OK, I recognize that my laptop is five years old, but still taking 13
minutes to install the latest update is not even close to the 4 Microsoft
estimates. My cpu is an AMD Ryzen 3 3200U runniing at 1.2 ghz. Have CPUs
gotten that much faster in the last five years?

MajorLanGod wrote:
> OK, I recognize that my laptop is five years old, but still taking 13
> minutes to install the latest update is not even close to the 4 Microsoft
> estimates. My cpu is an AMD Ryzen 3 3200U runniing at 1.2 ghz. Have CPUs
> gotten that much faster in the last five years?

Don't rush to buy new hardware until you've read the comments I'm about
to give, and many subsequent ones from more savvy people in this group.
1.2 Ghtz seems slow, but my experience of laptops tells me that they
give and take; some requirements are well provided for, others aren't.

I have a laptop with a 16-core processor, while the sound capability is
pathetic. It downloads and updates at a speed beyond my wildest dreams,
but whispers heavy rock through its tiny speakers.

The main complaint you make is "taking 13 minutes to install the latest
update". Mine takes that long with the monthly all-singing-and-dancing
update, but far less with others.
Which update made you start to worry about obsolescence?

Ed

On 3/2/24 04:17 PM, Ed Cryer wrote:
> MajorLanGod wrote:
>> OK, I recognize that my laptop is five years old, but still taking 13
>> minutes to install the latest update is not even close to the 4 Microsoft
>> estimates. My cpu is an AMD Ryzen 3 3200U runniing at 1.2 ghz. Have CPUs
>> gotten that much faster in the last five years?
>
> Don't rush to buy new hardware until you've read the comments I'm about to give, and many subsequent
> ones from more savvy people in this group.
> 1.2 Ghtz seems slow, but my experience of laptops tells me that they give and take; some
> requirements are well provided for, others aren't.
>
> I have a laptop with a 16-core processor, while the sound capability is pathetic. It downloads and
> updates at a speed beyond my wildest dreams, but whispers heavy rock through its tiny speakers.
>
> The main complaint you make is "taking 13 minutes to install the latest update". Mine takes that
> long with the monthly all-singing-and-dancing update, but far less with others.
> Which update made you start to worry about obsolescence?
>
> Ed
>
I just bought a new laptop for my wife. We HAD to listen to a you-tube video to make sure it had
adequate sound. Her old laptop had sound but it was next to impossible to hear. And she has
impaired hearing. Of course the problem now is... I get my hearing destroyed now and then. I
guess we take the good with the bad.
--
Linux Mint 21.3 Cinnamon 6.0.4
Al

On 03/03/2024 03:50, Big Al wrote:
>
> Her old laptop had sound but it was next to impossible to hear. And
> she has impaired hearing.

Did you try to hear the sound with external speakers? They normally work
out cheaper than buying a new laptop.

MajorLanGod wrote on 3/2/24 2:00 PM:
> OK, I recognize that my laptop is five years old, but still taking 13
> minutes to install the latest update is not even close to the 4 Microsoft
> estimates. My cpu is an AMD Ryzen 3 3200U runniing at 1.2 ghz. Have CPUs
> gotten that much faster in the last five years?
>

This 6.25 yr old Win11 Pro 23H2 device with a 7th gen, i7-8550, 256GB
SSD, 12GB RAM and 280 Mbps internet speed took about 5 min to download,
install and restart to the Lock Screen/Windows logon for the Feb 2024
updates(Monthly Cumulative, Servicing Stack, Defender, and MSRT)

i.e. CPU speed is just one variable.

What are your other specs?
SSD/HDD (size, free space)
RAM
ISP promised/actual speed - Mbps

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

On 3/2/24 11:19 PM, Frugal User wrote:
> On 03/03/2024 03:50, Big Al wrote:
>>
>> Her old laptop had sound but it was next to impossible to hear. And
>> she has impaired hearing.
>
> Did you try to hear the sound with external speakers? They normally work
> out cheaper than buying a new laptop.
>
>
>
>
We used it for 10 years, it was time for a new one, just wanted to make sure we didn't do another 10
years with poor sound.
--
Linux Mint 21.3 Cinnamon 6.0.4
Al

MajorLanGod <lonelydad58@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, I recognize that my laptop is five years old, but still taking 13
> minutes to install the latest update is not even close to the 4 Microsoft
> estimates. My cpu is an AMD Ryzen 3 3200U runniing at 1.2 ghz. Have CPUs
> gotten that much faster in the last five years?

