- Windows 8.1 stands out as the most balanced version in terms of boot time, RAM consumption, and multitasking compared to the other systems tested.
- Windows 11 shows very high resource consumption and comes in last in many tests on modest hardware, despite being the most recent system.
- The comparison reveals that modern versions of Windows rely excessively on powerful hardware and SSDs, with a clear loss of optimization.
- Experts like Dave W. Plummer are calling for an "XP SP2" approach for Windows 11, focused on stability and performance rather than new features.
When Microsoft announced that Windows 10 had an expiration date , many users were shocked. Not everyone was willing to upgrade to Windows 11, and the idea of being stuck with a system without security patches sounded, to say the least, risky. Yes, some can continue using special editions like Windows 10 LTSC or extended support versions , but for most, the alternative was clear: either change operating systems or jump through hoops to Windows 11.
The problem is that new isn't always better . In fact, a growing number of independent tests suggest that Windows 11 doesn't quite shine in terms of performance or efficiency, especially on older computers. A very interesting experiment, conducted by the YouTube channel TrigrZolt, set out to compare the performance of six generations of Windows, from Windows XP to Windows 11 , to see which version runs more smoothly and how the operating system has actually evolved over the last 20 years.
An experiment with six generations of Windows under equal conditions
To make the test as fair as possible, the test creator decided to eliminate all variables that could distort the result . Instead of installing each operating system on a different PC, he used six identical laptops: veteran Lenovo ThinkPad X220s , a classic from the Sandy Bridge era.
Each of these laptops used the same hardware: a dual-core Intel Core i5-2520M processor, 8 GB of RAM, integrated Intel HD 3000 graphics, and a 256 GB mechanical hard drive . No SSDs, no NVMe drives, no modern components to mask the reality. The goal was to ensure compatibility with Windows XP while simultaneously challenging the latest versions of Windows, which are clearly designed with fast SSDs and the ability to clone Windows to the new SSD in mind.
The following systems were installed on these computers, each separately and with their latest available updates :
- Windows XP
- Windows Vista
- Windows 7
- Windows 8.1
- Windows 10
- Windows 11
The premise of the experiment wasn't to crown the most modern system, but to discover which version of Windows offers the best balance between performance, resource consumption, and responsiveness on realistic, albeit outdated, hardware. And, as you'll see, the result is quite disappointing for Microsoft's current operating system.
It's also important to note that Windows 11 isn't even officially supported on a machine with that processor and chipset, which already points to a certain disadvantage. Even so, the test is very illustrative in understanding the extent to which recent versions of Windows rely on the raw power of the hardware and SSDs to provide a minimally smooth experience.
Boot time: Windows 8.1 makes a statement
The first round of testing focused on measuring system startup speed , that is, how long it takes each Windows to boot from scratch until the desktop is ready to use (not just visible, but actually operational).
Against all odds, the clear winner was Windows 8.1 . Thanks to the famous hybrid boot or "fast startup ," this system is able to transfer the contents of RAM to the hard drive upon shutdown and reuse them afterward, making the next boot significantly faster. Among all the systems capable of taking advantage of this technique, Windows 8.1 has the least amount of processing power to load, and this is noticeable on these ThinkPads with mechanical hard drives. Guides exist for speeding up boot times.
Following behind, Windows 10 and Windows XP are neck and neck in boot time , performing quite evenly in this particular test. Interestingly, Windows 7 and Windows Vista , which don't have such an optimized boot process, take slightly longer, but their performance is reasonable for their time.
The biggest surprise, and a bad one at that, is Windows 11, which comes in last place . Although it apparently reaches the desktop in a reasonable amount of time, the problem is that it takes quite a while to fully load the taskbar, icons, and background processes . It's that typical "it seems to have booted up, but if you try to open something, the computer is still 'thinking'" effect. In comparison, it feels like it's crawling along.
Disk space: from XP's lightness to modern waste
The next aspect evaluated was the storage space occupied by the operating system and the base applications used in the tests. Here, there were no surprises with the oldest system: Windows XP remains the king of lightweight storage.
With everything installed and updated, Windows XP only takes up around 18,9 GB of hard drive space. This is a ridiculously small amount compared to today's requirements, but it accurately reflects how software was designed in the early 2000s, with very limited resources and a much more austere approach to background services and components.
At the other end of the spectrum is Windows 7, which consumed the most disk space of all the systems tested, even surpassing Vista in this particular comparison. Windows Vista, Windows 8.1, and Windows 10 fall in the middle range, with values close to 37 GB for the complete system and software package used in the test.
Here again, Windows 8.1 stands out, managing to take up less space than its "older brother," Windows Vista, despite being more recent. This reinforces the idea that, in terms of internal optimization, 8.1 was a much more polished product than many people remember, hampered primarily by the rejection of its interface and the paradigm shift in the Start menu.
For its part, Windows 11 also has high storage consumption figures , similar to or slightly higher than Windows 10, reflecting the accumulation of components, additional features, integration of online services, telemetry, and other layers that have been built up over the years.
RAM usage: XP and 8.1, the most conservative; 11, the most demanding.
The contrast becomes especially visible in RAM consumption after startup , that is, with the system at rest, doing practically nothing beyond the usual background processes.
Once again, the oldest operating system, Windows XP, takes the prize for efficiency : the computer needs a mere 0,8 GB of RAM to be fully operational. This leaves a good portion of memory free for applications, even on a machine with only 8 GB, like the one used in the test.
Windows 8.1 takes second place in this test , using approximately 1,3 GB of RAM at idle. While not as lightweight as XP, it's still a very reasonable consumption for a much more modern system, compatible with newer technologies and drivers.
Following it are Windows 7 (1,4 GB) and Windows Vista (1,5 GB) , which maintain a similar level, slightly higher but still acceptable in an 8 GB memory scenario. The big jump comes with Windows 10, which leaps to around 2,3 GB , already showing a design philosophy that assumes the user will have more RAM available.
Windows 11 is once again at the bottom of the list , using around 3,3 GB of RAM just to be powered on . This means that on a computer with 8 GB of RAM, almost half of the memory is committed as soon as the system starts up , leaving little room for demanding multitasking, browsers with many tabs, or creative applications without experiencing stuttering, intensive paging, or a general feeling of sluggishness.
To push memory to its limits, the experiment included a very illustrative test: opening as many browser windows or tabs as possible until reaching approximately 5 GB of RAM usage. For this, Supermium was used , a browser chosen for its broad compatibility with older versions of Windows.
Windows XP 's behavior here was somewhat peculiar: it only managed to open 50 tabs before crashing, probably due to some kind of limitation or problem with virtual memory management or with the browser itself on such an old system.
Even more striking was the case of Windows 11, which only managed 49 windows before the system crashed. In other words, the most modern operating system in the group was unable to outperform XP in this test, despite theoretically having a much more advanced memory manager.
The other Windows versions offered significantly better results than XP and 11 , all managing to open over a hundred tabs. Windows 8.1 was once again the star, handling up to 252 browser tabs before saturating its RAM, demonstrating a well-balanced combination of system speed and efficient memory management.
This very demanding test makes it abundantly clear that the overload of background processes and extra services in Windows 11 penalizes its real-world multitasking capabilities on a machine with limited resources. Theoretically, it's a system designed to take advantage of modern computers with ample CPUs and RAM, but when you lower the hardware bar to something still quite common, the foundation crumbles.
Autonomy, daily tasks and benchmarks: the newest one doesn't shine
The comparison didn't stop at browser startups and tabs. Battery life tests, audio and video export, basic app launch times, and various synthetic benchmarks were also measured to provide a more complete picture of performance.
In the battery life test, the difference between versions was minimal: Windows XP achieved the best result and Windows 11 came in last , but the gap between them was only a couple of minutes. In other words, in this specific case, it's not accurate to call Windows 11 an energy disaster, although it doesn't exactly stand out either.
In real-world tasks like exporting an audio file with Audacity , Windows 11 came in fifth place , only ahead of an older system that couldn't even complete all the video tests. When it came to exporting a video file , Windows 10 performed best , which aligns with Microsoft's focus on overall performance for that generation.
Windows 11 fared even worse in tests focused on opening basic applications such as File Explorer, Calculator, Video Player, and even MS Paint . In virtually all of these everyday tasks, Windows 11 ranked last or second to last , and was even outperformed by versions with a reputation for poor optimization, such as Windows Vista.
In the realm of synthetic benchmarks , the results varied considerably depending on the test chosen. In CPU-Z single-threaded mode , surprisingly, Windows XP came out on top , which gives an idea of how well lighter software can perform when raw CPU performance is measured without so much additional load.
In the CPU-Z multi-core test, Windows 7 was the winner , while Windows Vista achieved the highest score in Geekbench . Focusing on disk performance with CrystalDiskMark , Windows XP again came out on top , and in the Cinebench rendering test, Windows 8.1 dominated . Once again, this last system demonstrates how well it combines good internal optimizations with a reasonable service load.
The victory of Windows 8.1… and the debacle of Windows 11
Weighing all the evidence, the YouTuber responsible for the experiment draws a fairly clear conclusion: the most balanced and fastest version in this scenario is Windows 8.1 . It excels in boot time, stands out in RAM usage, offers excellent multitasking capabilities in the browser, and performs very well in several benchmarks.
The most ironic thing is that Windows 8.1 was heavily criticized at the time for its "Metro"-style Start menu and interface changes, to the point that many users went to great lengths to avoid it. However, from a purely technical standpoint, it was one of the most finely tuned versions of Windows in the modern era , something that this type of testing brings back to light.
At the other end of the spectrum is clearly Windows 11, which consistently ranks last in numerous categories : boot time, RAM usage, browser multitasking, opening simple applications, and various real-world performance tests. Even in benchmarks like CPU-Z in single-threaded mode, it lags behind all its predecessors when running on this hardware.
However, the test's author himself insists that this is neither a perfect laboratory experiment nor a meticulously planned scientific study . There are variables that are difficult to control, and the fact that Windows 11 isn't designed for a second-generation Core i5 with an HDD is a clear disadvantage. Even so, the results are consistent enough to send a message: modern software relies too heavily on the raw power of the hardware and has lost much of its focus on optimization.
The original video itself, available on YouTube, shows each of the tests in detail and confirms that feeling that, on a modest computer, Windows 11 feels clumsy, heavy and somewhat disproportionate compared to versions that, on paper, should be far behind.
What this comparison tells us about the evolution of Windows
Beyond the competition between versions, the comparison conveys a deeper message that goes far beyond a simple "Windows 8.1 is faster than Windows 11." In the words of the experiment's creator, modern versions of Windows are no longer designed to squeeze every last drop of performance out of the system , but rather under the assumption that the user will have more RAM, more cores, more storage, and a fast SSD.
This approach has a clear consequence: when the hardware falls short of Microsoft's ideal , the experience deteriorates dramatically. And the ThinkPad X220 is far from an extreme case: similar machines, with 8 GB of RAM and a modest mechanical hard drive or SSD, are still very common in homes and offices.
Adding to this is the fact that Windows 11 is particularly demanding on memory . Although the official system requirements state a minimum of 4 GB of RAM , the test itself shows that even 8 GB isn't sufficient when the system already consumes more than 3 GB at idle, and options like configuring virtual memory can help.
The experiment also highlights the paradox that an abundance of resources has reduced the pressure to optimize code . Years ago, when a typical PC had 2 GB of RAM or less, developers were forced to measure every service and every process. Now, with 16 or 32 GB of RAM commonplace in mid-range and high-end systems, it's easier to "brute force" and rely on the hardware to compensate for the lack of polish, which is why optimizing Windows performance is so important.
Finally, the recognition of Windows 8.1 as one of the best-optimized operating systems in recent history is an interesting point to consider. The community criticized it for design choices and interface changes, but in terms of performance and efficiency, it was a much more well-rounded product than was acknowledged at the time.
The call for an “XP SP2 moment” for Windows 11
This feeling that Windows 11 needs a dose of humility isn't just coming from YouTubers and amateur comparisons. Even historical figures at Microsoft have spoken out. A particularly striking example is Dave W. Plummer , a former engineer at the company and known, among other things, for being one of the creators of the Windows Task Manager .
Plummer has openly called for Microsoft to relive something similar to the "Windows XP Service Pack 2 moment ." To understand the comparison, it's important to remember that Windows XP launched with serious security problems , and its early years were marked by worms like Blaster, which exposed the system's fragility.
At that time, Microsoft's response was radical: to halt the development of new features and focus solely on fixing bugs and strengthening security . For months, the team stopped "adding value" with flashy features and dedicated itself exclusively to fixing what had been broken for a long time but had been postponed. The result was Windows XP SP2 , an update that completely changed the perception of the system.
Plummer argues that Windows 11 needs something very similar : to slow down the race to integrate more layers of artificial intelligence, new panels, widgets and flashy features and focus on the basics: stable performance, reasonable resource consumption, fewer unnecessary background processes and a smoother day-to-day experience, and where appropriate, remove AI features.
Microsoft itself is aware that there is room for improvement. Pavan Davuluri, the current head of Windows , recently acknowledged that the company must improve the system's reliability, performance, and usability after hearing numerous user complaints. The official message is beginning to align with what the community has been requesting for some time.
Meanwhile, some of the solutions proposed by Microsoft have not been well received by experts. A recent example is the attempt to speed up File Explorer by preloading it into RAM at system startup . Voices like Steven Sinofsky (a key figure in the development of Windows 7) and Tim Sweeney (CEO of Epic Games) have harshly criticized this approach, considering it a "patch" that only serves to consume even more memory instead of truly speeding up a slow Windows system .
These kinds of decisions reinforce the impression that Windows 11 relies on tricks to disguise its lack of speed instead of undertaking a deep clean of redundant processes, excessive telemetry, and components that many users don't even need.
Taken together, this experiment with the ThinkPad X220 and the reflections of veterans like Plummer point to the same idea: the time has come for Microsoft to prioritize stability, performance, and respect for the user's hardware , just as it did with XP two decades ago, before continuing to add layers of features that, without a solid foundation, only worsen the feeling of sluggishness in the system.
This entire journey from Windows XP to Windows 11, including Vista, 7, 8.1, and 10, makes it clear that the evolution of Windows hasn't been a straight line toward constant improvement, but rather a succession of successes and setbacks. Versions like Windows 8.1 shine for their optimization, while Windows 11 reveals the toll that modern software takes, loaded with services, telemetry, and reliance on powerful hardware . For those still using modest computers or who have doubts about upgrading, this kind of testing serves as a reminder that, when it comes down to it, what matters most isn't the "latest Windows" label, but the system's actual ability to intelligently utilize every available resource.
