Windows 11 performs worse than older Windows versions in nearly every benchmark - But it's okay because new paint has AI features.

  • Iniciador del tema Iniciador del tema SCV
  • Fecha de inicio Fecha de inicio

Windows 11 performs worse than older Windows versions in nearly every benchmark​


Why are we not surprised?​

By Kishalaya Kundu January 6, 2026 at 9:21 AM 44 comments

Facepalm: Microsoft markets Windows 11 as the fastest and most secure version of the operating system, but users often complain about it being slow, bloated, and buggy. A new speed test now suggests that there may be more truth to those complaints than Microsoft would like to admit.

1768433409277.png

YouTuber TrigrZolt ran several tests pitting six generations of Windows - from XP to Windows 11 - against one another to see which one can complete a range of tasks the fastest. Surprisingly, Windows 11 came dead last in most of the tests, including boot speed, battery life, app opening speed, and video editing.

Windows 11 also came in last place in terms of memory use, taking up much more RAM than older versions of the OS, even without any apps running on the laptop. The additional memory usage can mostly be attributed to the large suite of background services and telemetry that power users have complained about for years. Windows 11 was also the slowest in the video editing test using OpenShot.

The newest version of Windows also took the longest time to open File Explorer and Paint. While the new Paint app has many additional features that could explain its poor performance on older hardware, File Explorer's sluggishness has been a constant source of frustration for Windows 11 users; it remains painfully slow despite using twice as much RAM as its Windows 10 counterpart.




On the bright side, Windows 11 managed relatively better results in some benchmarks, such as file transfer speed and disk space usage comparison for default apps. The latest OS also came third in one of the page-loading tests but, surprisingly, it was the slowest to load Google's home page, which is optimized to load blazingly fast on just about any device.

In case you're wondering, all six laptops used in the tests were the exact same model: Lenovo ThinkPad X220 equipped with an Intel Core i5-2520M CPU, 8GB of RAM, and a 256GB mechanical hard disk. The device does not officially support Windows 11, which likely contributed to its poor showing.

For example, Windows 11 is optimized to boot on SSDs and not legacy mechanical drives, so using the HDD as the boot drive likely resulted in slower boot speed. Similarly, the latest version of Paint includes relatively advanced editing features that require additional memory and fast storage for optimum performance, but the ThinkPad used in the tests offered neither.

Still, the tests indicate that Microsoft is struggling to make Windows 11 the lean and fast operating system that many users want it to be. As such, the gimmicky new features, unnecessary background processes, and resource-heavy services are major impediments to the OS achieving its full performance potential.
 
I know, A&N reading the article challenge: [impossible] but to be completely fair this was on older hardware so as to be supported by XP. Mechanical HDD, 8GB of ram, i5-2520M, etc. Still...
 
In case you're wondering, all six laptops used in the tests were the exact same model: Lenovo ThinkPad X220 equipped with an Intel Core i5-2520M CPU, 8GB of RAM, and a 256GB mechanical hard disk. The device does not officially support Windows 11, which likely contributed to its poor showing.

Talk about burying the lead.

They tested it on a laptop from 2011 that they didn't even bother putting an SSD in :stress:
 
Talk about burying the lead.

They tested it on a laptop from 2011 that they didn't even bother putting an SSD in :stress:
Not that I'm trying to defend Windows 11, but its like they shoved a modern V8 into a 1987 Toyota Corolla with the original tires and got surprised when it didnt handle well.
 
In case you're wondering, all six laptops used in the tests were the exact same model: Lenovo ThinkPad X220 equipped with an Intel Core i5-2520M CPU, 8GB of RAM, and a 256GB mechanical hard disk. The device does not officially support Windows 11, which likely contributed to its poor showing.

More than that, it just made your entire testing effort completely and utterly retarded. And OF COURSE its written by a jeet.
-----
Windows 11 has alot of issues, but this isn't the way to highlight them.
 
Still, the tests indicate that Microsoft is struggling to make Windows 11 the lean and fast operating system that many users want it to be.
Really, could have fooled me. I thought its users were aiming for slower and more bloated junk so as to make life as miserable as possible if you have to use it for work. Plus points if you pair it with unapologetic shitware like Teams.
 
Can't even get the built-in malware to run smoothly, can they?
Malware has always been buggy shit that slows down your system, even in the days when most viruses were just pranks. They don't care about the user experience, they just want your money and information. Enshittification has made Windows itself the virus.

Fuck bill gates and his microshaft.
It's actually that street-shitter in charge, Nadella who has been responsible for running the Windows experience into the ground. Bill Gates might have actually cared about what he created, but he can get fucked for a million other reasons.
 
I know, A&N reading the article challenge: [impossible] but to be completely fair this was on older hardware so as to be supported by XP. Mechanical HDD, 8GB of ram, i5-2520M, etc. Still...
Pretty gay to not duplicate the tests for 7 8 10 and 11 on a higher end system just to nail the point home.
 
My mother has an X220 and it runs just fine. Then again it's got Linux on it and it has an SSD. But it's not like it's using some lightweight DE, either. It's running Plasma, and is STILL faster than Windows was on the thing. I wouldn't call it blazingly fast or even snappy, but it's definitely usable.
 
I know, A&N reading the article challenge: [impossible] but to be completely fair this was on older hardware so as to be supported by XP. Mechanical HDD, 8GB of ram, i5-2520M, etc. Still...
I know this is crazy talk in a world of total surveillance, ads, and Indians, but—

New software should be way the fuck better than old software.
 
I know, A&N reading the article challenge: [impossible] but to be completely fair this was on older hardware so as to be supported by XP. Mechanical HDD, 8GB of ram, i5-2520M, etc. Still...
Hey man, the thinkpad x200 range came with Vista, not XP. The libreboot schizos assured me that these machines were still good for years to come.
 
It's actually that street-shitter in charge, Nadella who has been responsible for running the Windows experience into the ground. Bill Gates might have actually cared about what he created, but he can get fucked for a million other reasons.
Street-shitter in charge did not ruin Windows. About a decade ago he decided Windows and Office were legacy so it all got shipped to india, because cheap.

He stopped caring because growth markets and revenue is all Azure, and today also AI, so ALL of engineering shifted away from windows to focus 100% on Azure and later also AI.
And windows was shipped to India to maintain.

The result you see is "Windows was de-prioritized and handed to jeets about a decade ago".
Guess how shit windows 12 will be.

Before complaining about this decision. Assume you have three business units, they are all about the same size.
BU A (windows) has no growth potential. Best outcome is revenue remains flat for the next decade.
BU B (azure) is mature and expected to grow by 10x in the next decade.
BU C (AI) is new but has potential to 10x - 100x over the next decade.

How would you allocate engineering resources and what should the principal engineers work on?
 
Atrás
Top Abajo