Question Why is Windows 11 so laggy in comparison to Win 7 and Win 10?

[rscheetah30]

I don't know if it's just me but currently I am triple booting Win7, Win10 and Win11 and Win 11 is easily the least responsive.
Windows 7 and 10 are way snappier when opening everything.

I have all three os's on my SSD.

Why is this?

My system:

CPU:FX6300
MB: M5A78L-M LX V2
GPU: R7 240 2GB
1 HD + 1 SSD
PSU: Gamemax GP 650

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

Because your hardware isn't meant to run 11.

 

[rscheetah30]

Because your hardware isn't meant to run 11.

What I don't understand is why Microsoft would make Win11 so demanding and practically exclude
people with low end pcs. What is the logic behind it?

 

[USAFRet]

What I don't understand is why Microsoft would make Win11 so demanding and practically exclude
people with low end pcs. What is the logic behind it?

Your FX-6300 is over a decade old.
Except for Win 10, poor performance on old low end systems was the norm.

Win 10 was released in 2015. Would you expect it to run well on a system that was mediocre in 2005?

But really, there is little difference between 10 and 11.
Possibly there is some other issue with your system.

 

[rscheetah30]

Your FX-6300 is over a decade old.
Except for Win 10, poor performance on old low end systems was the norm.

Win 10 was released in 2015. Would you expect it to run well on a system that was mediocre in 2005?

But really, there is little difference between 10 and 11.
Possibly there is some other issue with your system.

I guess you're right but this time around MS for the first time made it into a deliberate, exposed exclusion
of low end pc's from their Win11 users.

 

[USAFRet]

I guess you're right but this time around MS for the first time made it into a deliberate, exposed exclusion
of low end pc's from their Win11 users.

This is not 'new'.

If you bought a system in 1998, how well would you expect Win 7 (2009) to run in it?

 

[rscheetah30]

This is not 'new'.

If you bought a system in 1998, how well would you expect Win 7 (2009) to run in it?

These are Win10's minimum requirements:

• Processor: 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster processor or SoC
• RAM: 1 gigabyte (GB) for 32-bit or 2 GB for 64-bit
• Hard disk space: 16 GB for 32-bit OS or 20 GB for 64-bit OS
• Graphics card: DirectX 9 or later with WDDM 1.0 driver
• Display: 800 x 600

A dual core from 2006 qualifies as minimum requirement to run Win10(2015)

If MS had done the same for Win 11(2021) it would run on 2012 hardware

 

[USAFRet]

These are Win10's minimum requirements:

Discussion - What's the oldest and/or cheesiest system you have Win 10 installed on?

Mine is a 2009 era Toshiba Satellite L305-S5955 Celeron 900, 2.2GHz, 2GB RAM, 250GB HDD. The only upgrade from stock was a warranty replacement of the original 160GB HDD to the current 250GB. Currently v1903, Build 18362.295 https://www.cnet.com/products/toshiba-satellite-l305-s5955/specs/...

forums.tomshardware.com

"Minimum requirements" means that it runs.
It does not mean "runs well".

If MS had done the same for Win 11(2021) it would run on 2012 hardware

And if you look around, you can probably find some people who have Win 11 "running" on a system of that vintage.

 

[BFG-9000]

What I don't understand is why Microsoft would make Win11 so demanding and practically exclude
people with low end pcs. What is the logic behind it?

I can report that Win11 is exactly as snappy as Win10 or Win7 are on Core 2. Even on dualcore laptops--I mean it's no speed demon but perfectly tolerable for email and light office type usage given at least 4GB of RAM and SSD, with no noticeable delays or lagging. So it's just drivers or your Piledriver CPU, which at 6 cores and 4.1GHz used to be way faster than C2D.

 

[Colif]

Win 10 was designed to vacuum up all the PC that were still scattered over a number of operating systems and have them all on one, making it easier for Microsoft as they don't need as many updates.
Win 11 didn't need to repeat that as people were mostly all on 10 by that stage.
Win 11 is mostly the same as 10 with a few tweaks.

 

[ubuysa]

What I don't understand is why Microsoft would make Win11 so demanding and practically exclude
people with low end pcs. What is the logic behind it?

Simply put, Windows 11 uses better security features in modern CPU's and motherboards that versions of Windows other than 11 cannot support.

More completely, Windows 11 requires a TPM, which is a cryptographic hardware feature that Windows uses to manage more secure authentication and general security. Windows 11 also requires SecureBoot, which uses the features of UEFI firmware to guarantee the authenticity of the Windows boot files. UEFI is the replacement for MBR and changes the boot process completely, as well as the system disk format (to GPT). Windows 11 also requires CPUs to be able to support MBEC, mode-based execution control, in order to run HVCI, hypervisor code integrity, which helps ensure the integrity of loaded modules (code integrity). You can run HVCI without MBEC, on Windows 10 for example, but the performance hit is large if you do (and that's probably why it seems laggy to you). Windows 11 also uses DCH compliant drivers, this is essentially a packaging technique that makes drivers more secure, this is in addition to all Windows 11 drivers being digitally signed by Microsoft.

All of the above is in the interest of making WIndows more secure and protecting your data and your system from interference from outside. If Microsoft had enabled all these features in Windows 10, the vast majority of PCs would have failed to boot, because the CPUs and motherboards in older PCs don't support these features. That's why Windows 11 is only supported on newer PCs that do contain the necessary hardware.

