Comment by vel0city

Comment by vel0city a day 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 a day ago

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

Reply View 0 replies

mapontosevenths 21 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

Reply View 12 replies

thesuitonym 20 hours ago

This might be the most unserious post I've ever seen on this site.

Reply View | 3 replies
- mapontosevenths 18 hours ago
  
  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.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  vel0city 17 hours ago
  
  > just to show us the files.
  This is incorrect. explorer.exe does more than just "show us the files", it is essentially the entire desktop environment. The taskbar, the start menu, file explorer windows, all the notification area, the quick settings area, etc. are all "explorer.exe".
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  DANmode 3 hours ago
  
  But it was that ten years ago, too,
  to bring us back to the original conversation.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
vel0city 21 hours ago

A number of those features do exist in Explorer, a number can be trivially added with PowerToys, but I take it you're not actually interested in truth or reality.

Reply View | 7 replies
- mapontosevenths 18 hours ago
  
  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.
  
  Reply View | 6 replies
  
  vel0city 17 hours ago
  
  And the goalposts just keep moving...
  > Name it and I'll show you how broken or weak it is compared to free alternatives
  We've now gone from "these features can't possibly ever exist because M$ so bad" to "they're not the absolute best possible implementation that could ever exist". I'm sure you'll continue to move the goalposts.
  But sure, I'll name a few.
  Only having limited ZIP support for archives. Its not true, it supports tar and 7z archives natively now as well, supporting a number of different compression formats including Zstandard and xz. Are there other compression utilities out there that support more? Sure. But saying it only has limited zip support and that's it is just a lie.
  File versioning? File History has been a feature since Windows 8.
  I just tested and was able to navigate to any part of the File Explorer window with nothing but a keyboard. I've used it a number of times with only a keyboard, but I wasn't sure that every thing was selectable. But yes, can confirm, you can use the whole thing with only a keyboard.
  A Preview Pane? Really? Yes, File Explorer has a preview pane. Go to View > Preview Pane. This one really just gets me though. Are you truly this ignorant of extremely basic obvious features, or are you just making things up to complain about?
  
  Reply View | 5 replies

hulitu a day 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.

Reply View 8 replies

vel0city a day ago

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?

Reply View | 7 replies
- mapontosevenths 21 hours ago
  
  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.
  
  Reply View | 6 replies
  
  [removed] 19 hours ago
  
  [deleted]
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
  
  vel0city 21 hours ago
  
  There's a number of new features to the Windows desktop experience, I'm not really interested in reenumerating all of Microsoft's marketing here.
  Personally I find the Windows 11 desktop experience far better than 10, despite it possibly using 1% more of my system memory at peak times.
  And FWIW, on my Windows 11 desktop explorer.exe is using 110MB, not even 200MB.
  
  Reply View | 4 replies