Does your laptop have a HDD or a SSD?

That's probably more relevant than the CPU speed.

FWIW, my ~1.5 years old laptop does the monthly updates in about the
time which Windows Updates predicts, mostly 4-5 minutes.

My specs:

AMD Ryzen 5 5625U (2.3GHz)
16 GB RAM (3200 MHz)
1 TB SSD (Intel 670p NVMe M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 3D4 QLC)

On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 06:54:11 -0500, Big Al wrote:
>
> On 3/2/24 11:19 PM, Frugal User wrote:
> > On 03/03/2024 03:50, Big Al wrote:
> >>
> >> Her old laptop had sound but it was next to impossible to hear. And
> >> she has impaired hearing.
> >
> > Did you try to hear the sound with external speakers? They normally work
> > out cheaper than buying a new laptop.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> We used it for 10 years, it was time for a new one, just wanted to make sure we didn't do another 10
> years with poor sound.

I don't know of any laptop with sound I'd rate better
than "passable". That may not be enough for anyone with
impaired hearing; it's not even enough for me.

A decent pair of over-the-ear headphones, however,
makes all the difference in the world for me. I'd guess
the improvement might be even greater for someone with
hearing issues since they'd muffle other sounds.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA
https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On 03/02/2024 11:19 PM, Frugal User wrote:
> On 03/03/2024 03:50, Big Al wrote:
>>
>> Her old laptop had sound but it was next to impossible to hear. And
>> she has impaired hearing.
>
> Did you try to hear the sound with external speakers? They normally work
> out cheaper than buying a new laptop.
>
>
>
>
I am looking for a new laptop. The problem I find is that most new
laptops have limited storage. The suggestion I keep getting is, to buy
an external drive.

This suggestions and the external speakers suggestion, ignores the very
principal of a Laptop; It is suppose to be PORTABLE.

If I want to attach many external devices I would go with a desktop, so
that I had space to put the devices.

However I want a computer that I can shut down, pick up, and go anywhere
un-encumbered with a lot of cables and external devices. I don't want to
consider if I have internet connections, or things like that. I want to
be able to sit in the yard under a tree on a nice day with the computer
in my LAP, doing what I need to do.

On 03/03/2024 7:49 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> MajorLanGod <lonelydad58@gmail.com> wrote:
>> OK, I recognize that my laptop is five years old, but still taking 13
>> minutes to install the latest update is not even close to the 4 Microsoft
>> estimates. My cpu is an AMD Ryzen 3 3200U runniing at 1.2 ghz. Have CPUs
>> gotten that much faster in the last five years?
>
> Does your laptop have a HDD or a SSD?
>
> That's probably more relevant than the CPU speed.
>
> FWIW, my ~1.5 years old laptop does the monthly updates in about the
> time which Windows Updates predicts, mostly 4-5 minutes.
>
> My specs:
>
> AMD Ryzen 5 5625U (2.3GHz)
> 16 GB RAM (3200 MHz)
> 1 TB SSD (Intel 670p NVMe M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 3D4 QLC)
The number of cores in the processor can have a significant effect on
the speed that a computer runs. ie, a dual core i7 processor will
run much slower than an i7 with 8 cores in the processor.

Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 06:54:11 -0500, Big Al wrote:
> >
> > On 3/2/24 11:19 PM, Frugal User wrote:
> > > On 03/03/2024 03:50, Big Al wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Her old laptop had sound but it was next to impossible to hear. And
> > >> she has impaired hearing.
> > >
> > > Did you try to hear the sound with external speakers? They normally work
> > > out cheaper than buying a new laptop.
> > >
> > We used it for 10 years, it was time for a new one, just wanted to
> > make sure we didn't do another 10 years with poor sound.
>
> I don't know of any laptop with sound I'd rate better
> than "passable". That may not be enough for anyone with
> impaired hearing; it's not even enough for me.

My previous laptop had Beats speakers which were indeed "passable". My
current laptop has B&O (Bang & Olufsen) speakers, which are quite a bit
better and even good, for a laptop.

