization, and Win11 is designed to mitigate that -- you'll spend less time just waiting for something to happen when the CPU's under heavy load. Microsoft also designed Win11 to use a little less hard disk space, so having a smaller drive will hurt just a little bit less. And if you've got a less powerful device &/or a slower internet connection, Windows cumulative updates *might* take a bit less time, since Win11 will only download the parts of the update that need to be applied to your device. That of course will not likely have much effect on those updates just taking forever on the lowest end CPUs.

Otherwise things like Windows Hello sign-in and waking from sleep will be faster, though I'm unsure how many would upgrade to Win11 just for that. There is a chance that gamers in the Steam community wlll find Win11 is overall faster than Win10, the same way they found Win10 faster than Win7, and that'll speed adoption, but unless something like that happens IMHO most will wind up upgrading simply because Microsoft will make Win10 go away same as Win7.

Posted 2 years ago #
ChrisS
Administrator

So Microsoft wants to get gamers to push sales of Windows 11 by getting gamers to abandon the Microsoft owned Xbox system?

Games pushed the development of PCs (both hardware and software) but Microsoft relegated PC Games to a niche market when they released the Xbox. The implied, if not explicit, message was "games are played on the Xbox, serious work is done on your PC". It's only taken 4 OS releases for Microsoft to realize that the vast majority of that "serious work" was ably handled by Windows XP era hardware and software.

A company divided against itself is not what the term "stock split" means.

Posted 2 years ago #
mikiem2
Moderator

Microsoft would like you to spend All your time, gaming or otherwise, staring at a Microsoft product, on a PC, on a laptop or surface, on your phone, and on your Xbox. I do think personally that Nadella doesn't have a lot of patience or love for the Xbox compared to pretty much anything cloud related, favoring cloud gaming, e.g. with your phone, or even the part where your stats are stored in the cloud and available no matter what or how you're playing. They're after your money, however they can get it, and especially when they can't reach into your wallet, your data, which they can use for their AI, and maybe eventually monetize like Google.

I agree 100% about Windows XP... I think you might try to make a case for Win7, since it included all sorts of added stuff like Media Center, some OCR, voice recognition, Virtual PC etc., but relatively few people used those now mostly abandoned features, and when I could still run XP 32-bit it performed as well as Win7 64-bit doing the same tasks, even limited to ~4 GB RAM rather than the 8 GB used by 7. I do think that Microsoft realized that their Windows versions, pretty much from Vista onward, were about making money, and I think that's still their focus -- sure Win11 will be free, but supported only for those on hardware too new to have gotten a free upgrade to Win10. *Almost* everything I've seen published recently is all doom & gloom for anyone thinking about Win11 on unsupported hardware, even though it reportedly works just fine, and I assume that's being fed by Microsoft. Both Neowin & Thurrott have articles today on upgrading to Win11 using an Insider ISO, and both clearly specify making sure your hardware is qualified.

I could be totally wrong, but I believe that based [at least in part] on sales of Win8 during their limited promo pricing [$35 if I remember correctly] Microsoft decided that OEM sales were their only hope, and based on that, decided the only way to get Win10 widely spread was to give it away for free. Win11 is about their regret for doing so. If they went back to charging for Windows, there would be a huge uproar -- if they limit it to people who bought a license to Win10, OEM or otherwise, that's a pretty small slice of the market. People in general are also lazier about PCs in our now Phone-Centric world. Most Windows users don't even know Win11 is a thing -- windowscentral[.]com/pc-users-are-mostly-unaware-windows-11s-existence-according-study . The percentage of PC users willing to download an ISO and install Win11 manually, especially if you have to use a hack, knowing the result will be unsupported, isn't all that great, so Microsoft likely feels safe in turning a blind eye to anyone that does it. And just in case they're holding a sword over their heads, reserving the right to refuse any & all updates.

Since allegedly most successful cyber attacks were successful because IT didn't do its job in the 1st place, I'm skeptical when it comes to all the security benefits Microsoft's claiming for Win11, and using to justify its hardware requirements. If IT operations aren't locking the doors now, there doesn't seem to be any reason to think they'll adopt Win11 to further tighten security. The independent consumer landscape's even worse... 92% know not to re-use passwords, yet 65% regularly do so (!). lastpass[.]com/-/media/9FE0BF5DC473413B8AB4DF3BD8688295.pdf . How many people are going to use Win11 security features intended primarily for IT? I suppose the argument could be made that Microsoft will educate its customers, but even if they made the attempt, as one of the most hated brands in the world, what are their odds of success? windowscentral[.]com/microsoft-among-most-hated-brands-according-to-twitter-comments

Posted 2 years ago #
ChrisS
Administrator

I disagree a bit that people wouldn't have paid for upgrades. Certainly, they wouldn't have for the price Microsoft wanted but MS should have switched to a subscription model during XP's long run. Most people probably wouldn't object to paying $20 per year for a legitimate copy of Windows, which is what you're paying anyway (if the target life of the OS is 7 years then you'd pay $140 over the life of the OS). MS demands that money upfront rather than over time... why does it matter when they've got a captive market? I think it's either that they don't realize that their product is a commodity or that they don't want to admit that they're a utility.

