Windows 11 - just upgraded the laptop
| # | Post |
|---|---|
| 1 | rather uneventful, everything still works, seems a bit snappier especially in the settings. king1 - 2021-10-08 20:55:00 |
| 2 | hmmm, that would be 'threw' me Edited by king1 at 9:12 pm, Fri 8 Oct king1 - 2021-10-08 21:11:00 |
| 3 | Hope your CPU isn't ryzen. bitsnpieces2020 - 2021-10-08 21:58:00 |
| 4 | bitsnpieces2020 wrote:
or Fallen ? nice_lady - 2021-10-09 08:04:00 |
| 5 | no it's intel, i'll hold fire doing the ryzen boxes, i'm sure they will sort it in due course. Another thing I noticed is the right click context menu is now a UWP type menu - every now and then when I open it, it will immediately close... king1 - 2021-10-09 10:20:00 |
| 6 | LTT was saying gaming performance isn't exactly improved by the new OS either. Infact the opposite in many existing titles. bitsnpieces2020 - 2021-10-09 12:53:00 |
| 7 | - the photos app still takes about three hours to open a photo... king1 - 2021-10-09 13:24:00 |
| 8 | Am I right in thinking that with an older pc if you don't use the default installer, which requires requires TPM & Secureboot. you won't get support, so best to stay with Win 10 to get regular updates? hazelmajor - 2021-10-09 14:41:00 |
| 9 | Yeah. For now. nice_lady - 2021-10-09 15:00:00 |
| 10 | king1 wrote:
I just don't understand why Windows takes so long to open photographs now. I think it used to be OK on W7, but on W10 it seems to take longer than it should. tygertung - 2021-10-09 15:29:00 |
| 11 | tygertung wrote: yep something they haven't quite got right in the photos app. I use Irfanview normally which is just instantaneous opening files... king1 - 2021-10-09 16:15:00 |
| 12 | its probably to busy uploading the images to MS's AI to check for kiddy porn, to bother opening quickly. /joking...sort of. bitsnpieces2020 - 2021-10-09 16:42:00 |
| 13 | Actually it is quite bizarre that they should take a long time to open, as 20 years ago in the XP days when using ancient computers they used to open real quick, so no real reason why they should be so slow now the computers are faster. tygertung - 2021-10-09 17:01:00 |
| 14 | I was also getting some kind of weird license error when opening images in the photos app. and I also couldn't change the JPG file association anywhere, reset it with king1 - 2021-10-09 18:01:00 |
| 15 | I think I'll stick to 10 for a few years yet. bitsnpieces2020 - 2021-10-11 12:08:00 |
| 16 | king1 wrote:
nice_lady - 2021-10-11 18:54:00 |
| 17 | king1 wrote:
The full menu can be restored. With a bit of registry faffing. https://www.howtogeek.com/759449/how-to-get-full-context-men ronaldo8 - 2021-10-11 21:38:00 |
| 18 | hazelmajor wrote:
Correct, no updates if you installed the insiders release. However they are now supporting back to 6th gen intel and 1st gen ryzen but you still need the tpm module (can be added to most boards of that vintage, cheap) and you can only do a clean install from iso, not an upgrade. Edited by ronaldo8 at 9:50 pm, Mon 11 Oct ronaldo8 - 2021-10-11 21:40:00 |
| 19 | bitsnpieces2020 wrote:
I'm running it on a ryzen 5800X and it works at full speed. ronaldo8 - 2021-10-11 21:44:00 |
| 20 | Taskbar on 11 is either hide or leave at bottom, no other option. bryshaw - 2021-10-13 11:03:00 |
| 21 | bryshaw wrote: if it helps, it looks like you can get it to the top with a registry change king1 - 2021-10-13 12:40:00 |
| 22 | My Ryzen 5600 is going well?? fishb8 - 2021-10-13 15:47:00 |
| 23 | its worse than on win 10 for performance. bitsnpieces2020 - 2021-10-13 17:15:00 |
| 24 | bitsnpieces2020 wrote:
That's crap mate using a AMD cpu is a known issue https://www.engadget.com/amd-windows-11-bug-ryzen-100550246. docpc - 2021-10-13 17:43:00 |
| 25 | bitsnpieces2020 wrote:
2~3% big whoop de. They have already announced they are on it, and it's only significant models with more than eight cores. If you are sweating about the difference between getting 197fps and 195 then you are lacking in perspective. "AMD didn't mention any particular percentage for the second bug, but the company said its impact is more noticeable in chips with more than eight cores and with 65W Thermal Design Power (TDP) or higher. That includes many of the high-end desktop chips released over the past few years, but suggests popular lines like the 3600X and 5600X should be minimally affected, and AMD-powered laptops aren't likely to be particularly troubled either. In its announcement, AMD assured that it's investigating the issues with Microsoft and that they're working on a fix for them. A patch for the first bug will be released as Windows update, while a fix for the second will roll out as a software update sometime this month. For the latter, it could mean having to check AMD's website for the update and having to install new drivers manually." Edited by ronaldo8 at 5:00 pm, Thu 14 Oct ronaldo8 - 2021-10-14 16:57:00 |
| 26 | So you've "upgraded" to an OS thats got no new features worth having, and runs slower. Now your acting offended when its pointed out ? You must have loved windows ME when it came out. bitsnpieces2020 - 2021-10-15 08:25:00 |
| 27 | bitsnpieces2020 wrote: who are you arguing with? Ronaldo8 seems completely indifferent to this perceived problem that you seem hell bent on turning into a major... It's a bug, it's been identified, it will be fixed, nothing more to the story than that... king1 - 2021-10-15 09:57:00 |
| 28 | 5800x user here too. No visible difference in performance either but at the end of the day, we are talking split second stuff, this is why to me it is no big deal. Even for gaming, with the GPU I use and the resolution I game at, the performance impact is so negligible it isn't an issue. If/when the issue is resolved and I maybe pick up half a dozen frames per second of "free" performance, that means basically nothing in the scheme of things. cube_guy - 2021-10-15 10:09:00 |
| 29 | bitsnpieces2020 wrote:
Laughs you have no idea do you docpc - 2021-10-15 11:18:00 |
| 30 | king1 wrote:
Haha exactly, I am outstandingly indifferent. ronaldo8 - 2021-10-15 22:18:00 |
| 31 | Of course W11 will be slower than W10. W10 was released in 2015 when hardware was slower. Now the hardware is faster so W11 will be designed to run on the new faster hardware with more resources. tygertung - 2021-10-16 10:50:00 |
| 32 | tygertung wrote:
Specious analysis. Software development hasn't been standing still. The kernel and system libraries have all become more efficient with better design and compilers aimed at taking advantage of features that simply didn't exist before. That said performance between the two on identical hardware is effectively ...wait for it...identical. There are some notable large speed increases in a few functions, eg the os wide search is now extremely quick but for my day to day use, cad/simulation, there is no difference, nor would I expect there to be. Overall its win 10 with more polish and a less clunky ui. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mT-q2nNxAc Edited by ronaldo8 at 12:39 pm, Sat 16 Oct ronaldo8 - 2021-10-16 12:25:00 |
| 33 | Maybe so, but one can't expect each subsequent operating system to have identical requirements to historical ones. Windows going back from this latest iteration to historical ones, 95 being the oldest in the new format requires much higher system resources than previously. Windows 7 uses a lot less resources than W10, and I would expect it to do so, and I would expect W11 to use more as well. Now one can't expect programmers to spend excessive amounts of time optimising code forever when the system resources are not constrained. Now that there is effectively limitless memory and CPU cycles, there isn't the same requirement for very careful optimisation of code. It would be better of course to optimise everything to the max, but the employers of the programmers are not going to want their employees to spend the time due to financial constraints. And why would one design a system for an old machine. It makes no sense to do so. There has to be a limit to backwards compatibility. If one wants to use ancient hardware, I suggest looking elsewhere for operating systems to something a bit more specialised for such requirements. tygertung - 2021-10-16 13:01:00 |