> A decent pair of over-the-ear headphones, however,
> makes all the difference in the world for me. I'd guess
> the improvement might be even greater for someone with
> hearing issues since they'd muffle other sounds.

Good advice. I have on-ear JBL ones, which are a bit more comfortable
than over-the-ear ones. Mine can be switched between letting external
sounds through or locking them out (Bluetooth version with internal
microphone).

knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 03/03/2024 7:49 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > MajorLanGod <lonelydad58@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> OK, I recognize that my laptop is five years old, but still taking 13
> >> minutes to install the latest update is not even close to the 4 Microsoft
> >> estimates. My cpu is an AMD Ryzen 3 3200U runniing at 1.2 ghz. Have CPUs
> >> gotten that much faster in the last five years?
> >
> > Does your laptop have a HDD or a SSD?
> >
> > That's probably more relevant than the CPU speed.
> >
> > FWIW, my ~1.5 years old laptop does the monthly updates in about the
> > time which Windows Updates predicts, mostly 4-5 minutes.
> >
> > My specs:
> >
> > AMD Ryzen 5 5625U (2.3GHz)
> > 16 GB RAM (3200 MHz)
> > 1 TB SSD (Intel 670p NVMe M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 3D4 QLC)
>
> The number of cores in the processor can have a significant effect on
> the speed that a computer runs. ie, a dual core i7 processor will
> run much slower than an i7 with 8 cores in the processor.

True, but this is about Windows Update on Windows 11. I doubt that WU
uses/can-use many cores and Windows 11 systems probably have CPUs with
more than 2 cores.

Anyway, my AMD Ryzen 5 5625U (2.3GHz) has 6 cores, 12 threads.

knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]

> I am looking for a new laptop. The problem I find is that most new
> laptops have limited storage. The suggestion I keep getting is, to buy
> an external drive.

How much storage do you need?

As I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, my laptop has a 1TB SSD, which
is plenty enough for me (currently 'only' 215GB used). Some laptops can
accomodate more than one SSD.

> This suggestions and the external speakers suggestion, ignores the very
> principal of a Laptop; It is suppose to be PORTABLE.
>
> If I want to attach many external devices I would go with a desktop, so
> that I had space to put the devices.
>
> However I want a computer that I can shut down, pick up, and go anywhere
> un-encumbered with a lot of cables and external devices. I don't want to
> consider if I have internet connections, or things like that. I want to
> be able to sit in the yard under a tree on a nice day with the computer
> in my LAP, doing what I need to do.

Yep. Same here. That's why I'm using laptops since well over two
decades.

Coming to think of it, back to storage, I have a NAS which *does* give
extra storage, without any cables. Of course you can't take the NAS with
you, but if you just need extra storage at home, but don't want cables,
a NAS might fit the bill.

On 03/03/2024 8:48 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> I am looking for a new laptop. The problem I find is that most new
>> laptops have limited storage. The suggestion I keep getting is, to buy
>> an external drive.
>
> How much storage do you need?
>
> As I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, my laptop has a 1TB SSD, which
> is plenty enough for me (currently 'only' 215GB used). Some laptops can
> accomodate more than one SSD.
>
>> This suggestions and the external speakers suggestion, ignores the very
>> principal of a Laptop; It is suppose to be PORTABLE.
>>
>> If I want to attach many external devices I would go with a desktop, so
>> that I had space to put the devices.
>>
>> However I want a computer that I can shut down, pick up, and go anywhere
>> un-encumbered with a lot of cables and external devices. I don't want to
>> consider if I have internet connections, or things like that. I want to
>> be able to sit in the yard under a tree on a nice day with the computer
>> in my LAP, doing what I need to do.
>
> Yep. Same here. That's why I'm using laptops since well over two
> decades.
>
> Coming to think of it, back to storage, I have a NAS which *does* give
> extra storage, without any cables. Of course you can't take the NAS with
> you, but if you just need extra storage at home, but don't want cables,
> a NAS might fit the bill.
About a terabyte. There is a new HP with a 1TB drive, i7 many cores,
and a price I can afford.
However I am not replacing my laptop, until my old one stops breathing.