Windows as a commodity: Windows was initially sold as an OS for a "personal computer" but subsequent versions made clear that it's really intended for installation on networked computers in the corporate world. Early PC version enhancements were driven by individuals who we'll call "gamers". New OS versions came out and people bought them because they had features that the "gamers" wanted and the corporate world was dragged along. Life was good... then the Xbox arrived. The large gamer community suddenly became a small gamer community and lost all influence. MS rejoiced! It was the Rise of the Corporate Influencer! New versions would come out based on what the "right people" wanted and everyone else would just shut-up and upgrade. Sadly, MS failed to understand that corporations are bureaucracies and the central tenet of a bureaucracy is "sameness". Those new versions had nothing of note to offer because "new" is not "same" and nobody, not the gamer nor the corporation, saw any need to upgrade. Why spend money to get what you already have? The moral of the story: the market controls the price of a commodity and, thus, controls the company that produces the commodity. The market has all of the power.

Microsoft won't admit they're a utility: Had MS opted for the subscription plan with XP then they would have had years of steady income and that income stream would probably continue for a very long time. They sell one version of their OS that runs on all systems with none of the "home" and "pro" nonsense. You upgrade your hardware when you want to, the OS will just chug along until you do. They could even sell it as anti-virus software with an OS included as a special bonus feature! It seems like a "no brainer" until you consider what happened with early versions of the OS - a new version arrives, PC sales spike, the Microsoft stock price rises... and all of the vested stock options are suddenly "in the money". Bill Gates and his contemporaries got very rich from stock options and those that followed in their footsteps want to be very rich as well. But, utility companies don't generally have much in the way of stock options because those options don't have any value since their stocks don't have rapid price appreciation (in other words, they're not "growth" stocks). A lot of MS employees probably signed on with the expectation of becoming wealthy... would they stick around if they learned that their options are worthless? Since I'm a cynic, I see the sudden Windows 11 release as evidence of either stock options vesting or, more likely, of vested stock options expiring sometime early next year that won't have any value unless there's a stock price jump. There probably won't be a price jump as there's no media buzz and most people aren't going to spend the money to acquire a currently very pricey gaming PC (thanks crypto!).

Posted 2 years ago #
mikiem2
Moderator

Oh, I agree that some folks would have paid for upgrades, but for the last several years I think the trend, with the exception of work-from-home because of the pandemic, is that more and more people wouldn't bother with the old model of buying a disc, installing the new version, then setting everything up. That's too much work for something, a PC, that's sort of on the periphery of their daily life -- something that they use every so often, but unlike their phones, something they could possibly do without. In that respect, Win10, with its automatic updates & upgrades fits better than earlier Windows versions, but it could be better -- something Microsoft is Very aware of I think, and why they toyed with a new update model where the updated or new version would be prepared separately on the hard disk, then during a reboot would be swapped with the old copy of Windows. I also think Microsoft tiptoed right up to the edge of offering a subscription model with Win10, then got cold feet and backed off. Biz prefers a subscription or lease model, but lots of individual consumers demand ownership, even when/if it's an illusion.

I also agree with what you wrote about biz. I'm skeptical but also slightly amused reading about how governments are talking about forcing business to clean up its act when it comes to IT, given the constant disruptions from cyber attacks. I think the majority of people are in favor of that kind of thing, because no one wants to worry about not being able to get healthcare, or fill their gas tanks, or going without [relatively] clean drinking water etc., but then we don't have lobbyists working on our behalf either.

I am curious to see what new hardware is going to be pushed during the holiday sales. As you said, the high end is going to be really expensive... Intel's pushing out their new CPUs, but isn't releasing their lower cost motherboard chipsets until next year, while any new products are going to be priced to account for next year's higher chip prices. And you can probably forget about graphics cards till late 2022 or 2023, *IF* the expected oversupply of chips happens, and Intel's new graphics cards put price pressure on AMD & Nvidia. And who knows, if we're really lucky governments will start to put more pressure on miners, making it a bit less attractive.

Posted 2 years ago #
mikiem2
Moderator

You were talking about corp liking things to stay the same Chris... wellll... Lansweeper looked at "60,000 organizations' [with an] estimated 30 million Windows devices" finding that 44.4% of their Windows machines qualified for Win11, while .23% of VM workstations made the grade. The stats on how much Microsoft is hated are about to explode methinks. Makes a bit of sense now why Microsoft rushed out it's virtual Windows in the cloud, with the old thin client model.

