Re: ?End Of 10? Project

On Fri, 6/27/2025 5:37 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2025/6/21 1:33:6, Hank Rogers wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote on 6/20/2025 7:04 PM:

[provocative bit snipped]

Which one is the smart choice? The â??End of 10â?? project is here
to help you make an informed decision.
>
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/ready-to-ditch-windows-end-of-10-makes-
converting-your-pc-to-linux-easier-than-ever/>

>
Linux is wonderful ain't it?   I wish everyone could hear the gospel of
Linus.  Praise him, all ye faithful.
>
Amen.
>

To be fair, I don't think I've ever heard Mr. Torvalds knocking other
OSs; he just created his own (I think originally as a licence-free clone
of UNIX). It is other people who verge on the religious zeal.

 
  Here, here! There, there!
 
  But Lawrence is right, it's really terrible that I 'have' to replace
one of our eleven and a half year old systems.
 

You used to replace a system, because you couldn't get the level of
performance required. But people discovered after the mid-range
quad cores showed up, that they had "enough" performance. You can even
render graphics, if you have enough cores (the unaccelerated graphics
in Bash Shell WSL2/WSLg is proof of that). If you need more
performance than that (as a gamer), then you're in the specialty section,
where the applications-developer decides how big a machine you need.

If an OS maker goes out of their way to degrade your performance,
then mysteriously, like an Apple battery fix, yes indeed, you feel
compelled to replace your three year old hardware.

This is a quick benchmark from yesterday, comparing Windows 7 to W10/W11.
SuperPI 1.5 XS 32 million digits PI calculation, to see how HVCI might
degrade the experience. Notice how, for some reason, Windows 10 is slower
than Windows 11. Now, how did that happen ??? Spooky and mysterious.
Processor is 4th generation 4930K (generation estimate is only approximate).
Lower times are better.

       16M digits   32M digits

win7   3m 54.562s   8m 36.096s
                    8m 33.553s  (repeat run, after the slogging ones below had run)

win10              10m 12.453s  WD ON                    22H2       [Just awful results]
                   10m 35.453s  WD OFF  (yikes!!! WTF, slower ???)
                    9m 56.922s  WD OFF, Affinity Core#2
                    9m 23.094s  WD OFF, Affinity Core#2, truncatememory (2048MB)  [Squeeze OS, force off some "features"]

win11               9m 32.164s  WD ON                    24H2
       4m 15.237s   9m 26.603s  WD OFF
       4m  1.533s   8m 44.491s  WD OFF, truncatememory 0xC0000000 (3072MB)  [Squeeze OS, force off some "features"]

There were somewhere around 50 recent spectre/meltdown style
issues found in recent processors. As a measure of what the
OS people can patch with "Retpolines" to make that three year old
system behave like a slug. Hows about a few more levels
of Sandboxing, or some more of that fine fine random maintenance.
activity, where you see cascades of Registry scanning or file
system apparent scanning.

A question would be, WHY are we buying new processors ? WHAT are we getting ?
A smug feeling of some sort ? There's no question, there is a slightly observed
benefit from a higher clock rate, but who is going to pay $1000 for that when
they don't actually need it ?

This is why people are buying NUC-like boxes for $250, with their
relatively low turbo-clocks. A good-enough box for some purpose.
Not fit for gaming (the usual iGPU). And those are just as fast as
my eleven year old box, if the OS is not adding lard.

   Paul