• ShredderFeederA
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    13 hours ago

    They’re going to cut the bloat a little to get people who are windows 10 holdouts to move…

    Then they’ll slowly put it back in …

  • Dave.@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Remember when windows XP could only make use of a maximum of 4GB of RAM?

    I put it to you: What has actually improved in the OS for the end user since then?

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      36 minutes ago

      For what most people use their computer for Win95 was already good enough. Microsoft has just been charging for the same old shit since then.

    • osanna@lemmy.vg
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      15 hours ago

      That wasn’t a windows thing only. That was a limit of 32bit machines. They could only address up to 4gb of ram. But there was a thing called Physical Address Extension that kinda faked it being able to address more than 4gb.

  • chakli@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    17 hours ago

    I have a 128GB windows machine at work, its still sluggish as hell

    Especially the start menu

  • burido@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    14 hours ago

    8gb of RAM? My phone has 8 gb and can play ZZZ while playing music and chatting on Discord. Windows can’t even tell me the weather, Edge won’t even open, the screen resolution changed sometimes (mid session) and there’s Coslop in the damn text editor. RAM was never the issue, it’s the whole OS.

  • siravious@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Again… “Look at this performance improvement we really should’ve always had, also what tracking ID?”