I'm not really trying to focus on torrenting in general, it was just an example derived from what was being limited at a time. I'm referring to the general way windows limits resources for non C applications that aren't focus. You wouldn't notice this with 50 Mb of well seeded saturation as that's isn't really taxing on even low end systems, assuming they have storage capable of handling all the pieces. There is a point however, especially where the bottleneck is in connection management, where overall torrent throughput can be limited by hardware, or in my case a grubby O.S overriding my decisions on what amount of hardware resources a program is allowed to use, just because I'm not staring at it. I'm not gonna try Vuze, because I'm not really into adware, but anything written in Java, like Vuze, would have this issue under certain conditions. Game with VS requirements and Sony Vegas are also C based, so that's not really something you can test it with. Try using vuze to connect to enough peers where the system resources allocated for connectivity becomes important, and open a bunch of tabs in chrome, you'll likely see what I mean. Deluge is written in C++, and is more or less immune to my complaint, so there are clients I can use (I know, I said all of them, I guess I meant all the ones I actually want to use) but deluge has it's own issues which I'm not bringing up here because it's free, and not serious like say for instance a major problem of 13 years, that's only gotten considerably worse, with my friggin paid for O.S

   I'll save you trouble of testing, this isn't really a debatable thing, Microsoft designed versions of windows made after XP to trim the working set of minimized applications. There used to be articles in the MS knowledge base explaining it in further detail, but it wasn't really a big deal in the past. Windows 10 however, seems to exaggerate this effect to an even higher degree, now cutting down more than a few percent and incorporating cursor and pointer postilion into the mix. The thing is, in the past, this was a minute effect in most cases, any real degradation in background performance was mostly due to programs with older instances of memory consumption being handed off to the PF, something that is common to PC operations system in general and was needed to some extent when there often wasn't enough RAM in oldr machines to go around. This issue however, is also different from that behavior. It's as if the working set 'trim' is now a full on buzz cut. Presumably, this style of resource management is a part of the design MS uses to expand compatibility with potato grade hardware. This is probably one of the reasons you can run it on windows 95 era machines, because it can, and almost always does, put an arrow in the knee of any non C app that isn't prime time, regardless of the system resources that would be available for that app to use. What I'm trying to find, is a way to turn that behavior off without extra software designed for this 'feature' from the vista era, that essentially hard locks the resources for a program at a specified state. I would even go that far, but I'm trying to find a way to change it in windows, so I don't have yet another unwanted application running in an O.S I really don't want. The thing where Microsoft forces the use of "antivirus" *cough spyware* and rarely useful "updates" that also happen to force transmission of the findings of said "antivirus" *cough-it's f***ing spyware-cough*, already fills that role quite well. Of course, It stands to reason that any process minimized could potentially require slightly less resources when minimized as the GUI isn't actively being rendered, and that native language apps will 'naturally' have better resource allocation to some extent, but that's not what I'm describing here. What I was doing a terrible job at describing is a significant drop in the performance of just about any non C program, unless it is the active window with user input. This is something that would make alot of sense if the overall resources of the machine were taken into account before implementing, however, when applied to a machine with excessive resources, it just ends up crippling a desktop system designed for intensive multitasking performance. Also, while C++ programs aren't affected as much, or at all, due to native language implementations, this clearly goes beyond native code effects and is clearly implemented as a 'feature' for non native script. Again, this phenomena has been acknowledged by MS, and can be directly attributed to the act of changing focus of programs written in other languages than C++.  Because of this seemingly built-in nature, I'm starting to worry there is no way, either by setting or registry key, to change this and that MS doesn't care how much time money or effort some people put into their home machines, so long as they have a coverall product with which they can push their perverse O.S subscription model on every x86 machine in existence. What's that you say? Microsoft doesn't charge subscriptions for home users? Anyone running non enterprise editions who thinks that that the subscription model won't trickle down to them, had better think long and hard about what Microsoft has really amounted to in recent years. Just ask people like Jerry Berg (Barnacules), who devoted years and years of their lives to a company that rewarded them for their excellent service and astounding profits, by having them train their replacements, mostly foreign h1-b types that wouldn't ask questions when it came time to bend over the very community that made their brand, customer and employee alike. While you're at it, ask yourself what the point of getting people used to forced updates and "antivirus" would be, if they weren't planning on having, say, a quarter billion service contracts in the near future, all of which would be impossible to maintain without said intrusions. Oh, and don't even get me started on information hungry government that requires them to engineer their 1984 garbage into every computer they are installed on, if they want to maintain a business model where they don't also make the hardware their O.S ships on.

Perhaps I'm being to hard on ol' MS here. It is possible that I'm hating on MS for a situation I'm imagining, that it's not some big subscription conspiracy, and that it's just how non C++ programs work in Windows by a non nefarious design nature. Maybe there isn't a ploy to make one, coverall version of windows that implements performance hits for the sake of running on everything, but also benefits the company by being able to group the exact same software into different price editions. Maybe MS wouldn't use an even scummier form of price differentiation than even Apple. A deplorable form of price differentiation, where, instead of charging you more for the same product with more storage built-in, they charge you more for the privilege of using the same product with the better hardware you already paid for, even though that higher tier product has absolutely no optimization for said hardware, and in this case, goes as far as to actually nullify some of it, just so they can also take the poor peoples money without actually having to change anything. Yeah, that doesn't sound like something our friends at MS have done in the past, or would ever do in the future, especially not in a new and exciting way that enables them to make a monthly financial exploitation, and almost realtime privacy exploitation of just about every x86 personal computer on earth. Right? No appeal for them in that concept whatsoever. 

It's sad to say, but at this point, it would be nice if I could just pay more to eliminate this crap, but justifying the cost of an even higher tier home version specifically for performance computers (i.e what's supposed to exist already) would involve them actually optimizing a home version for something other than the consumers wallet size.