Windows 11 still sucks.

[Mæstro]

Backwards compatibility does require some conscious effort. Programming languages also keep changing… And since you went over to the dark side, it's Linux where it's been the norm for a long time where using younger gcc compiler will restrict the program to the contemporary minimum distro version.

I am aware, and have observed many instances of software today which claim to support Debian 11+. I dislike rapid technological change in general. If the ground were not constantly shifting under our feet, it would be easier to drive firm foundations into the earth.

The architecture is over 20 years old now and yet, we still discuss x86 vs x86_64.

Paper has existed for two thousand years, yet we still discuss that.

Can you elaborate in more detail regarding your issue over 4 GB?

It is quite simple. My computer nominally possesses 5·3 GB of store, but if more than 4 GB are in use, my computer shows severe lag, and due to short-term fluctuations in memory usage, might freeze completely.

[UCyborg]

I guess I was confused by "store", which presumably refers to RAM.

[Mæstro]

Yes, RAM and (main) store are synonymous.

[UCyborg]

I see. I never heard anyone refer to RAM like that before. Though I recognize storage as generic term that could hint at long term storage (devices) in the computing context. Edit: Oh, primary storage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_data_storage

If you have swap partition or file, Linux will start swapping after certain threshold. Seems by default, come chunk of RAM will always remain free.

Strange things may start happening when you get nearer full RAM on either Linux or Windows. I know Windows loves being able to reserve a bigger portion of space for page file under certain circumstances, and failing that, programs could start crashing. Something about the ability to guarantee every allocated memory page can be backed by pagefile... I never quite understood memory management here.

Right now, System informer reads 0,99 GB allocated for page file with 5,59 MB used, 2,45 GB used physical memory, but Private bytes read 3,05 GB. Maybe these values are closer if you disable memory compression. It's been a long time since I tried turning it off. I do faintly remember page file usage reading was likely to grow faster then, like on Windows 7.

[frostknight]

Off-topic:
The concept of unused ram is wasted ram might be true in one sense, but it doesn't mean you should feel a license to bloat everything beyond any reasonable bounds. That is just wasteful.

Although, proprietors like microsoft and apple don't give a rats ass.

Google seems to not care either, although somehow their android OS doesn't bloat automatically till you start adding their forced applications.

Like, if you are using a derivative of android such as grapheneos, it runs pretty fast for something that runs on ARM64.

Although its possible screen size has something to do with it.

CPU usage is less on smaller screens probably.

But also, I get the feeling android derivatives without their constant dialing forced applications don't use as much electricity.

I don't know if this is true with other ARM64 operating systems though. But I would be surprised if microsoft was as lightweight by default. Apple on the other hand is based on BSD.. so... its possible it makes sense for them to be lighter on resources.

Microsoft was originally based on DOS though. which makes me wonder why its so heavy. Unless DOS was too. I would have to check FreeDOS to know though lol.

[Mæstro]

The concept of unused ram is wasted ram might be true in one sense, but it doesn't mean you should feel a license to bloat everything beyond any reasonable bounds. That is just wasteful. Although, proprietors like microsoft and apple don't give a rats —. Google seems to not care either…

They have allied with the computer manufacturers. This is how Microsoft won its monopoly in the early nineties; the arrangement was then known as Wintel. The hardware manufacturer’s interest dictates planning obsolescence; it secures another sale some years hence.

But I would be surprised if microsoft was as lightweight by default. Apple on the other hand is based on BSD.. so... its possible it makes sense for them to be lighter on resources.

The stripped and server editions of Windows, official and others, offer some hint of this. For example, Windows Server 2025 requires only half 11’s store and abolishes the UEFI mandate, among other things. The independent efforts to build Darwin as its own OS might offer some analogue for Macintosh.

Microsoft was originally based on DOS though. which makes me wonder why its so heavy. Unless DOS was too. I would have to check FreeDOS to know though[.]

The last version of Windows to have built itself on DOS was Me; the DOS line is extinct in this millennium’s Windows. From Windows 2000 on, all versions of Windows have instead been NT-based, and NT derives from OS/2. Windows editions since 1999 have represented incremental versions of the NT kernel.

[UCyborg]

The Win9x line is a bit more interesting than often repeated "based on DOS". In the sense how Windows environment provides DOS compatibility.

Windows NT 4.0 is a non-DOS based cousin of Windows 95. NT 4.0 was the first one with Task Manager, Windows 95 only has that task list window. NT 4.0 however doesn't have the Device Manager we know today. Win2000 brought some bells and whistles from 9x line to NT line, though XP improved on the compatibility infrastructure for quirky Windows 9x applications.