| 34 | tygertung wrote:
Well you have it wrong, the footprint is smaller, both on disk and in memory usage. What is it that inclines people to come out with an uninformed opinion on any given topic. It's as weird as all hell, especially when getting informed is now so trivially easy. ronaldo8 - 2021-10-16 13:48:00 |
| 35 | tygertung wrote: duh, its slower on todays newest hardware running side by side benchmarks. And its not like MS went to great lengths and rewrote everything. its exactly the same core, with some GUI tweaks for their never ending dream of windows touch devices taking the world by storm. Edited by bitsnpieces2020 at 2:53 pm, Sat 16 Oct bitsnpieces2020 - 2021-10-16 14:42:00 |
| 36 | bitsnpieces2020 wrote:
Poof ? factual proof or another dream you having docpc - 2021-10-16 14:53:00 |
| 37 | If you say so bitsi. ronaldo8 - 2021-10-16 14:53:00 |
| 38 | I 'do' the same things on my W10 laptop as I did on W8.1. What, if anything, is better for regular use with W11? soundsgood - 2021-10-16 18:30:00 |
| 39 | hazelmajor wrote:
I just used the Command utility in Administrator mode to allow my incompatible processor PC to install Windows 11. I have not yet found out how to go back to Windows 10 if I do not like Windows 11. Would anyone recommend I wait for a better build of Windows 11...? I just thought this before I accept the Eula. Edited by olack at 7:44 pm, Sat 16 Oct olack - 2021-10-16 19:42:00 |
| 40 | olack wrote: Settings -> Recovery to roll back to 10. But you usually only have 10 days to do so... king1 - 2021-10-16 19:59:00 |
| 41 | Thx. olack - 2021-10-16 20:07:00 |
| 42 | king1 wrote:
Yes that is the case, they have spelled it out on the iso download page as I recall. My skylake laptop will be staying on 10 ronaldo8 - 2021-10-16 20:39:00 |
| 43 | ronaldo8 wrote:
Wow, if that is the case then, it is pretty amazing and would be a first that a later vesrion of an operating system is less resource intensive than an earlier one. tygertung - 2021-10-16 21:06:00 |
| 44 | tygertung wrote: Depends what you measure - 10 trumped 8 on quite a few tests here king1 - 2021-10-16 21:57:00 |
| 45 | Windows XP only required 64 MB of RAM. tygertung - 2021-10-17 17:47:00 |
| 46 | tygertung wrote:
How much RAM does Windows 10 really need? Times change , stop living in the past docpc - 2021-10-17 18:20:00 |
| 47 | Windows XP requires 1.5 GB of available hard drive space tygertung - 2021-10-17 18:48:00 |
| 48 | docpc wrote:
My point is each subsequent operating system release has higher system requirements. I would expect this to happen as it isn't reasonable for the designers to be designing for ancient hardware. They will be designing it for current hardware. tygertung - 2021-10-17 18:50:00 |
| 49 | tygertung wrote:
Point taken however ,Windows 11 was made for newer hardware no secret was made about that . i have been running it for 2 weeks and its better then Windows 10 by a country mile , in every way . Im not reading he said they said we said on the net im using it with zero issues , non duplicated areas like win 10 had etc ,everything works ...... docpc - 2021-10-17 19:02:00 |
| 50 | tygertung wrote:
The disk footprint of the base installed os is smaller, why are you having so much trouble with this fact? Does it upset your worldview or some bolloicks? It gets bigger if you add a pile of stuff to it?! shock horror! really, you mean like any os does! Incredible! In 10 you got every driver under the sun sitting on your disk for hardware you didn't even own, now you only get what you need. Easy. Likewise, actual ram utilisation for a like for like set of services has reduced. Looking at the ms requirements tells you nothing apart from a worse case scenario if you stack up on bloat. Look at some actual measurements, I'm sorry it doesn't agree with your preconception, stiff. Edited by ronaldo8 at 7:13 pm, Sun 17 Oct ronaldo8 - 2021-10-17 19:04:00 |
