There's a problem when people who aren't very sensitive to latency and try and track it, and that is that their perception of what "instant" actually means is wrong. For them, instant is like, one second. For someone who cares about latency, instant is less than 10 milliseconds, or whatever threshold makes the difference between input and result imperceptible. People have the same problem judging video game framerates because they don't compare them back to back very often (there are perceptual differences between framerates of 30, 60, 120, 300, and 500, at the minimum, even on displays incapable of refreshing at these higher speeds), but you'll often hear people say that 60 fps is "silky smooth," which is not true whatsoever lol. If you haven't compared high and low latency directly next to each other then there are good odds that you don't know what it looks like. There was a twitter video from awhile ago that did a good job showing it off that's one of the replies to the OP. It's here: x.com/jmmv/status/1671670996921896960 Sorry if I'm too presumptuous, however; you might be completely correct and instant is instant in your case.

That's right, Windows 95 on a 600 MHz machine would be even snappier. However, later down the thread the author demonstrates Windows 2000: >For those thinking that the comparison was unfair, here is Windows 2000 on the same 600MHz machine. Both are from the same year, 1999. Note how the immediacy is still exactly the same and hadn’t been ruined yet. twitter.com/jmmv/status/167207367810287…

I agree that the human eye can see higher than 60Hz, especially in the peripheral vision where VR research shows we need at least 90Hz to not get sick and 120Hz works better. That said, there is something to be said for modern applications just running way below the limits of the refresh rate of our screens: twitter.com/jmmv/status/167167099692189…

I'm a fan of including benchmarks in CI pipelines. The Windows developers should have a historical record [1] of the performance degradation and be forced to look at it daily. [1]: x.com/jmmv/status/1671670996921896960

twitter.com/jmmv/status/167167099692189…

Try again. twitter.com/jmmv/status/167167099692189…

If you scroll down a little bit, he demos Windows 2000 on the same machine. twitter.com/jmmv/status/167207367810287…

That OS is five years old when that computer was made. Here's a much more apt comparison (still really snappy): twitter.com/jmmv/status/167207367810287…...

There was a recent thread with twitter clips showing old Windows vs. new Windows and how old Windows opened its programs noticeably faster. twitter.com/jmmv/status/167167099692189… news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36503983