NT 4.0 is more demanding than Windows 95.

[frostknight]

NT 4.0 is more demanding than Windows 95.

This is not surprising...

The last version of Windows to have built itself on DOS was Me; the DOS line is extinct in this millennium’s Windows. From Windows 2000 on, all versions of Windows have instead been NT-based, and NT derives from OS/2. Windows editions since 1999 have represented incremental versions of the NT kernel.

I didn't know windows NT was derived from OS/2... interesting

[UCyborg]

This is not surprising...

Presumably not for the reason you think.

Windows 95 doesn't have much in the way of security and NT 4.0 is a full 32-bit OS. System requirements of NT 4.0 didn't mean much by 1997 it seems.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-jul-14-fi-12696-story.html

[frostknight]

Presumably not for the reason you think.

Windows 95 doesn't have much in the way of security and NT 4.0 is a full 32-bit OS. System requirements of NT 4.0 didn't mean much by 1997 it seems.

Windows had/has security?

Do tell...

I mean if windows was a secure os, why isn't it being used a server product instead of a proprietary fork of ubuntu called microsoft Azure?

[Moonchild]

I mean if windows was a secure os, why isn't it being used a server product instead of a proprietary fork of ubuntu called microsoft Azure?

Put on the brakes a little.

There are millions upon millions of secure Windows servers, and large swathes of the internet are being served by various iterations of the Windows Server O.S., and FTR, Windows Server is NT based and has very little seperating it from end-user/workstation versions, certainly at its core.

[frostknight]

There are millions upon millions of secure Windows servers, and large swathes of the internet are being served by various iterations of the Windows Server O.S., and FTR, Windows Server is NT based and has very little seperating it from end-user/workstation versions, certainly at its core.

Okay, but I am still curious why Microsoft made their own linux distro though.

I believe the reason is popularity + security as stated though.

[Moonchild]

I am still curious why Microsoft made their own linux distro though.

It's pretty simple: high-availability cloud infrastructure already exists; for Azure it made little sense to re-invent the wheel. If I was a decision-maker at Microsoft I would also have chosen to build on already-proven technology to deploy a cloud infrastructure rather than spending a lot of money and time on a native Windows solution. Of course making their own distro to maintain for their specific use case also makes sense.

[Mæstro]

Before 2021, it was often speculated that WIndows 11 might be a Linux distribution. Just imagine!

[frostknight]

Before 2021, it was often speculated that WIndows 11 might be a Linux distribution. Just imagine!

The reason they don't I bet is because they know that people would rather use one that isn't flooded with telemetry crap and ads.

IE, people would prefer the mainstream stuff like ubuntu, fedora, debian, archlinux, etc

Another words, I think they know how much the average user hates their tracking and ads.

They try to strike a balance between two different ideals. Pushing their crap onto the consumer, but not so much that they ditch their OS.

It's pretty simple: high-availability cloud infrastructure already exists; for Azure it made little sense to re-invent the wheel. If I was a decision-maker at Microsoft I would also have chosen to build on already-proven technology to deploy a cloud infrastructure rather than spending a lot of money and time on a native Windows solution.

I imagine the infrastructure you speak of though is so much more stable then even some older windows oses though. like XP or 7.

I wouldn't be surprised if that isn't part of the appeal. Linux doesn't break easily if you are on a stable distro. Unless you are messing with the system files of course.

I have borked my installs doing heavy handed stuff before. Some commands are bad to run unless they are in certain directories.

changing for example files that say python2 to tauthon, if they are system files... oof are you in a bad state. You will have to reinstall.

I had that problem once. I thought I was setup correctly.

False alas.


Also, as you can attest being a server operator, servers have to be as stable as possible because if they break, their services will be down for everyone using them.

This is different from an OS only one person accesses.

[Moonchild]

It's actually one of the main problems with Windows 11...

Before 11, you could ascribe instability of the O.S. primarily to user interaction. There is a good reason, for example, that XP had been in use on point-of-sale machines the world over. A lot of high-availability infrastructure runs on Windows exactly because of its stability (ATMs also come to mind). If there is any sector that needs stability over all else it's the financial sector.

What happened with Windows 11 though is that it has become unstable through no fault of the end user. Aside from my personal issues with the usability of it it, this has become a major issue especially in the last year.

Off-topic:
As an aside:

Linux doesn't break easily if you are on a stable distro. Unless you are messing with the system files of course.

That just isn't true, unless you explicitly choose an enterprise distro (but that will be seriously behind in its system packages).
On any "regular" stable distro, you will be constantly fighting the people wanting nothing but bleeding edge and whom are constantly pushing for deprecation and removal of what they deem "obsolete". A real-world example here is I just in December set up a let's encrypt certificate automation using certbot on a decently modern distro, only to find it was almost right out of the gate complaining that Python 3.6 (the latest version supplied by the distro's official repos) was no longer maintained support for it in cryptography would be removed in the next version. At least it was kind enough to tell me - in many cases it won't be and a routine (often automated) package update run can and will break your software. I don't call that reliable enough for use unless you explicitly tailor your installation to one or two specific tasks.

[frostknight]

That just isn't true, unless you explicitly choose an enterprise distro (but that will be seriously behind in its system packages).
On any "regular" stable distro, you will be constantly fighting the people wanting nothing but bleeding edge and whom are constantly pushing for deprecation and removal of what they deem "obsolete". A real-world example here is I just in December set up a let's encrypt certificate automation using certbot on a decently modern distro, only to find it was almost right out of the gate complaining that Python 3.6 (the latest version supplied by the distro's official repos) was no longer maintained support for it in cryptography would be removed in the next version. At least it was kind enough to tell me - in many cases it won't be and a routine (often automated) package update run can and will break your software. I don't call that reliable enough for use unless you explicitly tailor your installation to one or two specific tasks.

Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, similar

Not archlinux or fedora because I hear those are easier to break,

But yeah, I guess there are finicky parts that even stable distros have. I was speaking of linux as a whole. Not individual stuff like what you mentioned.

firmware blobs for example, I don't tend to need those much in my main computers. But I imagine those are very breakable because they ain't open source and so no one can modify them except those the corporation allows to. (Meaning those who work for the proprietors and who have signed an NDA as you would say.)

I once had an hp laptop, though. It had a bad wifi card. Within a year of using it, the wifi broke and I had to rely on ethernet. This didn't change even years later when I installed the wifi blob on it after installing linux to it.

I guess in essence, specific things may break, but the OS as a whole is usually stable if it is meant for enterprise situations.

Debian, Ubuntu and Mint + similar are a good example of this I think.

You are correct though that old packages are in those distros though.

I ran into interesting problems on a framework laptop though with amd ryzen. When I launch starcraft 2 from wine, the sound is immediately pushed back to 0 regardless of what it was before.

So yes, linux issues do exist. Ultimately, I have better luck on libreboot/coreboot devices that don't need blobs. But those are more expensive sometimes.

[Mæstro]

On any "regular" stable distro, you will be constantly fighting the people wanting nothing but bleeding edge and whom are constantly pushing for deprecation and removal of what they deem "obsolete"… in many cases [the updater won't be kind enough to warn you] and a routine (often automated) package update run can and will break your software. I don't call that reliable enough for use unless you explicitly tailor your installation to one or two specific tasks.

I think this description applies just as well to Windows 11, at least for home users. Its update schedule and behaviour have often reminded me of Arch and other rolling releases. I have suffered personal backlash in other communities for retaining preferences, in and beyond IT, which others deem obsolete. Obsolete has long since ceased to carry any force for me. As far as software is concerned, nobody has even tried to make a case beyond appealing to a convenience which I neither value nor have ever experienced. Changing fashions signal in-group membership, I suppose. The social pressure can be great at times, but it is essentially social, and I never lose sight of this fact. Nature does not know the year recurs in my thoughts as an antidote.

[andyprough]

Off-topic:

On any "regular" stable distro, you will be constantly fighting the people wanting nothing but bleeding edge and whom are constantly pushing for deprecation and removal of what they deem "obsolete". A real-world example here is I just in December set up a let's encrypt certificate automation using certbot on a decently modern distro, only to find it was almost right out of the gate complaining that Python 3.6 (the latest version supplied by the distro's official repos) was no longer maintained support for it in cryptography would be removed in the next version. At least it was kind enough to tell me - in many cases it won't be and a routine (often automated) package update run can and will break your software. I don't call that reliable enough for use unless you explicitly tailor your installation to one or two specific tasks.

That doesn't tend to be true on MX, where Steve Pusser keeps his testing and backports repos loaded with enough bleeding edge stuff to satisfy most needs, and where the people who don't want bleeding edge are usually satisfied with the Debian stable base repos.

But you are right, it is true for most distros and their users. antiX and PCLinuxOS are the only others I know of that offer extensive backports (that actually work) on top of a stable base, and I think Steve Pusser does most of the backports work for antiX as well.

[Mæstro]

I am thankful all of the Linux options I have entertained happen(?) to be the stable variety, such that I was blind to the instability which seems to plague everything but Debian and its descendants. Linux almost is Debian in my mind.

---

Here is the most accurate account of recent Windows versions I have yet found. Among other things, it reveals why there is no Windows 9.