I used Linux Mint for both systems and my install was less than a month old and I keep the system lean with little added software so I doubt that was the cause. Both of our ssd are brand new and mine is an nvme drive while his is the standard sata so again, mine should at least feel faster but doesn't.
i would run an ssd benchmark on both system and compare. Slow loading files usually hint at an IO issue and not CPU performance. Also i previously missed the part you only have 1 RAm stick so single.channel. If your friend has dual-channel that could explain the perceived slowness.
As for sata vs nvme this isn't surprising. you won't feel a difference doing just consumer stuff like web browsing, file browsing and such. It would matter if you are running database loads or other heavy IO. Most ssds are rather "slow" at consumer workloads with Quedepth = 1.
See the recent
Toshiba ssd review.
4k with QD = 1:
If you want optimum client performance, get an optane drive. (But i doubt in real-life you would actually notice much of a difference). point is ssds at this load are much slower than their advertised speed and it doesn't matter if it's sata or nvme.
Further down on that review is a chart on which you can see performance with increasing Queue Depth. Notice again, flash ssds only reach their high speeds with high QD, which you will never really have on a desktop.
EDIT:
And 1 month can be plenty to reach steady state. it doesn't matter if you keep your system clean. For example web browser will cache stuff, do quiet some writes to the drive. Each write will internally in the drive go to a different block so that you will reach steady-state rather quickly.
EDIT2:
How big is your friends ssd? how much free space do you have?
512Gb drives are usually faster than 256 because they have all channels populated. Also a filled up drive will get a lot slower and if you are 90% full, it will have a large impact on speed.