On 03/03/2024 13:39, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 03/03/2024 7:49 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> MajorLanGod <lonelydad58@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> OK, I recognize that my laptop is five years old, but still taking 13
>>>> minutes to install the latest update is not even close to the 4 Microsoft
>>>> estimates. My cpu is an AMD Ryzen 3 3200U runniing at 1.2 ghz. Have CPUs
>>>> gotten that much faster in the last five years?
>>>
>>> Does your laptop have a HDD or a SSD?
>>>
>>> That's probably more relevant than the CPU speed.
>>>
>>> FWIW, my ~1.5 years old laptop does the monthly updates in about the
>>> time which Windows Updates predicts, mostly 4-5 minutes.
>>>
>>> My specs:
>>>
>>> AMD Ryzen 5 5625U (2.3GHz)
>>> 16 GB RAM (3200 MHz)
>>> 1 TB SSD (Intel 670p NVMe M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 3D4 QLC)
>>
>> The number of cores in the processor can have a significant effect on
>> the speed that a computer runs. ie, a dual core i7 processor will
>> run much slower than an i7 with 8 cores in the processor.
>
> True, but this is about Windows Update on Windows 11. I doubt that WU
> uses/can-use many cores and Windows 11 systems probably have CPUs with
> more than 2 cores.
>
> Anyway, my AMD Ryzen 5 5625U (2.3GHz) has 6 cores, 12 threads.

Likewise.
My Win 11 laptop has an AMD Ryzen 7 6800U 2.70 GHz, 16GB RAM and a 1TB
SSD but most updates have a very slow install stage. That is ignoring
the download time which even with a good connection is often much slower
than manually downloading the corresponding update installation file
from the MS website.

knuttle wrote:

>
> This suggestions and the external speakers suggestion, ignores the very
> principal of a Laptop; It is suppose to be PORTABLE.
>

Quite my way of thinking.

I have good bluetooth speakers, but to use them you have to go through
the connect process. Same with some Sonos wireless speakers that I have.
It would be worthwhile if I could somehow tinker the audio settings so
that they always feed through to one of them without any readjusting
each time.

Ed

MikeS <mikes@is.invalid> wrote:
> On 03/03/2024 13:39, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 03/03/2024 7:49 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>> MajorLanGod <lonelydad58@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> OK, I recognize that my laptop is five years old, but still taking 13
> >>>> minutes to install the latest update is not even close to the 4 Microsoft
> >>>> estimates. My cpu is an AMD Ryzen 3 3200U runniing at 1.2 ghz. Have CPUs
> >>>> gotten that much faster in the last five years?
> >>>
> >>> Does your laptop have a HDD or a SSD?
> >>>
> >>> That's probably more relevant than the CPU speed.
> >>>
> >>> FWIW, my ~1.5 years old laptop does the monthly updates in about the
> >>> time which Windows Updates predicts, mostly 4-5 minutes.
> >>>
> >>> My specs:
> >>>
> >>> AMD Ryzen 5 5625U (2.3GHz)
> >>> 16 GB RAM (3200 MHz)
> >>> 1 TB SSD (Intel 670p NVMe M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 3D4 QLC)
> >>
> >> The number of cores in the processor can have a significant effect on
> >> the speed that a computer runs. ie, a dual core i7 processor will
> >> run much slower than an i7 with 8 cores in the processor.
> >
> > True, but this is about Windows Update on Windows 11. I doubt that WU
> > uses/can-use many cores and Windows 11 systems probably have CPUs with
> > more than 2 cores.
> >
> > Anyway, my AMD Ryzen 5 5625U (2.3GHz) has 6 cores, 12 threads.
>
> Likewise.
> My Win 11 laptop has an AMD Ryzen 7 6800U 2.70 GHz, 16GB RAM and a 1TB
> SSD but most updates have a very slow install stage. That is ignoring
> the download time which even with a good connection is often much slower
> than manually downloading the corresponding update installation file
> from the MS website.

For the record, I am (and AFAICT, so is the OP (MajorLanGod) talking
about the 'advertized' "Restart required (estimate: N min)" time, which
does *not* include the *online* (download and) installation, only the
*offline* part.

I.e. after an update has been downloaded, Windows Update will already
do part of the installation (saying "Installing - NN%". This 'Installing'
time is not included in the "(estimate: N min)" time.

Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
> knuttle wrote:
>
> > This suggestions and the external speakers suggestion, ignores the very
> > principal of a Laptop; It is suppose to be PORTABLE.
>
> Quite my way of thinking.
>
> I have good bluetooth speakers, but to use them you have to go through
> the connect process. Same with some Sonos wireless speakers that I have.
> It would be worthwhile if I could somehow tinker the audio settings so
> that they always feed through to one of them without any readjusting
> each time.

In my experience, Bluetooth audio devices (I mainly use a soundbar)
have no problems auto-reconnecting to my (Windows 11) laptop. I just
switch on the soundbar and start a media player on the laptop and they
connect and sound is played on the soundbar. (I could try my JBL
headphone, but I'm sure it works the same.)

What is somewhat cumbersome is to switch a Bluetooth audio device
between several sources, for example between a Windows laptop and an
Android phone/tablet. But that is mostly because the Bluetooth audio
devices lack in their user interface, for example no or very limited
display, no keyboard, etc., so the switching has to be done on the
laptop/phone by disconnecting one and connecting the other.

On 3 Mar 2024 13:30:08 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Good advice. I have on-ear JBL ones, which are a bit more comfortable
> than over-the-ear ones.

This is of course highly personal. I think it's the shape of my ears
that makes the over-the-ear ones more comfortable for me. And ear
buds are right out -- I could never get them to stop falling out of
my ears.

> Mine can be switched between letting external
> sounds through or locking them out (Bluetooth version with internal
> microphone).

I've got the Bose Quiet Comforts, but the button to turn noise
cancellation on and off stopped working several years ago. (It was a
known problem, apparently software not hardware.)

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 08:23:14 -0500, knuttle wrote:
> I am looking for a new laptop. The problem I find is that most new
> laptops have limited storage. The suggestion I keep getting is, to buy
> an external drive.

_Every_ laptop, like every desktop, has limited storage.(*) The
question is what you consider to be too low a limit.

My laptop, an LG Gram sold by Costco has a 1 TB SSD, which seems
adequate for my uses.

(*) Just like everyone is on a limited income, and every streaming
program has limited commercials. Saying "limited ads" like it's some
wonderful benefit, as Amazon does, is not only an insult to the
millions who paid in advance for ad-free video in Prime, but an
insult to the language.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 3 Mar 2024 13:30:08 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Good advice. I have on-ear JBL ones, which are a bit more comfortable
> > than over-the-ear ones.
>
> This is of course highly personal. I think it's the shape of my ears
> that makes the over-the-ear ones more comfortable for me. And ear
> buds are right out -- I could never get them to stop falling out of
> my ears.

The earpieces of my JBL ones are quite large and cover most of my ears
(and I don't have small ears! :-)), but they not over-the-ear.

As to earbuds: I don't use them either, for the same reason.
Occasionally I use simple wired earbuds, when I don't want to take my
on-ear JBL headphone with me.

[...]

On 3/3/2024 8:23 AM, knuttle wrote:
> On 03/02/2024 11:19 PM, Frugal User wrote:
>> On 03/03/2024 03:50, Big Al wrote:
>>>
>>> Her old laptop had sound but it was next to impossible to hear. And
>>> she has impaired hearing.
>>
>> Did you try to hear the sound with external speakers? They normally work
>> out cheaper than buying a new laptop.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> I am looking for a new laptop. The problem I find is that most new laptops have limited storage.  The suggestion I keep getting is, to buy an external drive.
>
> This suggestions and the external speakers suggestion, ignores the very principal of a Laptop; It is suppose to be PORTABLE.
>
> If I want to attach many external devices I would go with a desktop, so that I had space to put the devices.
>
> However I want a computer that I can shut down, pick up, and go anywhere un-encumbered with a lot of cables and external devices. I don't want to consider if I have internet connections, or things like that.  I want to be able to sit in the yard under a tree on a nice day with the computer in my LAP, doing what I need to do.

https://eurocom.com/ec/configure%282,490,0%29RaptorX17

Storage: Up to 24TB SSD; M.2 2280; NVMe; three physical drives (2x PCIe 4.0 x4; 1x PCIe 5.0)

https://eurocom.com/ec/configure%282,334,0%29SkyX7W

Storage: up to 32TB with 4 drives; 2x HDD/SSD (SATA3) + 2x M.2 PCIe Gen3 x4/NVMe/SATA3

Fall of last year, was the time to buy NAND storage. It's
gone back up quite a bit since then.

