Sloppy software is why you think you need new hardware

There's something oddly disappointing about using modern computers. You can spend a good amount of money on serious hardware: a processor packed with cores, a graphics card that can render entire worlds, and enough RAM to rival anything from just a few years ago. Still, you might find yourself waiting for something as basic as a folder to load or a file to show up in search.

The truth is, in most cases, your hardware isn't the issue. Even systems that aren't top of the line should be more than capable of handling everyday tasks without breaking a sweat. What really drags things down is the software. Over the years, it has grown bloated, cluttered, and oddly careless about how it uses the resources available. Despite all the advances in processing power and memory, much of today's software doesn't seem to be built with that power in mind. It leans on it, assuming there's always more to spare, while giving surprisingly little in return when it comes to actual performance.

Fast machines, slow software

Modern computer hardware is on a completely different level compared to what we had a few decades ago. Today’s CPUs are built with layers of complexity: multiple cores, large caches, and clever designs that manage performance and efficiency in real time. Even a typical smartphone now has more computing muscle than the supercomputers that once filled entire rooms in the 1980s.

GPUs have advanced even further. NVIDIA, for instance, has taken what used to be a graphics-focused component and turned it into a massively parallel processing engine. Their RTX series includes specialized units like Tensor Cores, which accelerate AI and machine learning tasks, and RT Cores, which handle real-time ray tracing to produce realistic lighting and reflections. These cards are capable of performing trillions of calculations per second, and in some cases, that number stretches into the hundreds of trillions.

With that kind of performance available, you’d expect computers to feel effortless. Opening apps should be quick. Interfaces should stay smooth, no matter how much is going on. Moving between tasks shouldn’t involve any friction. But that’s often not the case.

It’s a strange contrast to earlier eras of software development. When systems like Windows NT 3.51 were being built, developers had to be extremely careful with every bit of memory and processing power. Entire operating systems were made to run in environments that had less RAM than what a modern browser might use to load a single tab. The constraints forced efficiency in a way that’s hard to imagine today:

The Windows Experience™

The feeling of a performance disconnect is perhaps most widely encountered within the operating system itself, especially modern Windows. While Microsoft frequently introduces new features, the core user interface responsiveness in Windows 10 and Windows 11 has become a frequent source of user frustration. Common complaints highlight noticeable delays: context menus appearing slowly after a right-click, or file explorer windows visibly redrawing elements in stages instead of rendering immediately.

Around two years ago, developer Julio Merino ran an experiment that perfectly illustrated this frustration. He compared the responsiveness of older operating systems on significantly less powerful hardware to that of modern Windows running on high-end machines.

In one demonstration, he showcased a machine from the year 2000 with just 128MB of RAM and a 600 MHz processor, running Windows NT 3.51. Despite its age and limited specs, applications launched almost instantly with a single click.

He contrasted this responsiveness with interactions on a far more modern and powerful machine: a 6-core Mac Pro running at 3.5GHz with 32GB of RAM. On the newer system, he observed UI elements rendering in visible chunks, revealing a noticeable lag in responsiveness despite the dramatically better hardware.

Another viral example of Windows frustration comes from developer Theo Browne. He shared a case where simply opening a folder full of stream recordings, a basic file browsing task, took eight minutes, and Windows Explorer crashed when he tried to right-click. The issue turned out to be Windows automatically parsing metadata, which became a serious bottleneck with a large number of files. In his case, the fix was disabling automatic folder type discovery.

Even on a fresh install, Windows often feels weighed down by bloatware, preloaded apps no one asked for, aggressive telemetry, and a swarm of background services doing who knows what. This clutter adds friction to everyday tasks, and the fact that third-party "debloat scripts" are not only popular but considered essential by many users says a lot. People frequently describe Windows as "almost unusable" or "significantly degraded" until they strip out the extras.

And then there's the search experience. You type something into the search bar, looking for a local file you just saved, and what does Windows do? It takes its sweet time, maybe shows you results that are vaguely related, potentially ignores the file you actually need, and helpfully pulls up Bing web searches. Because when I type "quarterly report Q3," obviously what I really want is to wade through web results, not instantly find the file named "Quarterly Report Q3 Final.xlsx" sitting in my Documents folder. Meanwhile, a simple, free utility called "Everything" completely embarrasses the built-in search. It instantly finds any file or folder name on your entire drive as you type. I find it ridiculous that a free program made by a single developer offers a vastly better experience for such a basic task than the built-in feature from one of the world's biggest tech companies.

The lost "gold" standard of software

There's a gut feeling that the entire philosophy behind shipping quality software has been tossed aside and replaced with something far worse. Many remember a time, not even that long ago, when software, especially something as critical as an OS or a big-name game, went through hell and back with internal testing before it dared show its face to the public. They called it hitting "Gold" or RTM (Release To Manufacturing): a final, blessed build that was considered stable, feature-complete, and ready for the presses.

Think Windows NT 4.0 or Windows 2000; these were operating systems launched with an expectation of enterprise-grade stability because their development included punishing QA cycles and "dogfooding," where Microsoft employees themselves had to live with it. Updates, when they came, were chunky, well-tested Service Packs, not some frantic daily "patch-a-thon."

Contrast that with today's "Windows as a Service" circus. The Windows Insider Program, for all its telemetry-gathering usefulness, feels less like a supplementary testing ground and more like Microsoft has outsourced its entire QA department to millions of unpaid volunteers. Major updates roll out, and like clockwork, the forums light up with users screaming about new bugs, broken features, and performance that's gone to hell. It's a relentless cycle of releasing, then scrambling to patch what was clearly unfinished. You see this in games as well; the "release now, fix it later (maybe)" attitude has become depressingly common. The infamous launch of Cyberpunk 2077 is the poster child for this disaster. After years of monumental hype, it landed as a catastrophic, buggy mess, especially on last-gen consoles. It was so bad that Sony pulled it from its store! CD Projekt Red spent years and fortunes patching it into the game it should have been at launch. It makes you wonder if other big studios, seeing that dumpster fire, are finally wising up. The news about GTA 6 getting delayed a bit longer could very well be Rockstar deciding they'd rather take the heat for a delay than risk a Cyberpunk 2077 2.0 scenario.

That same "never truly finished" mindset bleeds into how Windows itself is being developed. The push to replace the old Control Panel with the modern Settings app started way back in 2012 with Windows 8. Thirteen years later, and even as recently as last month, updates were still rolling out. After more than a decade, you'd think managing your PC from one consistent place wouldn’t be too much to ask. But here we are.

The web is bloated

The performance discussion isn't limited to desktop operating systems. Despite enormous improvements in internet speeds and device processing power, the modern web frequently feels sluggish and resource-hungry. Websites can be slow to load, experience jarring content shifts during loading, or feel less interactive than they should.

The increasing complexity of web applications contributes to this, but so do common development practices. Using heavyweight JavaScript frameworks has become standard, and while tools like React or Next.js are invaluable for building complex web applications, they are often applied even for simpler sites like informational pages or blogs. This approach can result in large code bundles, slow initial page loads (even with server-side rendering, subsequent interactions can involve latency), and requires significant JavaScript execution before a page is fully usable. This perceived overuse stems partly from development trends and convenience, rather than a necessity dictated by the project's core requirements.

Even applications built using web technologies for the desktop, such as those using Electron (which powers applications like Slack and Discord), are frequently associated with "bloat." Bundling an entire web browser instance for each application inherently adds overhead in terms of memory and CPU usage compared to building a purely native application, contributing to slower startup times and higher resource consumption.

However, there are striking examples that prove performance is still achievable on the web with different priorities. Take, for example, the website for McMaster-Carr. This site, which sells hardware and industrial parts, achieved near-legendary status online and went viral last year because people couldn't believe a site that looks so "ancient" could outperform modern, slick sites built with the latest tech stacks.

