Comment by kachapopopow

Comment by kachapopopow a day ago

27 replies

it's also using the exact same kernel, the only difference is explorer.exe and default apps funny enough. But I have to admit that the file explorer (not to be confused with explorer.exe the desktop), is nicer with the new tab functionality.

mapontosevenths 21 hours ago

I know it's subjective, but I care less about the tabs and more about the missing right click options. I'm also annoyed that 11's explorer uses literally double the memory to perform the same function with less options.

I know you can add the missing right click options back. I just shouldn't have to.

  • mapontosevenths 21 hours ago

    Just to double check... I loaded the same folder in Windows 10 IOT LTSC and Windows 11 Pro retail. Explorer.exe used ~500Mb peak working memory. In Windows 10 it was less than 200Mb. In windows 10 it also loaded about 2x faster, despite the system I'm using being objectively worse hardware in every single measurable way.

    With Windows 11 you get less, and pay more.

    • vel0city 21 hours ago

      Oh no, its going to use 1.8% more of my system's memory, what a nightmare, totally unusable.

      Why is 200MB acceptable but peaking to 500MB just totally unacceptable and problematic? The original Macintosh had a graphical desktop with 128KB of RAM, shouldn't anything more than 50KB be unacceptable?

      EDIT: Just checked on a couple of my Windows 11 machines, all of them have Explorer using <200MB of memory. So no, explorer.exe isn't necessarily using 500MB of memory. Something else is going on with that system.

      • kachapopopow 20 hours ago

        because the same thing applies to the new terminal, new settings app, new everything, it slowly adds up.

      • mapontosevenths 20 hours ago

        Keep in mind that explorer now uses 100% more resources than it did 5 years ago, but it still can not do basic things that Mac and open source competitors can do. It's almost 40 years old, and doesn't really do more than it did back then.

        I don't think MS cares to be competitive at all. Here is a small list of things other file managers can do that MS would never dream of (because it would require effort):

        * Batch rename files

        * File metadata/tag support

        * Sessions/saved layouts (sort of exists in a half finished state)

        * Fish/SSH Support

        * Builtin hash/checksum support

        * Native dual pane views

        * Customizable keyboard shortcuts

        * Built-in terminal

        * Handle compressed files (outside limited zip compatibility)

        * Search with advanced features (offers limited support)

        * File versioning

        * The ability to navigate entirely with the keyboard

        * File transfer queue management (think Terracopy)

        * Builtin Compare/Sync

        * A Preview Pane

        * User adjustable UI

        * etc

      • hulitu 20 hours ago

        > Why is 200MB acceptable but peaking to 500MB just totally unacceptable and problematic?

        Because only 200MB are reserved for this application. /s

        That 300MB may be taken from another app (CAD) which needs it badly.

  • kachapopopow 20 hours ago

    the stupid right click menu is a single registry key (and i think it's also in settings now), but yah dumb new defaults.