This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Even the older Windows XP managed 50 tabs, and that's because it kept crashing past that number because of its paging file failing to keep up, not because it had hit the 5GB memory ceiling.
Windows XP 32bit can't hit 5gb memory ceiling, the 32bit memory addresses don't allow that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension
Not at release. It came later though for certain chipsets.
Wasn't there a bug that made XP unable to hit even 4GB, I seem to recall a limit of 3,5GB ram....
Short answer, no, there were artificial limitations to ensure compatibility. Plenty of long-form answers if you care to search.
It was 3.2GB and afaik it wasn't a bug, but 800MB was reserved for hardware IO
PSA: In the video (not the retarded posted article that has 0 proofreading) it's stated that he used Windows XP 64 bit
Seems like every hardware upgrade just makes software worse because they can just brute force it.
Optimization?
What's that?
Fascinating that the browser using so much RAM is the OS's fault, not the browser's. Though, it using more RAM could be considered a good thing if it sped up page loading, but apparently that's not the case with Win11.
At first: Stop posting Tomshardware! They just bulk repost ad-enriched low quality clickbait content without validating anything (cough 9700X3D). Just post the original video.
As the video creator said in it's disclaimer, the test is probably not accurate:
Okay but can't we just post an article?
Why does everything need to be a video? I am more sick of Everything needs to be a video then I am of This meeting could've be an email.
I think their main issue lies with Tomshardware, not the medium of an article
It's the same exact laptop, the tests ran sequentially but were edited so that the video shows them in parallel. Since it's the same hardware in each test and only the OS changes, it's a perfectly fine setup for comparison.
I have fond memories of Windows XP working well.
Do not have fond memories of the multi-dvd game installations, but I still have my library of physical games. :)
Nothing sucked more than buying a used game only for it to ask for disc 5 to be inserted to continue, when it only came with 4!
Oh, true, but back then game companies would sell you those single disks you needed. My copy of Baldur's Gate 2 was missing one that I was able to replace for a few bucks.
In hindsight, I kinda miss the awesome customer service that used to exist.
Idk a tiny almost imperceptible scratch causing you to retry installing 3 or 4 times might a contender. At least the missing disk is a clear error.
There's a circle in hell for game publishers that only wrote "disc 1" on a CD or DVD (or floppy, back in the day) and not "disc 1 of 3". I think it's the one where they have to wade forever in shit.
This is not a proper test. Windows does optimizations on the first few boots which makes the startup take longer. As it's not mentioned in the video, we have to assume this was not accounted for, which completely invalidates the results.
Well considering almost every time I reboot it seems to do a windows update, those optimizations are probably running every time anyway. It's almost fair.
I thought it being Toms was enough to discount any actual evidence.
Tom's has become a disappointment. It's been like that for years, since the buyout.
Phoenix, Ars, Tom's... It's all shit now
i still like 7 better
7 was peak
7 was about the last time that it felt like Microsoft was trying to make a good product that was useful for its customers. They've always been anticompetitive sniveling greedy little shits that would buy out or otherwise kill competition, but used to be they'd try to sell new versions of Windows or Office on features they could reasonably expect customers to want. "It does spell check in real time now! We've included USB plug-and-play! Your PC with a modem is also a fax machine now! We made a 3D graphics library for gaming enthusiasts! We ship or OS with a media player that can play DVDs and MP3s out of the box! Here's a free video editor!"
I...don't remember that happening after Windows 7. Windows 8 was an attempt to cash in on the mobile craze, they're gonna make Windows a tablet product now! Except a lot of computers didn't have tablet controls, and a lot of desktop PC software doesn't work with tablet controls. They made a confusing annoying buggy hell mess. Win 10...I remember people hating it when it came out, they REALLY preferred 7, I was on Linux by that time and didn't care that much, and Win 10 was almost a rolling release; it changed a lot over its lifetime. They'd go all in on something, pack Win 10 full of features, and then the fad would fade and they'd pull it back out. 3D, AR, a couple other things. And now we've got the openly user hostile Windows 11. "It Harms Your Family!^(R)^"
Interesting. I've always said that I liked 8.1 the most out of all Windows versions. With classic startup, it was basically a more stable, faster Win7 that had newer DirectX and fastboot. Too bad it died with 8.0 and so 8.1 never got any market share, but damn was it awesome.
I always said that 8.1 is the most optimized even compared to 7 (mostly because they launched it together with phone version which shared a lot of stuff with 8 so it includes a lot of optimizations under the hood). Most people never cared to use it apparently.
Saw this video on YouTube a few days ago, it’s really interesting. Seemed like XP, 7 and (somehow 8.1) ran pretty good. Here’s the video for anyone wanting to see it :P https://youtu.be/7VZJO-hOT4c
Tho while 8 may be more performant, it’s also less usable imo. Would like to see how this stacks up with different OSs!
Personally I don't think an Os has any business but tying my hardware together and running apps I install myself.
The amount of services/bloat on Windows now is completely ridiculous and your pc is basically 70 percent their spy device and 30 percent what you bought it for.