They've had four drive capability for quite a while,
but some of their workstation laptops were pretty big.
Perhaps bigger than what is on offer today.

And usually, you don't want all dimensions on those to "go to MAX" at
the same time. A 4090 in a laptop is pretty silly, from a
cooling perspective. Such machines will need to be plugged in
most of the time, if "used as intended". Can they play Crysis ?
Yes. But for your purpose, you'd want the low end graphics
(or just the integrated graphics and unplug the MXM3), and
a CPU with fewer cores. As a lot of the time, extra
cores are useless.

And those in turn, are not made by the company. Those are things
like Clevo ODM machines. More than one supplier may carry them,
but they'll have a different logo glued to them. The machines
are not necessarily "exclusives".

You can get 8TB SATA laptop SSD drives. Which is a fair amount
of storage. You would be surprised, inside the SSD casing,
there is room for more NAND.

That's why items like this are starting to appear. We need some
reviews and early adopters to test these, to see if they're
reliable or not. A device like this won't be cheap, and it
absolutely must be in first-rate shape to be risking the purchase
of one.

https://poweredbymushkin.com/Home/index.php/catalog/solid-state-drives/source-hc/item/1646-source-hc-16tb-mknssdhc16tb

For the really really big drives, they're announced... and hardly
seen. They could be used in an Enterprise setup somewhere.
A couple of companies have done 100TB drives (3.5" though, not
laptop). Usually they cost as much as a mid-sized car.

Hard drive storage can be somewhat cheaper.

Paul

On 3/2/2024 4:00 PM, MajorLanGod wrote:
> OK, I recognize that my laptop is five years old, but still taking 13
> minutes to install the latest update is not even close to the 4 Microsoft
> estimates. My cpu is an AMD Ryzen 3 3200U runniing at 1.2 ghz. Have CPUs
> gotten that much faster in the last five years?
>

https://www.techpowerup.com/cpu-specs/ryzen-3-3200u.c2136

1.2GHz would be your idle frequency.

2C 4T 2.6 GHz All-cores Frequency, 3.5 GHz Boost (until it throttles on temp)

*******

A program like this, will show the instantaneous frequency of one of the two cores.
The ZIP version, you just run the CPUZ.exe from the ZIP and have the CPUZ.ini
file around for configuration.

https://www.cpuid.com/downloads/cpu-z/cpu-z_2.09-en.zip

For a test program that runs on one thread...

https://www.techpowerup.com/download/super-pi/

Super Pi Mod v1.5 XS
September 11th, 2006

60.4 KB
super_pi_mod-1.5.zip

My copy is:

Name: super_pi_mod-1.5.zip (May ‎6, ‎2007)
Size: 61895 bytes (60 KiB)
SHA256: B8CB0D0DAA23D50B88AB55BC945668E1AAC906E1FCE74E39A192046CF2BBAC47

When you start that, it does not begin right away. You
can start it, use Task Manager, right click the executable
"super_pi_mod.exe" and set the Affinity in Task Manager to
just Core0. The idea being, that's the core that CPUZ will
be monitoring.

Then you can test and see if the CPU runs at the expected speed.
Or, bears a resemblance to the "value on the tin".

[Picture] See if the one-core speed is right

https://i.postimg.cc/QCsx9RYK/one-core-rated-check.gif

By the say, the file system on your Windows 11 is not slated
to get any faster.

Right now, something is degrading my RAMDrive significantly,
and a certain company is going to lose a customer if this continues.
My Snippingtool.exe is also broken and no longer functional
(I can tell it to take a snapshot, and it won't pop up the
window with the result.) Just another day that ends in the letter "y".

