schmidtbag:

I'm not sure I get what you're trying to say. Much of the things I spoke about aren't device-specific.

You were implying that: - there are some optimisations in Windows code for HDDs; - SSDs require new optimisations comparing to HDDs. I was trying to reply that HDDs and SSDs with SATA interface require the same optimisations. Both are slow comparing to RAM, both have the same level of parallelism. Maybe SSDs with PCI-E interface require different code optimisations.

schmidtbag:

I don't really see the point of this push. Sure, I get how MS wants features like DS more widely accessible and they don't want their OS to seem slow (especially compared to competitors) because of a slow HDD, but they could just do a certification program for prebuilt PCs, so people have some idea of what they're getting. In general, I see this as a bad move, since this is yet another instance of companies moving goalposts to compensate for a lack of optimization. I understand DS actually needs fast storage in order to have any value, but it also isn't a necessary feature. Windows is bloated, NTFS (last I checked) is rather sloppy about keeping data contiguous, and the OS is too "swappy". It also doesn't help that Windows doesn't have an effective way of mounting folders to other drives, which can improve the overall performance since data can be read/written in multiple drives simultaneously. So for example, using an SSD for the boot drive and a HDD for the Users folder. At least one thing Windows does do easily is using different drives for paging files and to install programs to.

Kiriakos-GR:

Microsoft trying to hide slow boot times, caused due their software, by the use of SSD. At desktop computing, our freshest standard this is WD Gold 1TB.

This^^ MS is just trying to hide some of the flaws in their OS by forcing OEMs to use SSDs, something that has been happening anyways because i can`t remember a recent system without a SSD, even if it`s a small one. In the end, this move is nothing special but MS and others shouldn`t be allowed to dictate stuff like this.

mbk1969:

You were implying that: - there are some optimisations in Windows code for HDDs; - SSDs require new optimisations comparing to HDDs.

No, I'm implying Windows in general (for any storage type) needs optimizations, hence my gripe. By throwing HDDs out of the mix, these optimizations seem less necessary. At best, this is laziness. At worst, this is negligence.

schmidtbag:

No, I'm implying Windows in general (for any storage type) needs optimizations, hence my gripe. By throwing HDDs out of the mix, these optimizations seem less necessary. At best, this is laziness. At worst, this is negligence.

Have an examples of possible optimizations?

schmidtbag:

I agree with much of what you said but HDDs are still cheaper for mass storage. The underlying problem is that OEMs shouldn't be forced to change just because MS poorly optimizes things. There's a lot wrong with HDDs but if someone is willing (or wants) to buy a PC with a HDD, they should have the option and it doesn't have to be such a miserable experience.

Please. OEMs cause a lot of problems. Vista days, shipping vista ready PCs with 512mb or 1024mb ram PCs with single channel DDR2 533. This kinda nonsense still going on. Most people buying a PC arent going for massive storage. A 256gb ssd, 500gb mechanical rig isn't gonna be expensive for an everyday computer. And its rather cheap for the user to order a 2tb mechanical 2.5 inch portable HD as well.

bucknuts21:

You can't blame the seller because someone is to lazy to use whatever search engine to know what they are buying for the price. Heck nonmatter what it is I buy for anything I go best reviews and price and I'm not the smartest guy around.

You imply that everyone knows what to search for and undestand what is written in reviews, truth is that is rarely the case, a lot of people just need a computer without having the slightest idea about what they really need. So I can blame the seller to sell something that was the shit 10-20 years ago any time I want to, regardless of if the seller has no clue or tries to sell some crap, personally that is when I say F it and simply find another store.

Agonist:

Please. OEMs cause a lot of problems. Vista days, shipping vista ready PCs with 512mb or 1024mb ram PCs with single channel DDR2 533. This kinda nonsense still going on. Most people buying a PC arent going for massive storage. A 256gb ssd, 500gb mechanical rig isn't gonna be expensive for an everyday computer. And its rather cheap for the user to order a 2tb mechanical 2.5 inch portable HD as well.

Indeed, and a lot of people don't really know what they need, they put full trust into the sales person or a brand, something both OEM's as retailers take advantage of. Had a few times where I told another customer to stop listening to a sales persons bullshit and showed them which specs to look for to get a good working computer instead of buying into a computer that barely can drag what they needed it for. On the other hand, I also had people who I advised to keep their old computer, since it covered their needs, neither did they need it to do more.

mbk1969:

Have an examples of possible optimizations?

Read my previous posts. I already gave examples.

Agonist:

Please. OEMs cause a lot of problems. Vista days, shipping vista ready PCs with 512mb or 1024mb ram PCs with single channel DDR2 533. This kinda nonsense still going on.

Yeah, and you get what you pay for. Again: nobody is denying that the OEMs cause problems or are being sneaky. We all can agree HDDs make for bad boot drives. However, MS should not be the police of OEMs.

Most people buying a PC arent going for massive storage. A 256gb ssd, 500gb mechanical rig isn't gonna be expensive for an everyday computer.

The average person has no idea how much storage they need, but most people think "more=better". The average person also doesn't know the difference between storage and memory. They also don't know what an SSD is or how it's different from a HDD. Since OEMs typically just advertise capacity, people see how SSDs tend to be lower and that becomes a turnoff for them. The problem here is a lack of education, which frankly, can be said of most markets. I think it'd be fine for MS to educate people, and again, they could always do a certification program. But they shouldn't be coaxing what people buy, because that speaks of an ulterior motive.

Sup guys It's been a while. I am not surprised that Microsoft is pushing this because I have seen a Windows 10 boot with a standard Hard drive and my god it was slow.

I do a fair bit of charity IT work (schools and retirement community) and running into cheap PCs is a fact of life. There are 2 things you always see: 1. HDD 2. That HDD has at most 200GB space used, usually less. Cheap PCs moving to low end SSDs is going to be a huge boost to both the user and to the people stuck supporting these PCs. It is unfortunate that there is no seamless way to combine a SSD and HDD. I have tried the hybrid drives and they are nothing like a real SSD. I've tried solutions like Optane and they are only great after data gets cached. Installing anything is still pretty miserable. The only Optane drive that is actually a good option here is also way too expensive and not officially supported (the 58GB one). Those 16GB ones are e-waste. Instead of the whole Optane experiment I wish Intel had worked out a solution that combined a SDD and HDD in such a way that the controller was on the actual hybrid drive and intelligently stored files below a certain file size threshold on the NAND and only put large files on the HDD. At the end of the day I do believe that we have reached a point where SSDs have become the standard and HDDs are now the niche product for specific large file storage.

With post-Covid, low manpower, chip shortages, supply chain woes, etc.now would be the best time to force everyone to move to an even more expensive platform. Forget about optimizing the code. Typical Microsoft. I won't be surprised if the next request from Microsoft is tell OEMs and manufacturers to stop shipping PCs with integrated GPUs.

The SSD is a good point, but i hope that they will not do like they have done with W10 and SD card to oblige people to have a single OS to boot on: Windows

schmidtbag:

Even on an SSD, I'm bothered by how slow windows is to run updates, shut down, or even open the start menu at times.

Maybe not enough RAM, below 32g it tend to be slower, at least from what i have seen.

schmidtbag:

Every year, Windows has been slowly losing relevance to Mac, Chrome OS, Android, iOS, and even Linux

Windows never have been so much "friendly" with other OS than with Windows 11 (exept for booting on them, i agree). And Apple doesn't change hardware to get rid of Windows, but to be a step ahead in hardware. Yesterday, a friend let me test his new toy: the big iMac Studio (with M1 ultra: 20 cores CPU, 64 cores GPU and 32 cores NE), it's not the new M2 but my 1st thinking were "OMG it's so tiny but what a beast". And yes it is still friendly with Windows in emulation for program.

Kiriakos-GR:

Microsoft Volume licensing system, it might be served due SSD, because this is not Personal computer, and there is nothing valuable in it so to protect. Business and Home PC (serving parents) these hold valuable data that an SSD its incapable to protect when it fails. Also the small sized SSD they do not deliver highest SSD bandwidth in MB/s, as they do the larger SSD. Cheap SSD starts from 35$, and fast ones they float at 100$ +, extra secure SSD 200$. WD Gold 1TB can stand in between at 85 Euro, and data rescue this is possible. I am using always HDD RAID1 and weakly backup on another HDD. When better days come, I will replace my RAID Raptor 10.000rpm, with the latest WD Gold.

If sequential speed was the end all be all then "...fast..." modern HDDs would not feel sluggish, which they do. Small random reads and writes are what you "feel" when doing typical tasks on a PC and even the cheapest of cheap SSDs is going to stomp HDDs in this metric. We are also no longer in the days of SATA 150 SSDs where failures were common. I have seen few dead SSDs ever and almost all of them were many years ago. On the other hands I still run into a few dead HDDs every years and exactly 0% of those users were willing to pay for data recovery. I have a test system I use specifically for testing "is Windows still compatible with this ancient hardware" and even with Windows 11, the system feels perfectly snappy due to the SSD even though its running on a 3.33ghz Core2 Duo. By contrast you can run a 12th gen system on a HDD and its going to always feel sluggish. IMO a HDD makes way more sense as an external drive so it is only spun up when you need it which will extend its lifespan and if you get hit with ransomware, your data is safe.

rl66:

Maybe not enough RAM, below 32g it tend to be slower, at least from what i have seen.

32GB of RAM!? Seriously? That's absurdly unacceptable for the most basic tasks like updates, shutting down, and opening a menu. No other OS is as slow. A budget Android phone from 5 years ago and only 2GB of RAM can run updates, shut down, and show you your list of apps in less time than Windows 10. I've updated Mac OSX on a Core2 Duo and a mechanical HDD that could perform these tasks faster than a modern Windows 10 PC with 4x the system resources and a M.2 SSD. I can do a fresh install of a bloated Linux disto and get it fully updated faster than Windows can apply 1 month of updates on the same computer.

And Apple doesn't change hardware to get rid of Windows, but to be a step ahead in hardware.

