Of course, you usually need the latest hardware to eat through modern workloads. But aside from that, I sometimes forget clearing out software bloat is a much more effective way to gain performance, productivity and improvements to the overall user experience.
I'm kind of OK with having to wait around for a compile or other heavy "modern workload" (though I must say I don't do this all day every day). But it drives me absolutely crazy to have basic software lag when I type. This absolutely kills the experience for me.
The other thing that drives me crazy about Teams is there still is no “temporary mute” for channels. I can’t mute a channel for say, an hour. I have to suffer through notifications about topics I’m not interested in. I know there is a “turn off notifications” by conversation. But that’s not helpful when there are new conversations all the time.
But, luckily, we can easily integrate our chat with MS Stocks application, and, even better, with MS Power BI!
I have always impression that MS employees cannot use Teams, otherwise they would have noticed that something gone really wrong here. On the other hand, those are people who gave the World the (in)famous Windows Millennium Edition, so everything is possible.
This problem is an annoyance. The slowness of Teams, however, is unforgivable. There's no excuse why a chat app from 2022 should run slower on an 8 core Xeon with 64GB of RAM than MSN Messenger did on my Pentium box in 2000.
Now 1GB is not enough, not even with 2GB, that's borderline usable with XFCE4 and Alpine Linux and ZRAM (my Celeron notebook setup). You can browse stuff fine with UBo and Chromium with privacy and performance tweaks (git://bitreich.org/privacy-haters), but if you launch heavy stuff (Glibc gcompat stuff such as Teams) will keeping a bunch of tabs open, the speed grinds down a lot.
I don't use Windows all that often, and I've found that Outlook is much less annoying in a browser (even Firefox!) than the app. It feels less laggy.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoftteams/get-clients?...
Yes, I too find that all Office apps is faster on the Web.
I'm not overly familiar with that period's iTunes, but I remember when I bought my first iPod, a 4th gen click wheel (don't remember the year, but it was already an "older model" at the time) I was using Amarok on Linux on an AMD Thunderbird with 256 MB of RAM. That thing would fly. And it did more than Winamp: it had an actual DB-backed music library, iPod interface, etc.
Yet, a few years later, when I got a MacBook Pro with a dual-core CPU and 16 times the RAM, iTunes would still be painfully slow. And I don't remember it doing much more than Amarok. As a matter of fact, it was inferior on pretty much every metric I could think of.
This was years before YouTube was even founded
This is a hilarious statement to read, cause that's probably what 80% of people were using iTunes exclusively for and relegating their music listening to their iPod/iPhone, especially in the later part of the 00s.
Me neither, but I remember I was annoyed few times it took "ages" to load a "library" of few (thousands) tracks and then consumed considerable amount of RAM. Maybe TENS of megabytes even (!!1!).
So I remember the relief when I switched to Billy audio player [1], that was way more "spartan" and had just those few features I really needed, and then joy of even faster start time and negligible memory footprint.
[1] https://www.sheepfriends.com/index-page=billy.html (download is "temporarily off", but there are comparisons with Winamp and screensot).
Surely you mean more efficiently. I would hate my music being speed up :-)