Microsoft says Windows is now 20% more responsive and 40% faster at multitasking on 8GB PCs

midian182

Posts: 12,040   +184
Staff member
What just happened? Microsoft has been promising Windows 11 performance improvement for 8GB PCs for several months. Now, the Redmond giant has dived into the specifics of what that means. It claims the OS is up to 20% more responsive and multitasking is up to 40% faster, but those figures will be best-case scenarios.

Microsoft has spent much of 2026 vowing to improve Windows 11. With the AI-driven memory crisis continuing to make RAM prices akin to that of gold, part of the upgrades has been to make the OS run better on 8GB machines.

Pavan Davuluri, Microsoft's executive vice president of Windows and Devices, writes that the company is taking a 3-pronged approach to this task: making better use of the memory in Windows 11 PCs, protecting the interactions that need to feel instant even under load, and ensuring key apps and Windows require less memory.

Microsoft does acknowledge that Windows 11 PCs with 16GB or 32GB are still going to be better, performance-wise, but it adds that "we're making sure you can do more, even with 8GB."

Those 20% more responsive and 40% faster figures come from Microsoft's own lab tests, so don't expect to see an exact replica of these results.

It was reported last month that Windows can retain up to 2GB more active data in RAM instead of shunting it to slower storage. Tweaked compression should mean fewer reloads when returning to an app or browser tab.

Windows also eases off background tasks such as search indexing to prioritize what you're actually doing. The responsiveness claims cover actions such as opening Start, Settings, and File Explorer, compared with January's update.

The multitasking test involved opening 20 Edge tabs, a 4K video, large Office files, Outlook, and File Explorer, keeping everything running.

Microsoft also claims its Windows, Edge, and Microsoft 365 changes reduced committed-memory growth by up to 900MB in multitasking tests, leaving more room for apps.

There are smaller savings, too. Widgets only load when opened on PCs with 8GB or less, reducing memory commitment by roughly 200 MB while closed, while Edge now puts inactive tabs to sleep after 15 minutes rather than two hours.

To get the improvements, Microsoft says to install Windows 11 26H2 build 26300.9818 or later, and keep Edge, Microsoft 365, and Teams updated.

The improvements can't come soon enough for Microsoft's own hardware. A July review of its 8GB Surface Laptop found it freezing during Teams calls with around 10 Chrome tabs, Slack, and Signal open, plus random hangs in Google Docs.

Permalink to story:

 
Microsoft one of the biggest culprits for the RAM crisis with their heavy investments on Ai now trying to sell to us 8GB Windows 11 specs...lol

Heck not even Windows Vista couldn't run well with that...

That only proofs that Microsoft all along had a tremendous RAM mismanagement in their operating systems and they are quietly now trying to acknowledging it.
 
Last edited:
Microsoft one of the biggest culprits for the RAM crisis with their heavy investments on Ai now trying to sell to us 8GB Windows 11 specs...lol

Heck not even Windows 7 couldn't run well with that...

That only proofs that Microsoft all along had a tremendous RAM mismanagement in their operating systems and they are quietly now trying to acknowledging it.
Windows 7 could make 2gigs look like a powerhouse. I put W7 on machines that had 512MB of ram
 
Microsoft one of the biggest culprits for the RAM crisis with their heavy investments on Ai now trying to sell to us 8GB Windows 11 specs...lol
Have (somewhere on the shelf) N3350 (2c/2T Apollo Lake), 4GB RAM, 32GB eMMC and Win 10 from 2017.
Not for heavy work, but good enough to consume content and games like "Plant vs Zombies".


Windows 7 could make 2gigs look like a powerhouse. I put W7 on machines that had 512MB of ram
NT 4.0 with 64MB was very slow
XP with 128MB was a little better. With 1.5GB much better. Used to use it for 10 years.
W7 with 256MB was used as office rig at its time (2011).

15 years later W10 32-bit with 4GB was still usable but nothing to write home about.
 
About time these sluggernauts had to come around to the party with what that they created, just expecting hardware improvements to wash away their ****.

Here's to gaming optimisation next! not just shoving super scaling down everyone's throats, etc.
 
NT 4.0 with 64MB was very slow
XP with 128MB was a little better. With 1.5GB much better. Used to use it for 10 years.
W7 with 256MB was used as office rig at its time (2011).

15 years later W10 32-bit with 4GB was still usable but nothing to write home about.
I have an unpopular opinion on XP, I hated XP. I loved 98SE. I had modern hardware with Vista but windows 7 actually gave me space to breathe. It handled drivers for me, no headaches involved.

I will die on the hill saying 98SE was better than XP. SP2 took a lot of the stress off. I guess XP SP2 was nice but it had already rage baited me by that time.

EDIT:
It's unfair of me to compare 98SE to base model XP. SP2 was solid and I was already angry at XP by the time SP2 came out.
 
Have (somewhere on the shelf) N3350 (2c/2T Apollo Lake), 4GB RAM, 32GB eMMC and Win 10 from 2017.
Not for heavy work, but good enough to consume content and games like "Plant vs Zombies".



NT 4.0 with 64MB was very slow
XP with 128MB was a little better. With 1.5GB much better. Used to use it for 10 years.
W7 with 256MB was used as office rig at its time (2011).

15 years later W10 32-bit with 4GB was still usable but nothing to write home about.
True, I had Windows Vista in mind while typing 7...but once again I don't even think Windows Vista would had run any better even if it had 100GB of RAM...
 
True, I had Windows Vista in mind while typing 7...but once again I don't even think Windows Vista would had run any better even if it had 100GB of RAM...
Vista was perfectly usable on 2-4 gb, 8gb was insane.

So long as you had actual vista drivers and not repackaged XP drivers, Vista was great. Manufacturers dropped the ball and were the impetus for Microsoft taking control via windows update and banning old drivers.
 
Windows 98 can multi-task well on 256MB. Stick that in your pipe, Microsoft!
even Windows XP wasn't too bad on 256MB for a while, though by the end of its life you wanted at least 1-2GB RAM for the 32-bit version. Around 2004-2005 software and websites got a lot more complex and RAM-hungry.
 
Vista was perfectly usable on 2-4 gb, 8gb was insane.

So long as you had actual vista drivers and not repackaged XP drivers, Vista was great. Manufacturers dropped the ball and were the impetus for Microsoft taking control via windows update and banning old drivers.
Agreed, Vista Service Pack 2 wasn't much different from Windows 7 in terms of performance. You just needed at least a decent dual-core processor, enough RAM and a GPU that could support Aero
 
Vista was perfectly usable on 2-4 gb, 8gb was insane.

So long as you had actual vista drivers and not repackaged XP drivers, Vista was great. Manufacturers dropped the ball and were the impetus for Microsoft taking control via windows update and banning old drivers.
Vista usable??? You truly forgot why it was faced out quicker than any other Windows operating system.
 
Back