Microsoft envisaged Windows 10 as being the ultimate host O/S for running any application. That includes
IDE's like Visual Studio and computer languages they support. This remains the case.
So why then did they feel it necessary to introduce Windows 11? I think it was costs.
The fact is that no matter what program we may write the development drivers are "Do it more efficiently" ie do not waste time doing something that does not need to be done, and "Do it Quicker".
It is the fundamental hardware and the way that hardware is controlled to do its job that that drives both these factors (qiicker and efficiency).
So the hardware has to change. And the O/S has to follow it.
Let me give just one example of many I know to be true: Getting data to the CPU as quickly as possible. Solid State Disks reduce this time, they rely on the, now old, ISA bus. Transfer speed has now been increased by use of M2 memory which is only available on INTEL 8th Generation processors (Currently INTEL is up to 12th Generation).
To take advantage, Windows 11 has to be capable of running on these processors. And there are many, many more examples spread across technical literature.
Because things like this can be implemented in hardware they are much cheaper to incorporate across a broad range of computer system. Within that hardware we are talking at the level of transistor logic, and memory types.
Gaming on AMD systems has driven much of this - To achieve an affordable price for gaming systems extremely fast and parallel coding logic is required. This in-built power can now be utilized in any codebase.
Because of this some of the "features" of many existing compilers have had to be bypassed. Old thinking renders them potential "error injectors".
All the above ties in with what Jamal has found in in his Slow DBF access thread. Such things will take a lot of finding.
I hope that is of interest to some and makes a bit of sense.
Terry
My Take on Windows 11.
My Take on Windows 11.
Hello Terry,
In short: don't believe Microsoft if they tell you they improved something. They don't. Period. They want you and their shareholders to believe that. They redress the UI and take away user choices and, often, performance.
Dick
A reason that Microsoft introduced W11 was that interest/demand for Pc's increased with more people working from home due to Covid. MS rushed out W11 to suggest a new experience. It is a long time ago that Microsoft was really interested in releasing something really new or better; nowadays suggesting that they are actually doing something interesting to please their shareholders is their only priority. Their claim that W11 would be much faster is as always with Microsoft, e.g. as done in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIYHRRTCVy4 can actually not be confirmed, see for example https://www.techspot.com/article/2349-w ... rformance/ where you see lot of benchmarks W10/W11 with little or no difference and including quite some with worse performance. Search in "Windows 11" "slow" and you see many daily life reports of people seeing huge performance drops when they upgraged to W11.Terry wrote: So why then did they feel it necessary to introduce Windows 11? I think it was costs.
The fact is that no matter what program we may write the development drivers are "Do it more efficiently" ie do not waste time doing something that does not need to be done, and "Do it Quicker".
In short: don't believe Microsoft if they tell you they improved something. They don't. Period. They want you and their shareholders to believe that. They redress the UI and take away user choices and, often, performance.
Dick
My Take on Windows 11.
Hi Dick
You say: In short: don't believe Microsoft if they tell you they improved something. They don't. Period. They want you and their shareholders to believe that. They redress the UI and take away user choices and, often, performance.
Well maybe. It's INTEL that has improved things, Not MS. But INTEL has improved things and made them cheaper to implement. MS has little option other than to follow or lose customers. Everything is at the moment, and perhaps always will be, on a financial knife-edge;
Terry
You say: In short: don't believe Microsoft if they tell you they improved something. They don't. Period. They want you and their shareholders to believe that. They redress the UI and take away user choices and, often, performance.
Well maybe. It's INTEL that has improved things, Not MS. But INTEL has improved things and made them cheaper to implement. MS has little option other than to follow or lose customers. Everything is at the moment, and perhaps always will be, on a financial knife-edge;
Terry