performance on identical hardware

[shoutingsteve]

TLDR: Does a newer operating system run slower than an older one if on the same hardware?


So, I am still using windows 7 on a system I built 5 or 6 or more years ago.  I upgraded a few pieces, but the CPU and MOBO are getting up there.  Eventually they will fail and I will need to buy new.  So obviously when they do die, I am going to buy the newest generation of hardware.  I will never be able to put windows 7 on it, the OS just won't have the drivers and other software needed to run on new hardware.  The recommendation is to get the newest operating system... but doesn't a newer OS require beefier components leaving less resources available to actually use for whatever I am doing?
I bought a laptop for a very specific purpose (DMX emulation) and it came with windows 10.  It was laggy and the emulation stuttered.  I downgraded it to windows 7 and it runs smoothly.

 

Doesn't it make sense to install the oldest OS that is 100% functional on your hardware that runs 100% of the software you use?

[Chris Pratt]

No. Sometimes a newer OS may have more bloat, but there's usually performance optimizations as well. In other words, it's not as simple as older OS is always better for performance. As just one example, Windows 11 has a new core scheduler optimized for hybrid architectures like Alder Lake. You can run Windows 10 on your Alder Lake system, but you'll do better on Windows 11.

[Kon-Tiki]

I'd like to add another point apart from responsiveness, namely security. As long as an old version of an operating system is still supported running it is no issue. However, once the OS reaches it's end of life and doesn't receive security updates any more continuing to use it on a productivity system connected to the internet becomes an increasingly large security risk. This is particularly severe as some vulnerabilities don't even require (explicit) user interaction. I would therefore strongly advice against running the oldest possible OS.

[shoutingsteve]

I'm trying really hard not to dig my heels in, but I feel myself keep wanting to say "yeah, but..." to the responses about new is better.  I guess I'm turning into a grumpy old man...

[wseaton]

Nobody runs operating systems. We run applications running on those operating systems. Been trying to make this point to Linux zealots for literally decades. We run applications. At best an operating system needs to manage that app in a way that requires as little overhead as possible while not allowing that application to misbehave.

 

All modern operating systems incur overhead with their layers of memory and task sandboxing.  Keeping all those running apps and background processes from colliding costs overhead. Why is virtualization so Popular? Because it adds a layer between concurrent operating systems allowing more applications to be hosted with less overhead due to limits of OS mgmt.

 

Modern OSs are pretty good at managing fundamental security and bloat without too much overhead. Still, Ive seen code battles on various platforms and optimized code running on relics like DOS blow everything away because there's no rules. Its all Ring 0 baby. Whatever OS allows the application code to directly access hardware wins.

 

Most of the performance issues we feel are due to shell responsiveness followed by application bloat. I remember trying to run office 2007 on single core P4s. Wasnt XPs fault it ran like frozen jelly. My Windows Citrix Servers running on Pentium Pros back in 98 opened Office 97 apps instantaneously. Blazing fast. Apps were so light back then. Had to be. RAM was pricey.

 

Check out Dave's Garage on youtube if you like stuff like this. Hes an Ex MS developer with some great insight into OS mechanics.

[GoodBytes]

On 2/2/2022 at 2:55 PM, shoutingsteve said:

TLDR: Does a newer operating system run slower than an older one if on the same hardware?

No and Yes.

OS's like any software will take advantage of more advance hardware to be less visible to you, more secure, support newer hardware (while maintaining legacy support in the case of Windows), and of course, delivers you more features.

 

For example: A 2001 typical office computer running Windows XP, won't run Vista and newer, even if you somehow install 4GB of RAM, and give it an SSD.

They are many reasons for this, but two big ones: CPU Instructions used by newer version of Windows won't work on these older CPUs, and more simple things like 2001 system, even 2005 non-gaming systems don't have graphics chips. These systems had, at best, fancy graphics accelerators. Intel best offering had trouble playing DVD's, for reference... and I would like to remind you, DVD are at best 480p content (576p for PAL). So asking these IGPs, not only, to now handle drawing Windows interface instead of the CPU, as traditional, but now do this thing called: alpha blending, which was taxing even for gaming GPUs at the time Vista came out... ouch.

