I’m no programmer nor coder or such, I call myself advanced user only.
If having part of an app (I refer app as OS here, and start menu as part of an OS) to spike CPU/memory usage, does that means that part is not being used without being called? and leaves resources fully free? Sure big spike happen when the sub-part is called, but without being called?
IF part of an app is not even loaded while not used, isn’t that actually good? I mean, depends how often that app part is called and have to load from the void.
I imagine that could be better than having unused part loaded all the time, wasting the resources?
Also, I totally skip part of poorly coded compared to old smooth and optimized code.
Yes, all things being equal, your understanding is valid. But let’s do a car comparison.
You have your current car. It burns a little gas running idle, and much more when you’re using the gas pedal to accelerate.
Now you buy a new, Windows 11 car, and it not only burns more gas idling, but when you accelerate it sucks down so much gas you can watch the gas meter go down.
The outrage is that the OS is so badly designed and implemented, something you do a lot causes everything else on your computer to slow down, and costs you extra in your electricity bill, because it is needlessly consuming irrationally huge amounts of CPU power to open a menu.
Any normal UI framework will unload UI elements when they’re not shown. Yes, that means a CPU/memory spike is normal. But on a modern PC, that spike should be much lower than even 1%, which is why you can’t typically see it.
Well, yes, in some cases, but the start menu is something you interact with very often. The average user (and I mean office worker in their 40s)doesn’t even pin items to the taskbar. As such, the main way to open apps is through the start menu. Think about this way. In this situation on a laptop, you either save ram or battery. Constant cpu spikes aren’t good for energy efficiency. This also means hogging your ssd, which might be an issue in specific situations. On the other side, keeping the start menu fully in ram could be perceived as a waste, it really depends on how often you use the start menu and how much you value energy efficiency.
It’s also pretty common to type Win + NameOfProgram + Enter, which necessarily opens the start menu and spikes the darn CPU. This has been a very common way to interact with the OS since Vista, and, as with so many other things in Microsoft land, has gotten worse.
WindowsKey -> “fire” -> Enter ==> Firefox is now open!
Power button is a perfectly valid way to turn off a modern PC. They don’t kill power the way they used to, they send a signal to the PC to shut itself down. Exactly the same as using the start menu.
Looks like my understanding is valid - it is situational.
With a pointing to, I’ve noted most office workers do have apps pinned, by themselves or IT guy. Often even too many, like 3-4 web browsers lol. Also they rarely work on laptops, but office PCs. At least my country (Europe).
Also, could guess MS or most big tech companies may want users to make common parts used faster, to make them buy new faster :giggle:.
The crux of the problem is that clicking Start should display a low-resolution background image and 29 low-resolution icons, with some text and links. Bringing it to life should load a couple hundred k of disk into RAM and be imperceptible to the naked eye on the task manager.
My 12th-gen, 14-core processor that boosts to 3.5GHz should be able to do all that many hundreds of times a second without any serious stress.
Yet, I can click the start icon repeatedly by hand and hold my computer in excess of 40%
It’s not a direct issue, and any modern computer will have no problem handling the load, but it calls out Win11 for attention to detail problems.
I’m no programmer nor coder or such, I call myself advanced user only.
If having part of an app (I refer app as OS here, and start menu as part of an OS) to spike CPU/memory usage, does that means that part is not being used without being called? and leaves resources fully free? Sure big spike happen when the sub-part is called, but without being called?
IF part of an app is not even loaded while not used, isn’t that actually good? I mean, depends how often that app part is called and have to load from the void.
I imagine that could be better than having unused part loaded all the time, wasting the resources?
Also, I totally skip part of poorly coded compared to old smooth and optimized code.
Yes, all things being equal, your understanding is valid. But let’s do a car comparison.
You have your current car. It burns a little gas running idle, and much more when you’re using the gas pedal to accelerate.
Now you buy a new, Windows 11 car, and it not only burns more gas idling, but when you accelerate it sucks down so much gas you can watch the gas meter go down.
The outrage is that the OS is so badly designed and implemented, something you do a lot causes everything else on your computer to slow down, and costs you extra in your electricity bill, because it is needlessly consuming irrationally huge amounts of CPU power to open a menu.
Any normal UI framework will unload UI elements when they’re not shown. Yes, that means a CPU/memory spike is normal. But on a modern PC, that spike should be much lower than even 1%, which is why you can’t typically see it.
deleted by creator
Well, yes, in some cases, but the start menu is something you interact with very often. The average user (and I mean office worker in their 40s)doesn’t even pin items to the taskbar. As such, the main way to open apps is through the start menu. Think about this way. In this situation on a laptop, you either save ram or battery. Constant cpu spikes aren’t good for energy efficiency. This also means hogging your ssd, which might be an issue in specific situations. On the other side, keeping the start menu fully in ram could be perceived as a waste, it really depends on how often you use the start menu and how much you value energy efficiency.
It’s also pretty common to type Win + NameOfProgram + Enter, which necessarily opens the start menu and spikes the darn CPU. This has been a very common way to interact with the OS since Vista, and, as with so many other things in Microsoft land, has gotten worse.
WindowsKey -> “fire” -> Enter ==> Firefox is now open!
I’ve been trying to help my parents use Windows since the '90s. They still to this day have no idea what the Start menu is.
Quality teacher!
but, how do they turn PCs off? win-d alt-f4? think win-d was not a thing in early windows… please don’t say by power button.
They never turn them off.
Power button is a perfectly valid way to turn off a modern PC. They don’t kill power the way they used to, they send a signal to the PC to shut itself down. Exactly the same as using the start menu.
Sure, the keyword is “modern” though we used to talk of 90s’.
Much thx for explanation,
Looks like my understanding is valid - it is situational.
With a pointing to, I’ve noted most office workers do have apps pinned, by themselves or IT guy. Often even too many, like 3-4 web browsers lol. Also they rarely work on laptops, but office PCs. At least my country (Europe).
Also, could guess MS or most big tech companies may want users to make common parts used faster, to make them buy new faster :giggle:.
In case of the start menu, the sensible thing would be to optimize it sufficiently so that it doesn’t hurt being kept ready constantly.
The crux of the problem is that clicking Start should display a low-resolution background image and 29 low-resolution icons, with some text and links. Bringing it to life should load a couple hundred k of disk into RAM and be imperceptible to the naked eye on the task manager.
My 12th-gen, 14-core processor that boosts to 3.5GHz should be able to do all that many hundreds of times a second without any serious stress.
Yet, I can click the start icon repeatedly by hand and hold my computer in excess of 40%
It’s not a direct issue, and any modern computer will have no problem handling the load, but it calls out Win11 for attention to detail problems.
Reasonably advanced user in my 30s, I interact with it vs pinned icons because I don’t like taking my fingers off the keyboard.