So, how did McMaster-Carr do it? By focusing on fundamental, proven techniques: hardcore Server-Side Rendering (serving up pre-built HTML), aggressive prefetching (literally loading the next page before you even click the link when you hover), layering caching techniques (browser, server, CDN), optimizing assets ruthlessly, inlining critical CSS, and using minimal, modular JavaScript only where needed. They use the web platform intelligently. They don't care about framework trends; they care about speed and usability. And they nail it.

No, Linux will not save us

The search for less bloated, more performant computing experiences sometimes leads users to explore alternative operating systems like Linux. Many Linux distributions, particularly those featuring lightweight desktop environments such as XFCE or LXQt, are known for running well and feeling significantly faster on older hardware compared to modern Windows. This is possible because they offer greater modularity and less default overhead than the more monolithic design of Windows, allowing users to run a system that consumes minimal resources. The performance gain on resource-constrained machines can be substantial, making older hardware feel usable again for general tasks.

However, for a lot of people moving over from Windows, switching fully to Linux isn't always so simple. The biggest issue usually comes down to software compatibility. A bunch of popular professional apps, like Adobe Creative Cloud (Photoshop, Premiere Pro, After Effects), Microsoft Office, AutoCAD, CorelDRAW, and even tools like QuickBooks or certain engineering programs, don't have native Linux versions. On top of that, many modern PC games, especially those with tough anti-cheat systems like Easy Anti-Cheat or BattlEye, either won't run at all or are hit-or-miss when using compatibility layers like WINE or Proton.

This practical challenge, rather than any inherent slowness in Linux itself, is frequently the reason why a "Linux experiment" for a Windows user ends up being short-lived.

Why is this happening?

So, with all this powerful hardware and clear examples of how to build both fast websites and fast OS components, why is so much modern software such a sluggish, resource-hungry mess? Here I outline a few key reasons:

1. The "Consumer as Beta Tester" Model: There's a strong argument that many large software companies have shifted their primary QA efforts from extensive internal testing to relying on public beta programs (like the Windows Insider Program) and telemetry from live releases. This means features and updates can reach the general public in a less polished state, with users effectively becoming the final line of bug testers. This wasn't the prevailing model when "Gold" master releases, rigorously tested before shipment, were the norm.
2. Focus on Feature Velocity Over Efficiency and Polish: The pressure is often on getting new features shipped yesterday. It's faster and easier to layer abstractions, pull in heavy libraries, and use resource-hungry frameworks than it is to spend time optimizing performance bottlenecks, writing efficient low-level code, or ensuring rock-solid stability before release.
3. Abstraction Overkill: Every layer of abstraction adds overhead. While helpful for managing complexity, the cumulative effect can be a significant performance drain if not carefully managed and optimized.
4. Developer Skill & Priorities: Deep optimization is hard. Understanding memory management, threading, efficient algorithms, and compiler outputs is challenging and less common (or perhaps less rewarded in many corporate structures) than knowing how to integrate two APIs or use the latest framework feature.
5. Business Models: Ads, telemetry, engagement-tracking features, tying into various cloud services – these all add code, processes, and network calls that aren't directly part of the core functionality the user wants, but serve the business.
6. Complexity: Modern requirements like stringent security, connecting everything to the internet, and handling incredibly high-resolution displays and complex graphics add inherent challenges and potentially necessary overhead.

Conclusion: Stop blaming your hardware (mostly)

So the next time your computer feels sluggish during a basic task, before you reach for your wallet to buy the next-gen CPU or GPU, consider this: your hardware is almost certainly a beast compared to the machines of the past. The problem isn't always the silicon; it's a combination of flabby, thoughtless, bloated code, and a development culture that often seems to prioritize shipping features over shipping a truly polished, gold standard product.

Performance, stability, and overall quality need to be first-class features again, not afterthoughts or something relegated to a dedicated optimization team that swoops in long after the bloat and bugs have set in. We need less abstraction for abstraction's sake, more focus on efficiency and user experience, and a renewed respect for the user's time and machine resources—and that includes delivering software that works well out of the box.

Until that shift happens, we'll continue to see powerful machines brought to their knees by inefficient code, and users will continue to feel they need an upgrade.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years.

News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+ | 2025 (till end of April): 1,811

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend