4 ms·

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 2

by vel0city 11mo 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?

mapontosevenths 11mo 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.
- vel0city 11mo 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.
  - mapontosevenths 11mo 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. 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.
    - vel0city 11mo ago
      You were speaking of explorer.exe's memory usage. That includes practically all the desktop experience. The right click menu, the desktop, the taskbar, the start menu, and more. Kill the process and see what all disappears. So no, you weren't speaking specifically about the file explorer, though it would take having some knowledge to understand that.
      - mapontosevenths 11mo ago
        > So no, you weren't speaking specifically about the file explorer, though it would take having some knowledge to understand that. Don't blame me if the architecture stinks. The fact is it's unnecessarily large, complex, and wasteful of resources isn't the consumers fault. Deciding to use a single monolithic block of whack code that uses all my memory instead of separating those functions wasn't my choice and I'm not gonna change my expectations to suit that weird decision.
        vel0city 11mo ago
        You don't have any idea of what it actually is or what its actually doing but you're 100% certain its overly large, complex, and wasteful. Incredible. And as mentioned, on my other Win11 machines I couldn't get explorer.exe to use more than ~200MB, with most of its usage around 110-130MB. I think you've got something else going on there, potentially lots of other 3rd party applications hooked into it causing excessive memory usage. Win11 doesn't inherently use 500MB of memory compared to Win10 only using a bit under 200MB. That's something with your machines.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]

mapontosevenths 11mo 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.

vel0city 11mo 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.
- mapontosevenths 11mo 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. 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.
  - vel0city 11mo ago
    You were speaking of explorer.exe's memory usage. That includes practically all the desktop experience. The right click menu, the desktop, the taskbar, the start menu, and more. Kill the process and see what all disappears. So no, you weren't speaking specifically about the file explorer, though it would take having some knowledge to understand that.
    - mapontosevenths 11mo ago
      > So no, you weren't speaking specifically about the file explorer, though it would take having some knowledge to understand that. Don't blame me if the architecture stinks. The fact is it's unnecessarily large, complex, and wasteful of resources isn't the consumers fault. Deciding to use a single monolithic block of whack code that uses all my memory instead of separating those functions wasn't my choice and I'm not gonna change my expectations to suit that weird decision.
      - vel0city 11mo ago
        You don't have any idea of what it actually is or what its actually doing but you're 100% certain its overly large, complex, and wasteful. Incredible. And as mentioned, on my other Win11 machines I couldn't get explorer.exe to use more than ~200MB, with most of its usage around 110-130MB. I think you've got something else going on there, potentially lots of other 3rd party applications hooked into it causing excessive memory usage. Win11 doesn't inherently use 500MB of memory compared to Win10 only using a bit under 200MB. That's something with your machines.
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]