 

Windows 8 on the other hand, was designed for tablets devices... and so Microsoft has been working extensively on optimizing the OS, down to removing the login sound, to shave off every drop of performance. 

 

Then with Windows 10, Microsoft implemented many security features and did a lot of decoupling of processes, which resulted that the OS, hot heavier over time. But gain a lot in the security front, and gain a lot in the reliability.

 

On 2/2/2022 at 2:55 PM, shoutingsteve said:

So, I am still using windows 7 on a system I built 5 or 6 or more years ago.  I upgraded a few pieces, but the CPU and MOBO are getting up there.  Eventually they will fail and I will need to buy new.  So obviously when they do die, I am going to buy the newest generation of hardware.  I will never be able to put windows 7 on it, the OS just won't have the drivers and other software needed to run on new hardware.  The recommendation is to get the newest operating system... but doesn't a newer OS require beefier components leaving less resources available to actually use for whatever I am doing?

Yup, but that is also why you getting a faster system.

If you have a GeForce 980, there is a good chance you'll be buying a GeForce 3070/3080, and not a GeForce 3050 of whatever that matches the 980 performance (3050 is probably still faster). Same for the CPU. I have a Core i7 930, and the slowest Ryzen 3000 series that AMD has made, surpass the performance of my CPU. So if my system breaks, I won't by a Intel Celeron or whatever matching the performance that I have now... there is a good chance I would be buying something more powerful after all these years.

 

On 2/2/2022 at 2:55 PM, shoutingsteve said:

I bought a laptop for a very specific purpose (DMX emulation) and it came with windows 10.  It was laggy and the emulation stuttered.  I downgraded it to windows 7 and it runs smoothly.

Sounds like another issue. Probably due to the pre-installed OEM junk, typically made by unpaid interns in India.
Mind you if your laptop is powered by a Pentium Silver (rebranded Atom), then, well, yea... I guess.

 

On 2/2/2022 at 2:55 PM, shoutingsteve said:

Doesn't it make sense to install the oldest OS that is 100% functional on your hardware that runs 100% of the software you use?

I am not sure what you mean... Windows 11 runs on my Core i7 930 with 6GB of RAM using Windows 8 drivers (Windows Update install them all). All features that I have the hardware for works. And Windows 11 will work at 100% on the latest and greatest consumer hardware at 100%. 

 

[shoutingsteve]

On 2/10/2022 at 12:57 AM, GoodBytes said:

For example: A 2001 typical office computer running Windows XP, won't run Vista and newer, even if you somehow install 4GB of RAM, and give it an SSD.

They are many reasons for this, but two big ones: CPU Instructions used by newer version of Windows won't work on these older CPUs, and more simple things like 2001 system, even 2005 non-gaming systems don't have graphics chips. These systems had, at best, fancy graphics accelerators. Intel best offering had trouble playing DVD's, for reference... and I would like to remind you, DVD are at best 480p content (576p for PAL). So asking these IGPs, not only, to now handle drawing Windows interface instead of the CPU, as traditional, but now do this thing called: alpha blending, which was taxing even for gaming GPUs at the time Vista came out... ouch.

You have it backwards.  The question I was asking is where I would be putting the older OS onto the newer hardware

[Mark Kaine]

On 2/2/2022 at 8:55 PM, shoutingsteve said:

will never be able to put windows 7 on it, the OS just won't have the drivers and other software needed to run on new hardware.  The recommendation is to get the newest operating system... but doesn't a newer OS require beefier components leaving less resources available to actually use for whatever I am doing?

i mean you answered your own question … generally new hw will run better on new os because  that os is likely optimized for that hw…

you could probably run older os as long things are somewhat compatible, but then you'd be still missing correct  drivers and other optimizations, hence performance should be worse.

 

now if you have older software that somehow requires old os, that should run better obviously, but thats really  a niche case scenario (and probably a waste of newer hw as well)