| ▲ | Aurornis 4 days ago | |||||||
> Because number bigger doesn’t translate to higher perceived performance… When the numbers are that far apart, there is definitely room to perceive a performance improvement. 2011 era hardware is dramatically slower than what’s available in 2025. I go back and use a machine that is less than 10 years old occasionally and it’s surprising how much less responsive it feels, even with a modern high speed SSD drive installed. Some people just aren’t sensitive to slow systems. Honestly a great place to be because it’s much cheaper that way. However, there is definitely a speed difference between a 2011 system and a 2025 system. | ||||||||
| ▲ | hedora 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
Choice of things like desktop environments matters a lot. I’m using xfce or lxde or something (I can’t tell without checking top), and responsiveness for most stuff is identical between 2010 intel and a ryzen 9. The big exceptions are things like “apt get upgrade”, but both boxes bottleneck on starlink for that. Modern games and compilation are the other obvious things. | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | estimator7292 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
Believe it or not, "good enough" often is good enough. Regardless of how big the numbers are. | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | cassepipe 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
Especially on single core, everything is painfully slow. Tried to install linux on a ppc imac G5 five years ago and I had to admit that it was never going to be a good experience, even for basic usage | ||||||||