Comment by mapontosevenths a day 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.
because the same thing applies to the new terminal, new settings app, new everything, it slowly adds up.
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
This might be the most unserious post I've ever seen on this site.
I noticed you weren't specific, because you know you're wrong.
EDIT - To clarify, since we're many levels deep now. I'm specifically talking about file explorer. After 40 years of windows we have an explorer.exe that is still inferior to midnight commander in many ways and uses more memory than Windows XP used in total just to show us the files.
Which ones? Name it and I'll show you how broken or weak it is compared to free alternatives.
Powertoys doesn't count anymore than just downloading a better file manager does. If I have to download something to replace or enhance it, you don't get credit.
Shouldn't you then also complain that explorer.exe is consuming 200MB when previous graphical desktops managed it in handfuls of kilobytes? Once again, why is 200MB OK, but 500MB, oh boy, that's just far too much. Couldn't that CAD software also make use of that other 200MB? Why not demand 20MB? Or 2MB? Or 20KB?
How much of that extra 300MB is paged out and not actually in active memory? On both systems, how much of the total is actually paged out and not in current system memory?
Are you trying to run a modern CAD system on a device with only 512MB of RAM or something?
What do I get out of it using double the memory? It has zero new features that a normal human would want. There's supposed to be a benefit in a cost/benefit comparison or you just get a divide by zero error.
See my other comment in this thread for a list of the many, many, many ways Microsoft continues to chose not to improve.
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.