68
Why is Windows still bloated (piefed.social)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
43 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I’ve often heard that the reason Windows has suffered from bloat and so much has been built on top of ancient underlying technologies, partially to ensure compatibility with old software.

If something like Windows 11 requires specific hardware in order to install it, why does it need to accommodate compatibility for archaic devices/software?

Would it not be preferable for Microsoft to start from scratch with an OS that is considerably more efficient and cut-down for newer devices, similar to something like Apple’s MacOS transition from Intel to Apple Silicon, and just provide security updates for the legacy operating systems that would be in use on un-upgradable hardware?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 4 months ago (1 child)

Windows’ bloat isn’t because they have to maintain backwards compatibility. It’s because they keep adding more shit, and the shit they add isn’t exactly hyper optimized.

If something like Windows 11 requires specific hardware in order to install it, why does it need to accommodate compatibility for archaic devices/software?

Because my computer from 2024 doesn’t run software made in 2024 or newer. I use a mixture of the latest and greatest™️, and old stuff.

Apples transition to arm was not a rewrite, nor is the software any better. It’s the hardware that’s better and makes using Mac OS on an M1 MBP so much better than an Intel one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)

    Windows’ bloat isn’t because they have to maintain backwards compatibility. It’s because they keep adding more shit, and the shit they add isn’t exactly hyper optimized.

    Well, it’s both of those. There is plenty of bloat due to a necessity to maintain backwards compatibility. I’m well aware of the extra shit they add, but that’s not what I’m asking about.

    Apple’s MacOS transition is driven by the hardware change. The next MacOS will not support Intel machines, so I would imagine those aspects of compatibility will be removed going forward, such as Rosetta 2.

    The question was related to an equivalent aspect in Windows: since Windows 11 requires certain hardware, why doesn’t Microsoft treat Windows in a similar vein?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    I mean in terms of disk space sure it takes up a good bit. From what I can tell winsxs takes about 10 gigs of space. But the actual wow64 subsytem only takes a 1-2 hundred MBs of RAM which is nothing for giving you that much backwards compatibility.

    Rosetta 2 is going away in the next Mac OS, but that's not going to have a massive impact on anything. The biggest impact will be the installer will be half the size since it doesn't need twice the executables. You can download an Intel or Arm specific installer of Mac OS and it's already half the size.

    why doesn’t Microsoft treat Windows in a similar vein?

    Because then nobody would use Windows. People use windows because it runs all of the programs they love. If it didn't people wouldn't put up with their bullshit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 4 months ago

    Because then nobody would use Windows. People use windows because it runs all of the programs they love. If it didn't people wouldn't put up with their bullshit.

    The suggestion isn’t to completely destroy compatibility with modern windows applications. And besides which, those same wholesale direction changes didn’t result in a macOS exodus.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent