940
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024
940 points (94.0% liked)
Technology
54748 readers
4655 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
You notice it on old hardware. On my Latitude e6220 (i3 2nd gen) there is a night and day performance difference between windows 10 and Linux.
As someone with Ivy Bridge hardware that has run Windows 10 and Ubuntu... I haven't.
My 3570k very much enjoyed the switch but it's retired now. I can't imagine how it would have handled win11 based on the before/after of other computers I use.
Having installed Win11 on a PC with a 3570K it ran just fine. I don’t really see a difference in performance between 10 and 11 on desktops. I have an old ThinkPad with an i5 6300U and performance on that isn’t amazing, but I’ve never used 10 on it (bought it from the company I work for last year) so I don’t know if it doesn’t like 11 or that’s just how it is.
Ubuntu is heavy for a Linux distro, because it uses the heaviest DE (GNOME), uses the less optimized Snap packages, and perhaps has other Canonical telemetry or something.
If you want better performance, try something with a lightweight DE. I have a laptop running Lubuntu (essentially Ubuntu with LXQt instead of GNOME), and it's actually quite responsive, at least for basic system functions.
Because if you run anything on the web with a 10 year old CPU, it's gonna suck due to the huge web browsers accompanying the bloated websites. Even on a well optimized website, the browser overhead is significant on bad hardware, especially regarding the launch time of the browser.
I prefer and use Lubuntu, before going for Mint XFCE, and now Bazzite (because gaming). However, regardless of DE, because I absolutely pack my systems with RAM, the bottleneck is not the memory, it's the cpu in cases of old systems.
I use artix Linux with hyprland WM. System uses 384mb of ram on idle.
Edit: Even with extreme debloat you can't get this performance on windows.
I'm sorry but low RAM usage is not good performance, those are not the same.
Also, I've read somewhere that all memory not in use is wasted memory. I find that thought really interesting. If an operating system would be able to always maximize RAM usage by loading every peace of software and information it uses or is about to use without using swap or a pagefile it shoud be more responsive I think.
Yes, you are right. But windows load programs Into ram that I don't even want to use.
In addition to less ram usage thee is also less CPU usage and faster boot time (with HDD).
linux is caching a lot, if there's enough RAM. you can see it in the output of the "free" command.
however, nothing stops you from moving all the stuff you frequently use to a ramdisk. it's just uncomfortable copying it over and refreshing it as updates come in. also you may want to persist some files.
personally i have my shader caches on a ramdisk on some of my boxes. the gains are minimal.
But do it during install or you have to go behind and remove the eclipsed install stuff after.
And don't do it on systemd-afflicted systems as lennart's cancer makes that harder because he couldn't figure out why a /usr directory was useful and he ditched it. Dunning-kruger says what?
/usr was introduced because the original UNIX machine ran out of storage space and they had to mount a second drive.
I just memeory leak and gain infinite performance /s
Windows and Linux both heavily use RAM caching, that is, using Unused RAM as a massive disk cache to improve performance - a lot of Windows processes that are "running" are really idling in RAM and not doing anything unless called on. In a way, they're "cached". Because it is a read cache, it can be dismissed immediately to make room when needed.
Almost every problem with Windows running slow out of the box are one of three things:
1: Not enough RAM (stupid super cheap 4-8GB laptops)
2: Not enough storage (stupid super cheap 32-128GB laptops)
3: Installed on a hard drive (install Windows to an SSD, spinny bois are too slow for 2024)
It is true Windows 11 asks for about 5GB RAM, but what else does? Your web browser. The solution is to not be cheap and have at least 16GB RAM, regardless of your OS. You want to have no more than half your RAM used when you're using your PC. This gives you enough for programs, the disk cache, and room to grow.
Its an old laptop that only has 4 gigs of ram. I think performance is clearly visible when the fan in windows is spinning like crazy playing a YouTube video.
If you don't play game,I see no reason to need more than 8GB of RAM. My computer is running very quickly with 8GB, even if I am photo editing on one screen while watching videos on the second, with a few softwares and even a VM opened in the background.
But I don't use Windows.
I have a tablet with 8GB RAM... it feels constrained even though I'm running Mint Xfce with an idle memory usage of ~550MB. You may have grown used to the performance limitations.
Things open instantly when I click, it can't get snappier. And I use GNOME, which isn't the lighter solution.
Just install win95 !
Or 3.1 😅
oof an i3 though. modern winOS doesnt like i3's
i3 is just a class the generation matters a lot a current gen i3 is very fast.
Those were borderline even when new. I warned people that if you wanted hardware that lasted, i3s aren't going to cut it.
That's why it's considered, you know, old?
How is this relevant? If an OS performs better on old hardware, it's still an indication that it is more optimized.
If the requirement calls for it, don't run it on under-specced hardware and expect proper responsiveness.
All of this is still irrelevant. If given the same hardware, one OS performs better than another, then one OS is obviously more optimized...
You're saying a lot of words but it all just boils down to "throw more hardware at the problem".