Again, it's about comparing apples to apples. All things being equal, you'll run into the same end result. But most people who compare Linux to Windows are not comparing apples to apples.
Take a look at Adobe's creative cloud, which runs on *NIX and Windows. Both implementations use update services (core sync) and a node.js service. The update process in its entirety isn't all that lightweight and can sometimes make the OS hang for a moment, and this happens on both operating systems.
Windows makes a lot of cruddy software easily available to the masses. People install massive software packages for printers and scanners, they install shell extensions, webcam apps that add fancy frames around pictures, trial versions of software, photo-organizing software, note-syncing software, hardware-support services, plugins for Outlook and Word, meeting apps galore (Teams, Zoom, Chime, Webex, etc), anti-cheating services for online gaming, and the list just goes on. Again, Windows simply makes a TON of software available to the masses, and so they consume a lot of it.
Linux doesn't do that. Linux has its distro-specific package managers that focus on fast, lean, efficient apps. BUT if we're comparing apples to apples, then you have to consider the average Windows user who wants to install all that stuff, and imagine a future where it's ALL available on Linux. If the user installs all the same software that ends up loading up their system with small services, it's going to start making the system slow. And if there's massive mainstream interest in Linux, then you can bet that you'll see far more malicious software targeting Linux, making it more important to have security software installed (which further slows down the system).
At the end of the day, you have a finite amount of system resources (CPU, RAM, etc), and no operating system will be able to save a user from themselves if the user wants to load up their system with a ton of junk.
It's also very difficult to compare the two perfectly, because it's more than just a couple of kernels. For example, you have things like the ext3/4 filesystems in Linux that rarely need defragmentation, compared to FAT or NTFS running on a mechanical HDD. However, since SSDs are mostly mainstream, you don't run into the same fragmentation-slowness on NTFS.
As far as the "the reason for it's slowness is not apparent" goes, yes, there's always a reason and it's almost always apparent if you know where to look. Not a lot of Windows users are that savvy, so there's still a lot of them that will fill up their systems with junk and not maintain things properly, and they'll end up seeing slownesss. That's why I said, if you know how to use either operating system well, then you won't see the slowness on them.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Again, it's about comparing apples to apples. All things being equal, you'll run into the same end result. But most people who compare Linux to Windows are not comparing apples to apples.
Take a look at Adobe's creative cloud, which runs on *NIX and Windows. Both implementations use update services (core sync) and a node.js service. The update process in its entirety isn't all that lightweight and can sometimes make the OS hang for a moment, and this happens on both operating systems.
Windows makes a lot of cruddy software easily available to the masses. People install massive software packages for printers and scanners, they install shell extensions, webcam apps that add fancy frames around pictures, trial versions of software, photo-organizing software, note-syncing software, hardware-support services, plugins for Outlook and Word, meeting apps galore (Teams, Zoom, Chime, Webex, etc), anti-cheating services for online gaming, and the list just goes on. Again, Windows simply makes a TON of software available to the masses, and so they consume a lot of it.
Linux doesn't do that. Linux has its distro-specific package managers that focus on fast, lean, efficient apps. BUT if we're comparing apples to apples, then you have to consider the average Windows user who wants to install all that stuff, and imagine a future where it's ALL available on Linux. If the user installs all the same software that ends up loading up their system with small services, it's going to start making the system slow. And if there's massive mainstream interest in Linux, then you can bet that you'll see far more malicious software targeting Linux, making it more important to have security software installed (which further slows down the system).
At the end of the day, you have a finite amount of system resources (CPU, RAM, etc), and no operating system will be able to save a user from themselves if the user wants to load up their system with a ton of junk.
It's also very difficult to compare the two perfectly, because it's more than just a couple of kernels. For example, you have things like the ext3/4 filesystems in Linux that rarely need defragmentation, compared to FAT or NTFS running on a mechanical HDD. However, since SSDs are mostly mainstream, you don't run into the same fragmentation-slowness on NTFS.
As far as the "the reason for it's slowness is not apparent" goes, yes, there's always a reason and it's almost always apparent if you know where to look. Not a lot of Windows users are that savvy, so there's still a lot of them that will fill up their systems with junk and not maintain things properly, and they'll end up seeing slownesss. That's why I said, if you know how to use either operating system well, then you won't see the slowness on them.