All that said, it is possible, if you know how, to get Windows 11 to run on very old hardware, but getting it to run is not the same as getting it to run well or efficiently.

 

[Deleted member 14196]

I tried windows 11 on some pretty old hardware and I found that it was laggy. Then I installed it on my Home machine and it’s lightning quick so it’s the old hardware for sure.

 

[rscheetah30]

How do I pick a best answer? I can't find a ticker on the right of the answer

 

[bignastyid]

How do I pick a best answer? I can't find a ticker on the right of the answer

Changed thread from discussion to question so you can select a BA.

 

[rscheetah30]

Changed thread from discussion to question so you can select a BA.

But this is a question OK Found the ticker

 

[hotaru.hino]

The thing I don't really understand is this FOMO with a new OS. There's nothing new or exciting about Windows 11 that is a must-have feature from Windows 10.

Even when Windows 10 goes EOL in two years, that doesn't mean the OS is going to shut off and you can no longer use it. At best all I can see is Microsoft insistently nagging you to upgrade (or not, since you don't have a compatible PC). From there on, it's a matter of risk management: do you want to continue using an OS with vulnerabilities that won't get patched?

 

[SkyTrax24]

People that say it's slower on older hardware have certainly not tried it. I had it for 1 year on an i5 3rd gen. on MBR bios with no secure boot and TPM and it ran exactly the same as Windows 10. With the same hardware and software configuration there is no reason it would run slower, it's surely not the partition table or the missing secure boot that will slow it down.

 

[Deleted member 14196]

Try running it on old AMD hardware. Lol. No

 

[SkyTrax24]

What I don't understand is why Microsoft would make Win11 so demanding and practically exclude
people with low end pcs. What is the lo

Try running it on old AMD hardware. Lol. No

Ah maybe, I don't own any AMD hardware, I had it on an i5 3570k and I still run it on an i5 6500, both with SSD and 16 gb RAM. They are not supported but run like Windows 10 before when doing the same tasks.

 

[SkyTrax24]

And there is tons of small new laptops based on Athlon, Pentium Silver or Celeron that are much less powerful than a Core i5 6500 and they all come with Windows 11. They run slow, they run according to their capacity. There is a reason why the minimum system requirements have barely changed since Vista, it's still 1 GHz processor with a couple GB of RAM to accomodate the long list of added processes and services over the years. The rest are features not related to speed, just like there was many high end DirectX 9 GPU more powerful than low end DirectX 10 or 11 ones.

 

[Viking2121]

The FX6300 should do fine with Win 11, but Windows 11 is a bit more demanding anyway, I often find that newer builds will always have a few more process running vs Windows 10, You can strip Windows 11 down with some guides on the internet, there is a ton of them. I used the one from Chris Titus Tech, works well, but you do have to understand some of what it does, last thing you want to do do is remove a feature thats needed for windows update or along them lines.

I currently run 22h2 build of windows 11 on a old q6600 HP system and use its onboard GPU, it works pretty well on that system, but of course have to manually update the build since its not a supported system. Still gets security updates though, the FX should do better to be honest.

 

[Math Geek]

Windows Vista did the same thing. Everything ran great on XP then all of a sudden 90% of PCs were obsolete when vista came out.

I said then and still say now it was a direct ploy from PC makers to force people to upgrade who did not need to. I wonder what kick backs MS got back then and still wonder what they are getting now to render so many systems useless for no reason.

As others noted stick with win 10 if you have it. Nothing new in 11 worth any headaches

 

[hotaru.hino]

Windows Vista did the same thing. Everything ran great on XP then all of a sudden 90% of PCs were obsolete when vista came out.

I said then and still say now it was a direct ploy from PC makers to force people to upgrade who did not need to. I wonder what kick backs MS got back then and still wonder what they are getting now to render so many systems useless for no reason.

As others noted stick with win 10 if you have it. Nothing new in 11 worth any headaches

The presence of a new OS with system requirements your computer can't meet doesn't make your computer obsolete, unless this new OS does something that you absolutely cannot live without. Which for 99.9999999% of computer users, this is the case.

 

[Math Geek]

It does when they pull support for that old OS that is plenty good enough. Did we need win vista? Nope win xp still gets the job done but pull support and introduce "safety" features that need new hardware.

Win 7 is still good enough but we are forced to win 10 why? No new hardware was needed buts it's still forced on people who don't need nor want it. No kick backs there but lots of juicy data mining dollars to get.

 

[hotaru.hino]

It does when they pull support for that old OS that is plenty good enough. Did we need win vista? Nope win xp still gets the job done but pull support and introduce "safety" features that need new hardware.

Win 7 is still good enough but we are forced to win 10 why? No new hardware was needed buts it's still forced on people who don't need nor want it. No kick backs there but lots of juicy data mining dollars to get.

Software being "unsupported" doesn't mean anything other than that: the software isn't going to get attention from the maintainers anymore. Again, there's nothing stopping you from continuing using the software other than the security implications. And even then, if it's severe enough, it might force Microsoft's hand.

Also there was a hardware requirement change for Windows 10 from Windows 7, which was introduced in Windows 8.1: Support for the CMPXCHG16B instruction. Why was it needed? To allow for all versions of Windows to support a user memory space larger than 8TB. Though this is only a problem if you were using something older than a Core 2.

In the end though, if you let other people dictate what obsolete means, you're making problems for yourself.