4 ms·

they don't have the expertise? oh right, since it takes 10 seconds to load a right click context menu on the desktop in w11, no wonder /s

dboreham 2y ago
Only about 1s here. Wasn't the 10 second thing because it was looking for a now-absent floppy drive?
- kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
  It depends on how many shell extensions you have installed. How something so basic can drag a supercomputer to its knees is puzzling but MS never fails to deliver.
  - lifeisgood99 2y ago
    The simplest explanation would be that those shell extensions have poor performance.
    - userbinator 2y ago
      That's total BS, unless it's MS' own code in those extensions. Very typical of them to blame others when it's their own shit code that's causing the problem. As the other comment here notes, shell extensions have been around for a long time, and have never been a problem on older versions of Windows running on hardware that's much slower than what's available today.
      - jkrejcha 2y ago
        At least on Windows 10, which I still run, pretty much all of the "explorer is slow" issues are caused by shell extensions. The problem is a lot of the times they make poor assumptions (like "if a process is running it'll respond instantly") and honestly the tools that exist for determining what is at fault are... well effectively nonexistent[1]. This goes even for 1st party shell extensions. Part of the problem is these almost inherently violate what I consider one of the golden rules of GUI programming (don't block the UI thread) and there's a lot of historical reason for this, but it is often the cause of stuff like "explorer.exe uses 100% CPU" or "right-click takes 30 seconds" [1]: There's a SuperUser post in which the recommendation is effectively: manually binary search for culprit shell extensions yourself (https://superuser.com/a/577935/312312 https://superuser.com/a/577935/312312).
  - kmeisthax 2y ago
    One wonders if it would be possible to invoke those extensions asynchronously and put a little "loading" icon where any new shell items might appear. Or have a hard 2s timeout after which any latecomers get shoved behind another layer of menus.
    - kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
      They'd probably implement that by launching a new Electron process to keep up with the times.
    - saratogacx 2y ago
      If you turn off animations they ARE loading the menu asynchronously. You'll see a basic menu with the extensions added on as the menu continues to grow and reflow. It's worse if you right click on a file. It also DOES use "loading" placeholder text (e) added the bit about the loading text.
  - immibis 2y ago
    Its a disease all over software engineering. We add just enough layers of abstraction, but no more, to make it about ten times slower than a Commodore 64. The excuse is that it's to avoid having to think end-to-end as one human can't possibly think end-to-end these days. The reality is the reason they can't is because of all these useless indirection layers in the middle and if those were deleted, they could.
  - Dwedit 2y ago
    The worst is if you have a registered Shell Extension that lives on a network drive (true story).
- rep_lodsb 2y ago
  That's still billions of CPU instructions being run. If you spent the rest of your life locked in some Tibetan monastery, going through all the steps by hand on paper, you wouldn't even get 1% of the way to rendering this single context menu. The amount of bloat in modern software is simply obscene.
- babypuncher 2y ago
  1 second is still an order of magnitude too long. Windows XP context menus were much snappier, on much weaker hardware. And XP was rather notorious for being bloated and slow at the time of its release... Right clicks on my MacBook are perceptually instantaneous.
- petahpintah 2y ago
  [flagged]
- lousken 1y ago
  new w11 context menu takes "only" 5 seconds, old one 2x much, but i wouldn't call that improvement - and yea, i had some extras there, but didn't bother to troubleshoot, i was on 11 for a day before switching to linux
Yakomonaketo 2y ago
I think it's mostly because of the many registry entries like context shell handlers
- hulitu 2y ago
  > I think it's mostly because of the many registry entries like context shell handlers Win 11 is _slow_. 10 times slower as Win10

dboreham 2y ago

Only about 1s here. Wasn't the 10 second thing because it was looking for a now-absent floppy drive?

kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
It depends on how many shell extensions you have installed. How something so basic can drag a supercomputer to its knees is puzzling but MS never fails to deliver.
- lifeisgood99 2y ago
  The simplest explanation would be that those shell extensions have poor performance.
  - userbinator 2y ago
    That's total BS, unless it's MS' own code in those extensions. Very typical of them to blame others when it's their own shit code that's causing the problem. As the other comment here notes, shell extensions have been around for a long time, and have never been a problem on older versions of Windows running on hardware that's much slower than what's available today.
    - jkrejcha 2y ago
      At least on Windows 10, which I still run, pretty much all of the "explorer is slow" issues are caused by shell extensions. The problem is a lot of the times they make poor assumptions (like "if a process is running it'll respond instantly") and honestly the tools that exist for determining what is at fault are... well effectively nonexistent[1]. This goes even for 1st party shell extensions. Part of the problem is these almost inherently violate what I consider one of the golden rules of GUI programming (don't block the UI thread) and there's a lot of historical reason for this, but it is often the cause of stuff like "explorer.exe uses 100% CPU" or "right-click takes 30 seconds" [1]: There's a SuperUser post in which the recommendation is effectively: manually binary search for culprit shell extensions yourself (https://superuser.com/a/577935/312312 https://superuser.com/a/577935/312312).
- kmeisthax 2y ago
  One wonders if it would be possible to invoke those extensions asynchronously and put a little "loading" icon where any new shell items might appear. Or have a hard 2s timeout after which any latecomers get shoved behind another layer of menus.
  - kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
    They'd probably implement that by launching a new Electron process to keep up with the times.
  - saratogacx 2y ago
    If you turn off animations they ARE loading the menu asynchronously. You'll see a basic menu with the extensions added on as the menu continues to grow and reflow. It's worse if you right click on a file. It also DOES use "loading" placeholder text (e) added the bit about the loading text.
- immibis 2y ago
  Its a disease all over software engineering. We add just enough layers of abstraction, but no more, to make it about ten times slower than a Commodore 64. The excuse is that it's to avoid having to think end-to-end as one human can't possibly think end-to-end these days. The reality is the reason they can't is because of all these useless indirection layers in the middle and if those were deleted, they could.
- Dwedit 2y ago
  The worst is if you have a registered Shell Extension that lives on a network drive (true story).
rep_lodsb 2y ago
That's still billions of CPU instructions being run. If you spent the rest of your life locked in some Tibetan monastery, going through all the steps by hand on paper, you wouldn't even get 1% of the way to rendering this single context menu. The amount of bloat in modern software is simply obscene.
babypuncher 2y ago
1 second is still an order of magnitude too long. Windows XP context menus were much snappier, on much weaker hardware. And XP was rather notorious for being bloated and slow at the time of its release... Right clicks on my MacBook are perceptually instantaneous.
petahpintah 2y ago
[flagged]
lousken 1y ago
new w11 context menu takes "only" 5 seconds, old one 2x much, but i wouldn't call that improvement - and yea, i had some extras there, but didn't bother to troubleshoot, i was on 11 for a day before switching to linux

Yakomonaketo 2y ago

I think it's mostly because of the many registry entries like context shell handlers

hulitu 2y ago
> I think it's mostly because of the many registry entries like context shell handlers Win 11 is _slow_. 10 times slower as Win10