Posted 2 years ago #
ChrisS
Administrator

I'm not sure what to think about those numbers.

The vast majority of corporate PCs are lease units on a 3 or 4 year cycle so I wonder why so many would fail the upgrade test... is it that the CPU is under-powered? You need a more powerful PC to run the OS but not for your daily work? It also seems to me that the Windows 10 EOL has been accelerated. If so, does that combined with the relatively low percentage of upgrade-able units push more companies to pricey Extended Support Licenses? You're right about unhappy people - it's never harmonious when a vendor goes out of their way to disrupt your business.

You mentioned cloud computing above... Frequently asked questions about the Windows 7 end of support

Azure Virtual Desktop is a cloud-based service that is delivered on Azure. It's the best virtualized Windows and Office experience. It delivers a multi-user Windows 10 experience that is optimized for Microsoft 365 Apps for enterprise. For customers who are upgrading from Windows 7, Azure Virtual Desktop includes free Windows 7 ESU through 2023. You can use Azure Virtual Desktop to deploy and scale Windows and Office on Azure in minutes, including appropriate security and compliance measures.

Is there a "move to the Microsoft Cloud and all of your worries go away" effort underway?

Posted 2 years ago #
mikiem2
Moderator

Is there a "move to the Microsoft Cloud and all of your worries go away" effort underway?

My admittedly more cynical take, and as usual I could be totally wrong, is that like much of big biz, Microsoft found the pandemic to be Very profitable. They already had Windows Virtual Desktop, but saw an opportunity, renaming it Azure Virtual Desktop, rethinking their strategy and adding new features. Then came Windows 365, then surprise, we heard about Win11.

techcrunch[.]com/2021/06/07/microsofts-windows-virtual-desktop-is-now-azure-virtual-desktop/

Microsoft essentially has 2 pricing plans to deliver Windows running on a VM in the cloud to most devices, using remote desktop for Windows PCs/laptops, Apple devices, and Android, or simply in a browser. Azure Virtual Desktop is the more hands-on, with more options, and different enterprise pricing -- Windows 365 is the more turnkey version running on top of AVD at per-user rates depending on the hardware allocated to each desktop. Microsoft offered a free trial of Windows 365, and ran out of capacity within hours, for whatever that's worth.

theregister[.]com/2021/09/16/azure_virtual_desktop_ad/

techrepublic[.]com/article/microsoft-azure-virtual-desktop-a-cheat-sheet/

pcmag[.]com/news/what-is-windows-365-cloud-pc

zdnet[.]com/article/windows-365-hands-on-with-microsofts-pricey-new-cloud-pc-subscriptions/

Posted 2 years ago #
mikiem2
Moderator

is it that the CPU is under-powered?

I wanted to treat this separately because AFAIK the only answer to why only the newest CPUs qualify is: "Because Microsoft says so." While Win11 adds features to entice gamers with lots of cash [or credit], making it more responsive when the CPU is under high load suggests they're expecting Win11 to come on all sorts of low cost devices with Atom or Celeron CPUs, and there are Atom CPUs on the qualified CPU list. My 2 tablets have Atom CPUs, while the miniPC we use for watching Blu-ray movies on TV & an AIO I was given use Celeron CPUs. These are like the slowest devices known to man. My wife likes the AIO with its touch screen to play Candy Crush -- when she has enough patience to wait for the game to load. The miniPC actually does OK with PowerDVD, as long as most enhancements in the app are turned off, but while the Chrome browser is installed, you really do not want to use it. Newer Atom CPUs could be a little faster, but not much since Intel wants to keep selling its several varieties of the more expensive i3. These really are lowest end chips.

When the CPU requirements for Win11 were 1st revealed, & there was the expected uproar, Microsoft said it would carefully reevaluate. Afterward I think they added something like 2 or 3 mostly OEM Intel CPUs -- they said they talked with AMD, and AMD agreed that no additional AMD CPUs should be added. Gee, and AMD only coincidentally priced current generation Ryzen CPUs higher than earlier versions. I'm sure they didn't want to make more money selling more CPUs.

In defense Microsoft said: "Devices that do not meet the minimum system requirements had 52% more kernel mode crashes... While devices that do meet the minimum system requirements had a 99.8% crash free experience." But as ZDNet pointed out: "Converting those two statistics to a common scale suggests that the older PC designs, absent other issues, should still have a nearly 99.7% "crash free experience.'"

I think in the end it'll just come down to the experiences people running Win11 on unqualified hardware report. Microsoft has always been skittish when it comes to Any potential for lawsuits... Is that why they're threatening to withhold updates on unsupported hardware, to cover their butts in case some future update doesn't work, or an attempt to keep people from trying, because they know it'll work so well?

Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.