Coffeehouse Thread

10 posts

How long does it take for Explorer to open for you?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    androidi

    I'm talking about the explorer you get from Win+E (not IE).

    Do this:

    1. Press Win+E on Vista
    2. Press Win+E on XP or 2003
    3. Repeat both 10 times to be sure.

    Ideally clean configurations straight from when first booted to desktop after setup to be sure it's not effect from some craplet hooks.


    My findings under the Ideal situation (Clean Windows 2003 and Vista) on the same hardware:

    Vista is around 5-10x slower. It takes around 200-400 ms compared to < 50 ms on 2003 SP2.


    One more thing: I repeated this on 4 year old P4 2,4. The P4 was faster with non-clean 2003 than clean Vista on a Core 2 Duo with same frequency.

    Conclusion: Upgrading from your old P4/XP to C2D/Vista might actually slow you down! Expressionless (the OS is slowing you that is)



  • User profile image
    Lloyd_Humph

    1 to open, 2 to compose itself/load.

    So three seconds.

    If Blackberrys are addictive cellphones, Channel9 is the ultimate addictive website.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    androidi

    I'd like to add that the "clean" means no network, inbox display driver (whql from Windows disc) and no CD or floppy or removable devices inserted or attached. Obviously no 3rd party anything installed.

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    androidi wrote:
    Vista is around 5-10x slower. It takes around 200-400 ms compared to < 50 ms on 2003 SP2.

    How are you measuring this? I can't measure that accurately just by performing the steps you described.

    For me, the experience is "instant". The Aero fade-in effect starts immediately when I press Win-E, and when it's finished, the explorer window is ready, all drives are there etc. This takes only a fraction of a second, I can't tell how long a fraction.

    Sometimes if my external HDD has gone into stand by it takes longer since it'll wait for it to come back up.

    EDIT: And this is not on a clean Vista either; it's on a 5 months old Vista installation which has all kinds of stuff, including AV (OneCare 2.0 beta), installed.

  • User profile image
    androidi

    Sven Groot wrote:
    
    androidi wrote:
    Vista is around 5-10x slower. It takes around 200-400 ms compared to < 50 ms on 2003 SP2.

    How are you measuring this?


    I just noticed the 2003 I use for comparison doesn't have any fades enabled by default.

    However enabling all effects including fades on this 2003 doesn't change the behaviour of Win+E, it still pops up instantly without fades.

    I'll need to see if disabling fades has reduces the delay but I doubt it as there's simply a slight lag in Vista before anything appears or starts fading etc.

    Measurement: years of shooting railgun in Quake and you get a good feeling on what is 10 ms, 30 ms, 60.. etc lag as you don't hit if you're predicting it wrong.

    But will get back to this if disabling fade doesn't make it as fast...

  • User profile image
    Jhaks

    Your conclusion that Vista is slowing you down based on millisecond differences in opening explorer is pretty far fetched.  You are talking about opening Explorer and milliseconds; not to mention you are doing this by intuition.  If you want to measure performance then use other benchmarks.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Jhaks wrote:
    Your conclusion that Vista is slowing you down based on millisecond differences in opening explorer is pretty far fetched.  You are talking about opening Explorer and milliseconds; not to mention you are doing this by intuition.  If you want to measure performance then use other benchmarks.


    Here's something kinda related:

    If you hit "Pause" in Visual Studio whilst running a WinForms app, Explorer refuses to open any new windows, even though you can navigate fine in existing windows.

  • User profile image
    SlackmasterK

    1.5 seconds under load. Under a second if I recently loaded another Explorer window. XP system installed in Feb '07 with 37 processes running and a mere Gig of RAM.

  • User profile image
    androidi

    Jhaks wrote:
    Your conclusion that Vista is slowing you down based on millisecond differences in opening explorer is pretty far fetched.  You are talking about opening Explorer and milliseconds; not to mention you are doing this by intuition.  If you want to measure performance then use other benchmarks.


    Here's the premise: You update a 4 year old computer to much faster one.. And a basic thing like this is now slower than before. (Note I tried both OS also on the same HW thus finding the issue is a software not hardware one)

    Given this and the fact that MS has spent a lot of money and effort in improving standby resume times and cold boot times (read more on WHDC etc) and prodding hw partners to fix their drivers so they don't create these one second delays in the startup process you'd expect that MS itself doesn't add up such delays!

    How often we boot the computer again? Not that often. How often you open explorer? I don't know about you but if I multiply the times I open explorer with the delay it's now more time lost in waiting for Explorer that the one boot in a day that MS managed to shave from 30 seconds to 15 or such.


    Benchmarks: Did you know some respectable storage sites have used the boot time as one benchmark among others? Well the boot time is quite acceptable now since it's a rare event.

    Technical: The explorer is constantly open and in memory if you happen to look in the task manager sometimes, there's absolutely zero excuse for it to take more time to open than 100 ms that it normally takes. Especially if there hasn't been memory pressure to let it get paged.

    BTW. Note I said I repeated 10 times in the original post (to make sure everything is in memory and to get a good feeling on the timing). So what was the far fetched part as I'm not seeing it?

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    Well, at best you can conclude that Vista's explorer is slower, that doesn't say anything about the rest of it.

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.