alt Hacker NewsOh 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.
Replies
because the same thing applies to the new terminal, new settings app, new everything, it slowly adds up.
> 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.
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