There's a recurring criticism among Windows users: every new version runs slower than the previous one and demands extra hardware to compensate. Redmond swears the opposite and has kept requirements relatively stable. Still, many questions remain, and YouTube user TrigrZolt published a very interesting comparison that pits the major Windows editions against each other, starting with XP, on a common platform.
Feature creep and bloatware are two expressions Microsoft knows well. In an attempt to cover the broadest set of possible configurations, it ends up adding features most users consider irrelevant. Requests for lite editions of Windows or a higher level of customization at install time aren't that rare. With each new release, the classic question repeats: Are modern Windows versions slower than their predecessors?
YouTuber TrigrZolt decided to find out for himself, using a Lenovo ThinkPad X220 laptop with an Intel Core i5-2520M processor (2C/4T, 3.2 GHz Turbo), 8 GB of DDR3 RAM, integrated Intel video, and a conventional 300 GB hard drive. The five versions compared are Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8.1, and the latest build of Windows 10. Windows XP is the only 32-bit one (so it can't use all that RAM), and all have the latest updates.
Startup
The first test focuses on system startup, and here we should remember that both Windows 8.x and 10 have Fast Startup, which lets them boot and shut down faster. Windows 8.1 and 10 took the lead here, followed almost immediately by XP. Windows 7 was the slowest.
Storage and Native Apps
Storage reminds us that XP is the smallest of the five, taking only 14 GB. When opening native apps, Windows 8.1 leads again with File Explorer but finishes last with Calculator, and XP wins with Notepad. When loading Paint, XP and Vista took first place.
Multimedia and Browsing
Multimedia consumption is quite erratic: opening photos was fastest in XP, but Windows 7 led video playback using VLC Player and Media Player. Installing a browser, in this case Firefox ESR compatible with all these Windows versions, puts Windows 8.1 back at the top. In contrast, running Firefox and then visiting YouTube gave Windows 10 a slight advantage. The opposite happened when visiting Microsoft.com, with 10 and XP finishing last.
Office and Other Tasks
The Office 2010 package gave Vista a victory with Word, but Excel and PowerPoint opened faster in 8.1, and here the time it took Windows 10 to load everything is striking. Vista earned another point in USB file transfer, while XP finished last there, as well as in scanning files with Malwarebytes (Windows 10 was first in that task).
Benchmark and Shutdown
Finally, the overall benchmark was handled by Geekbench 2, and Vista's victory may seem surprising, but the differences are less than 2 percent, except for Windows 10, which didn't break the 6200-point barrier. The shutdown test is won by 8.1 and 10, thanks to Fast Startup.
Conclusion
In summary, the test may not have the necessary scientific rigor, but it serves as a reference to confirm certain aspects. For example, Windows XP's IDE and SATA drivers have historically been horrible (or worse, nonexistent), and adding the misaligned partitions created by its installer, it's no surprise its transfer performance is so poor.
On the other side, Windows 10 doesn't get along well with old hardware, and that's something I've told many people: the Lenovo ThinkPad X220 is a 2011 computer, there's no SSD in the configuration, some 2C/4T chips suffer with the operating system, and we must also consider secondary details like Meltdown/Spectre mitigations.
https://old.neoteo.com/por-que-windows-10-tiene-mas-bugs-que-nunca/Does that mean the ideal is to go back to 8.1? Not necessarily, but if you have a modest computer you plan to keep using for a while (very common in these pandemic days of lost jobs and impossible prices), the combo 8.1+Open-Shell could be an excellent alternative.
