We take a closer look at the Windows 11 bug that impacts AMD processors.
Tested: AMD CPUs Can Be 12x Slower in Windows 11 : Read more
Tested: AMD CPUs Can Be 12x Slower in Windows 11 : Read more
What is it about MS and ever other version of their OS. 3.1 good, 95 bad, 98 good, ME bad, XP good, Vista bad, 7 good, 8 bad, 10 good, 11 looking pretty bad.
"AMD recently issued its first Windows 11 patch "
From the article where did AMD release this patch?
AMD hasn't released anything because this is a fix coming from Microsoft and you are referring to MS pushing out update from patch tuesday.
The only thing AMD is going to release is the cppc driver update on Oct 21. The L3 fix is suppose to be coming from MS on Oct 19.
I expect a little more accurate reporting from you guys.
"AMD recently issued its first Windows 11 patch "
From the article where did AMD release this patch?
AMD hasn't released anything because this is a fix coming from Microsoft and you are referring to MS pushing out update from patch tuesday.
The only thing AMD is going to release is the cppc driver update on Oct 21. The L3 fix is suppose to be coming from MS on Oct 19.
You got a source for that potentially libelous claim there guy?MS blocked unethical AMD microcode following identification. Windows 10 will be patched as well. AMD did try to patch the microcode (without you knowing about it).
Data collection and security bypasses to.. well.. collect data and inflate performance figures. Cough(Asus)Cough.
I thought I read somewhere that the fix might be released to Insider builds on Win11 already?
We take a closer look at the Windows 11 bug that impacts AMD processors.
Tested: AMD CPUs Can Be 12x Slower in Windows 11 : Read more
i bet he has it some where in his tin foil hatYou got a source for that potentially libelous claim there guy?
Except Windows 95 was generally considered to be good. It included a lot of major improvements and additions, and was the version that first introduced long-time interface features like the taskbar and start menu. It also removed a lot of the software limitations of 3.1's 16-bit DOS back-end, and offered better stability and performance. If anything, 98 was a little underwhelming, as it didn't really add a whole lot over 95. It was largely just a refined version of 95 with lots of minor improvements, much like a service pack, only not distributed for free.What is it about MS and ever other version of their OS. 3.1 good, 95 bad, 98 good, ME bad, XP good, Vista bad, 7 good, 8 bad, 10 good, 11 looking pretty bad.
Usually these benchmarks don't matter to the real world but I did notice waiting a little longer for my Excel sheets during CPU crunch time after that 1st update to Windows 11 on my Ryzen 5 3600 PC.
What does Linux have to do with a performance comparison of Win 10 vs Win 11?Window$... I haven't used it at home on any of my computers, not even my old 70+ year old parents use it for over 7 years now! They're on Ubuntu LTS
I've been on Linux for well over a decade now, my 5year old son's laptop is on Xubuntu and my Wife's Yoga is on Ubuntu. Our HTPCs are on ubuntu, my laptops are all on Ubuntu.
Tomshardware should have added a linux distro at least as one of the OS comparison's on their tests! Not really up to scratch professional wise with reviews if you don't have a desktop linux distribution added as one of the tests.
Me was still largely based off the 95/98 code-base, just with a bunch of interface changes tacked on, and was generally considered to have poor performance and stability.
The most important thing MS can do to make people (PC users) jump to a new OS is a new DirectX, otherwise windows 7 still good, windows 10 is more secure from 3rd parties.. from MS? not so much, with windows 10 I feel more naked when connecting to the internet windows XP will make you suffer to secure your PC from trojans and viruses but if XP had DirectX12 and high core count and high capacity RAM support and modern drivers I would never consider to upgradeExcept Windows 95 was generally considered to be good. It included a lot of major improvements and additions, and was the version that first introduced long-time interface features like the taskbar and start menu. It also removed a lot of the software limitations of 3.1's 16-bit DOS back-end, and offered better stability and performance. If anything, 98 was a little underwhelming, as it didn't really add a whole lot over 95. It was largely just a refined version of 95 with lots of minor improvements, much like a service pack, only not distributed for free.
That good-bad cycle didn't really begin until Windows Me was poorly received, then quickly followed by the positively-received XP a year later. Me was still largely based off the 95/98 code-base, just with a bunch of interface changes tacked on, and was generally considered to have poor performance and stability. It served as more of a stop-gap until XP arrived, which was based on the far-more-stable NT/2000 code-base.
I'm not sure 10 was all that positively received either. Compared to 8, sure, though that was more just backtracking on bizarre interface changes, much of which had already been addressed with the 8.1 service pack. I think many would still consider 7 to be superior in some ways, and 10 doesn't really do much that 7 didn't already do. Windows 10 has also felt a bit like it's always been in beta, with forced updates breaking things and generally feeling inadequately tested. Windows 11 makes some questionable changes, but it's largely still just Windows 10 with a coat of paint and some additional annoyances.
Really, I think Microsoft has just been struggling for the last decade to make significant improvements to an OS that already worked fine, and that people were familiar with. Their developers are tasked with changing the interface to make it feel fresh and new, but since the interface was already fairly well refined, many of those changes end up making things worse.