I never said that. My point was that Microsoft has steadily been pushing themselves into irrelevancy as their only real market appeal is compatibility, and that's been dwindling as phone apps and web apps make such compatibility not really a selling point anymore. Other OSes and game consoles can get the same job done with a fraction of the resources.

Agonist:

Please. OEMs cause a lot of problems. Vista days, shipping vista ready PCs with 512mb or 1024mb ram PCs with single channel DDR2 533. This kinda nonsense still going on. Most people buying a PC arent going for massive storage. A 256gb ssd, 500gb mechanical rig isn't gonna be expensive for an everyday computer. And its rather cheap for the user to order a 2tb mechanical 2.5 inch portable HD as well.

You got that right that it is still happening shipping PCs with single channel DDR4 and they are supposed to be gaming PCs in the case that I am talking about. It is ridiculous.

rl66:

The SSD is a good point, but i hope that they will not do like they have done with W10 and SD card to oblige people to have a single OS to boot on: Windows Maybe not enough RAM, below 32g it tend to be slower, at least from what i have seen. Windows never have been so much "friendly" with other OS than with Windows 11 (exept for booting on them, i agree). And Apple doesn't change hardware to get rid of Windows, but to be a step ahead in hardware. Yesterday, a friend let me test his new toy: the big iMac Studio (with M1 ultra: 20 cores CPU, 64 cores GPU and 32 cores NE), it's not the new M2 but my 1st thinking were "OMG it's so tiny but what a beast". And yes it is still friendly with Windows in emulation for program.

Same impression with the 16" MacBook Pro with M1 Max for about six months now. I'm using the one with the 10 core CPU / 24 core GPU, but the full bandwidth memory. It's the first laptop I've ever used that can be a real desktop replacement (keep in mind I have a 5950x with a 3090 and everything is NVMe, lol), with retaining the ability of being portable for at least 8 hours without any perceivable performance loss. On top of that, you have the screen which is 0-120Hz VRR with microLED. In case anyone says tHeRe aRe WinDowS lAPtoPs tHAt dO thAT, no there aren't. It's literally part of my job to find them. They either fail on something, either performance, getting clogged down, bad/insufficient cooling systems, and/or battery life. They might appear to have similar specs on paper, but up to now there has been nothing like this for actual heavy daily use. Only AMD systems might get close to this, but now they introduced M2, which means that the baseline is higher again. Also AMD systems with the latest APUs are hard to find and source, especially alongside a good chassis. Even if the hardware is good, Windows, unfortunately, falls short, especially for productivity. It is still very inconsistent as an OS for work usage, and at this point it doesn't even have the performance benefit. Of course, if you want to play games, macOS is still worse, but especially for work purposes, I really wished we had no Windows users and I could give everyone a MacBook Air and be done. Our incident rate is literally 80% lower on macOS and Mac hardware in general, compared to a fleet of various HP (Elitebook mainly, so not the crap stuff), Lenovo and DELL XPS models.

schmidtbag:

32GB of RAM!? Seriously? That's absurdly unacceptable for the most basic tasks like updates, shutting down, and opening a menu. No other OS is as slow. A budget Android phone from 5 years ago and only 2GB of RAM can run updates, shut down, and show you your list of apps in less time than Windows 10. I've updated Mac OSX on a Core2 Duo and a mechanical HDD that could perform these tasks faster than a modern Windows 10 PC with 4x the system resources and a M.2 SSD. I can do a fresh install of a bloated Linux disto and get it fully updated faster than Windows can apply 1 month of updates on the same computer.

lol i agree on that, but with 16g and 32g on my pc, Windows 11 were slower than when i pass to 64g (i have only 2 ram bank on my motherboard). Also, passing on Linux is not a bad idea 😉

Kiriakos-GR:

Raptor 10.000 rpm it is here since 2005, at double the price than regular 7200 of that era. WD it does has the know-how at making high speed HDD, we owners of professional workstations, we are willing to pay something more for having WD Gold series at 10.000 rpm. But do not forget that most people they do buy budged HDD with low cache by choice.

I had 4 raptors in RAID 10 in an old workstation, far slower than the SSDs I moved to and its not even close.

schmidtbag:

32GB of RAM!? Seriously? That's absurdly unacceptable for the most basic tasks like updates, shutting down, and opening a menu. No other OS is as slow. A budget Android phone from 5 years ago and only 2GB of RAM can run updates, shut down, and show you your list of apps in less time than Windows 10. I've updated Mac OSX on a Core2 Duo and a mechanical HDD that could perform these tasks faster than a modern Windows 10 PC with 4x the system resources and a M.2 SSD. I can do a fresh install of a bloated Linux disto and get it fully updated faster than Windows can apply 1 month of updates on the same computer.

you only need above 32 if you have a crap tonne of vendor junk running to update your rgb.

I would not compare the Operating Systems for closed architecture/platform (Apple) and for open ones (Intel/AMD "x86"). I am not OS developer, and I suspect it is not an easy task - to support so wide combination of HW, FW and SW.