Any benefits for gaming on Tiny11 on modern hardware?

[A Computer Guy]

I didn't know Tiny11 existed until about a week ago and was curious if there were any gaming and/or benchmarking benefits to using it.

 

[Bill_Bright]

I say try it and tell us how it goes.

 

[Deleted member 185158]

I didn't know Tiny11 existed until about a week ago and was curious if there were any gaming and/or benchmarking benefits to using it.

That's a loaded question.

How serious are we using the word benchmarking.
Are we talking pushing hardware to the limits and need OS stability?
No, then. Full install gives best compatibility. Loss/gains? ~1%

Glock cocked.

 

[ShiBDiB]

Unless you're running on a bare bones system it won't make a difference performance wise outside of slightly faster initial loading times when first signing into windows.

 

[A Computer Guy]

That's a loaded question.

Well I thought the question was fairly simple. (maybe not the answer)
Loaded questions look more like this...at least during lunchtime.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Probably okay until it's first update.

 

[thewan]

going by pure logic the answer is probably yes, in a sense that Windows "should" use less overall system resources when it can't launch the stuff it does in the background.

Reality is Windows was made to scale, and since Windows 11 is Windows 10 with a new coat of paint, it scales the same as the Windows 10 home default install did, which managed to run on 1GB RAM atom netbooks and tablets. As such Windows 11 will scale the same when more RAM is required by other apps or games, it will simply use less RAM, even though its official minimum requirements was bumped up.

The only tangible benefit would be Windows taking up less space, but arguably storage prices have dropped so low that the only reason you see this as a benefit on a modern gaming system is that you are broke after buying your RTX4090. If you can afford your RTX 4090, you can afford your 8TB SSDs.

That said, the problem is no one reputable enough is willing to risk their reputation to do some 50 game benchmark comparison as they will never know what in the world those random internet people modify and put in those custom made Windows isos. If they find out that it is good and they show it is good, they'd have to take responsibility if anything goes wrong with their viewers/fans bank accounts.

 

[Deleted member 185158]

Well I thought the question was fairly simple. (maybe not the answer)
Loaded questions look more like this...at least during lunchtime.
View attachment 286831

It's not a simple question. There are various builds of windows... to start with. Pro, Home so forth which you could consider home a slim version of pro...

Then, which games and apps work better on X build 22H2??

Loaded question with loaded answers.

I'm running a w10 pro full install and it wants to install a new build. In which I declined this transaction knowing it won't make a difference in most 3D benchmarks I've been running lately.

So, really no. Most people without a specific goal will probably gain nothing.

 

[Bill_Bright]

I think the question is simple - but not the answer.

I agree with thewan. "In theory" the OS "should" allow running programs to perform better since the OS is not using as many resources on itself. But "in practice", I suspect it would not be noticeable in a double-blind, side-by-side comparison. The exception "might be" with a system that has very limited, as in bare-bone minimum resources to begin with. That is, with a system with an entry level CPU, entry level graphics solution, 4GB of RAM, and an entry level "hard" drive, and a bare minimum of startup programs, one might notice a difference.

But the fact is, contrary to what many want the rest of us to believe, the latest versions of Windows are quite adept at using system resources efficiently. Also a fact is most have more CPU and GPU horsepower than "entry level". And they tend to have more than 4GB of RAM, and SSDs (at least for the boot drive) is more and more common too.

the problem is no one reputable enough is willing to risk their reputation

I don't think they are concerned about their reputations. I think they just don't want to waste their time and effort. I mean seriously, are there really that many people truly interested in using it? Enough to make a serious review worthwhile (read: profitable)? I don't think so. So instead we see an endless amount of guesses and speculation - from yours truly too.

 

[A Computer Guy]

I think the question is simple - but not the answer.

I agree with thewan. "In theory" the OS "should" allow running programs to perform better since the OS is not using as many resources on itself. But "in practice", I suspect it would not be noticeable in a double-blind, side-by-side comparison. The exception "might be" with a system that has very limited, as in bare-bone minimum resources to begin with. That is, with a system with an entry level CPU, entry level graphics solution, 4GB of RAM, and an entry level "hard" drive, and a bare minimum of startup programs, one might notice a difference.

But the fact is, contrary to what many want the rest of us to believe, the latest versions of Windows are quite adept at using system resources efficiently. Also a fact is most have more CPU and GPU horsepower than "entry level". And they tend to have more than 4GB of RAM, and SSDs (at least for the boot drive) is more and more common too.

I'm thinking along the same line as well.

I don't think they are concerned about their reputations. I think they just don't want to waste their time and effort. I mean seriously, are there really that many people truly interested in using it? Enough to make a serious review worthwhile (read: profitable)? I don't think so. So instead we see an endless amount of guesses and speculation - from yours truly too.

Just to be clear I'm not advocating for the use of Tiny11. Just having an academic curiosity moment today wondering if trimming the OS down had any measurable impact. I suppose I'll have to do an experiment "for science".

 

[Bill_Bright]

wondering if trimming the OS down had any measurable impact.

That's where the answer gets complicated.

"IF" for example, you never intended on connecting this computer to a network, you could drastically trim it down and improve performance.

This is where MS is stuck between a rock and a hard place (one of many). They have to harden Windows to keep it safe and secure when connected to the Internet. But that hardening uses resource so they inevitably get blamed for that. But if they cut back on security and Windows gets infected, they will inevitably get blamed for that too. After suffering over a decade of getting blamed for the actions of the bad guys with XP (and the failures of the antimalware industry to stop them - as they claim was their jobs), Microsoft decided to err on the side of security over performance - and rightfully so, IMO.