Comment by hulitu
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
I was speaking specifically about the file explorer in this context, though you'd have to go back to the grandparent post at least to see that.
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?