Paul

On 3/3/2024 9:12 AM, knuttle wrote:
> On 03/03/2024 8:48 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> I am looking for a new laptop. The problem I find is that most new
>>> laptops have limited storage.  The suggestion I keep getting is, to buy
>>> an external drive.
>>
>>    How much storage do you need?
>>       As I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, my laptop has a 1TB SSD, which
>> is plenty enough for me (currently 'only' 215GB used). Some laptops can
>> accomodate more than one SSD.
>>
>>> This suggestions and the external speakers suggestion, ignores the very
>>> principal of a Laptop; It is suppose to be PORTABLE.
>>>
>>> If I want to attach many external devices I would go with a desktop, so
>>> that I had space to put the devices.
>>>
>>> However I want a computer that I can shut down, pick up, and go anywhere
>>> un-encumbered with a lot of cables and external devices. I don't want to
>>> consider if I have internet connections, or things like that.  I want to
>>> be able to sit in the yard under a tree on a nice day with the computer
>>> in my LAP, doing what I need to do.
>>
>>    Yep. Same here. That's why I'm using laptops since well over two
>> decades.
>>
>>    Coming to think of it, back to storage, I have a NAS which *does* give
>> extra storage, without any cables. Of course you can't take the NAS with
>> you, but if you just need extra storage at home, but don't want cables,
>> a NAS might fit the bill.
> About a terabyte.   There is a new HP with a 1TB drive, i7 many cores, and a price I can afford.
> However I am not replacing my laptop, until my old one stops breathing.

I have a 4TB (2.5" SATA SSD) on the machine here. 2400 TBW endurance.
There should also be 4TB NVMe drives available as well. These could
be TLC based. The 8TB drives are QLC based and not as good a deal.

Last fall was the time to be drooling over big SSDs, and the price
of flash has gone up significantly since then. It will only be worse
the end of August this year.

Your 1TB is unlikely to be soldered to the PCB. It should be a
removable, and could be upgraded. The tablets with eMMC, they
generally have smaller sizes. A single flash chip can hold 1TB of files,
which means many things are possible in small packages. Someone
in another group, was silly enough to buy a 1TB USB flash stick,
and it's the real McCoy instead of a fake. It actually has
an SSD controller inside it, instead of a flash controller
(which means the wear leveling works). Devices like that, are usually
a bit on the big side, so you can't really put two of them side by side
on the back of a desktop.

Paul

On 03/03/2024 15:59, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> MikeS <mikes@is.invalid> wrote:
>> On 03/03/2024 13:39, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On 03/03/2024 7:49 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>> MajorLanGod <lonelydad58@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> OK, I recognize that my laptop is five years old, but still taking 13
>>>>>> minutes to install the latest update is not even close to the 4 Microsoft
>>>>>> estimates. My cpu is an AMD Ryzen 3 3200U runniing at 1.2 ghz. Have CPUs
>>>>>> gotten that much faster in the last five years?
>>>>>
>>>>> Does your laptop have a HDD or a SSD?
>>>>>
>>>>> That's probably more relevant than the CPU speed.
>>>>>
>>>>> FWIW, my ~1.5 years old laptop does the monthly updates in about the
>>>>> time which Windows Updates predicts, mostly 4-5 minutes.
>>>>>
>>>>> My specs:
>>>>>
>>>>> AMD Ryzen 5 5625U (2.3GHz)
>>>>> 16 GB RAM (3200 MHz)
>>>>> 1 TB SSD (Intel 670p NVMe M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 3D4 QLC)
>>>>
>>>> The number of cores in the processor can have a significant effect on
>>>> the speed that a computer runs. ie, a dual core i7 processor will
>>>> run much slower than an i7 with 8 cores in the processor.
>>>
>>> True, but this is about Windows Update on Windows 11. I doubt that WU
>>> uses/can-use many cores and Windows 11 systems probably have CPUs with
>>> more than 2 cores.
>>>
>>> Anyway, my AMD Ryzen 5 5625U (2.3GHz) has 6 cores, 12 threads.
>>
>> Likewise.
>> My Win 11 laptop has an AMD Ryzen 7 6800U 2.70 GHz, 16GB RAM and a 1TB
>> SSD but most updates have a very slow install stage. That is ignoring
>> the download time which even with a good connection is often much slower
>> than manually downloading the corresponding update installation file
>> from the MS website.
>
> For the record, I am (and AFAICT, so is the OP (MajorLanGod) talking
> about the 'advertized' "Restart required (estimate: N min)" time, which
> does *not* include the *online* (download and) installation, only the
> *offline* part.
>
> I.e. after an update has been downloaded, Windows Update will already
> do part of the installation (saying "Installing - NN%". This 'Installing'
> time is not included in the "(estimate: N min)" time.

The OP asked "Have CPUs gotten that much faster in the last five years?"
My point was that even with a faster CPU ALL stages of an update are
still slow.
As for the MS estimate, that is all it is and expecting a precise value
for any possible combination of Windows hardware is ridiculous.