Starting very slowly...

[FCrane]

Hi!

Why is XYplorer starting so slowly??? On a fairly fast system, it takes up to 2 seconds until the window is visible (and usable), whereas Windows Explorer opens in less than 0,3 seconds.

Loadtimes doesn't show anything unusual:

0 ms: 387 ms - Start Load
387 ms: 12 ms - Init Language
399 ms: 73 ms - Load Language
472 ms: 10 ms - Load Settings
482 ms: 21 ms - Init Custom File Icons
503 ms: 70 ms - Init Controls
573 ms: 256 ms - Init Graphics
829 ms: 55 ms - Init Tabs
884 ms: 126 ms - Create Info Panel
1 010 ms: 190 ms - Set Interface Font
1 200 ms: 50 ms - Init Panes
1 263 ms: 11 ms - Tab Icons
1 277 ms: 84 ms - Go Start Path Expanded: C:\
1 364 ms: 12 ms - Init UDC and KS
1 378 ms: 49 ms - Layout Bars
1 435 ms: 10 ms - Layout Status Bar
1 445 ms: 95 ms - --- Show Window ---
1 548 ms: 45 ms - List 1 Browse: C:\
1 599 ms: 13 ms - List 2 Browse: C:\
1 612 ms: 65 ms - XY64 Init
1 682 ms: 47 ms - Tree Check Subfolders Exist Late
1 729 ms: - Load Done

Seems all this "Init" stuff takes eternally... This is really annoying and that's why I can not use it as Explorer replacement - this sluggishness and waiting drives me crazy and is an absolute no-go for a file explorer!

Why can't XYplorer at least stay in memory when loaded once so all this init stuff can be skipped? I tried "minimize on close" which does seem to keep this one window in memory, but opening any other window (I need separate windows for each folder, so "multi-instance" seems to be needed) is terribly slow again...

I would not mind the first startup to be slow, but opening any subsequent folder in a separate window MUST be fast, or the whole thing is unusable...

Please FINALLY after 25 painfully slow major versions, can't this be fixed?

[admin]

This is not normal. I have a fairly slow system and startup with a complex configuration takes about 600ms.

[FCrane]

This is not normal. I have a fairly slow system and startup with a complex configuration takes about 600ms.

600 ms would still be much too slow! File Explorer windows must open "immediately" (like Windows Explorer) or otherwise the whole system will feel slow and sluggish. Unacceptable...

[eil]

600 ms would still be much too slow!

Half second is "much too slow" for you?! May it happen you are used to quantum computer that opens file manager a day in advance before you will want it?..

[FCrane]

Half second is "much too slow" for you?! May it happen you are used to quantum computer that opens file manager a day in advance before you will want it?..

Each and every cheap Windows machine today opens Explorer windows "instantly", without noticeable delay. Maybe 50 ms or let's say 100 ms is fast enough to be perceived as "instant". Anything longer is "slow" and "sluggish" - at least for people with normal perception.

I open hundreds of Explorer windows each day, so waiting up to one second every time wastes a considerable amount of my precious time - obviously just like posting here, because nobody seems to want to hear the obvious...

Again: all professional programs with noticeable initialization time that need to be opened frequently have an option to stay in memory, to avoid multiple initialization delays (e.g. Directory Opus). I do not understand why XYplorer (after 25 major versions!) still needs to initialize everything each time it opens a new window (especially when it so slow doing that). This is bad coding and can easily be avoided...

[RalphM]

I open hundreds of Explorer windows each day...

The big question is why?
Have you ever looked into the various ways (i.e. tabs, tabsets, dual pane, session manager script) to reduce this number?
I'm not saying this works for everyone but ever since I discovered tabsets, my one XY session stays open all the time and I just switch between different tabsets.

[eil]

Maybe 50 ms or let's say 100 ms is fast enough to be perceived as "instant". Anything longer is "slow" and "sluggish" - at least for people with normal perception.

Well, just as i presumed, a quantum computer user detected, who not only able to notice half second delay, but even 100ms delay and difference with 50ms. (which is faster than one can wink or double-click mouse button for opening smth)
For pity i can't give you any solution, as i'm not an owner of some "each and every cheap machine"(with some quad core and double digit ram). Plus, i don't know why opening XY hundreds times per day, 'cause i do it only once and it stays up till PC shut down, which sometimes happens only after few days.(probably that's why i never needed to calculate ms delays)

[Borut]

There must be a very special reason for OP to need separate instances of XY. Similarly to RalphM and eil, I start XY more or less once in several days (apart from updating to the new subversion, or a rare crash) and use tabsets extensively, having a logical "project" per pane. Even so I am probably loading tabsets many many times a day (using my own script, which is here somewhere, but there are a few other very good ones around here). As I chose XY so many years ago (I'd rather not think about how many) the tabset functionality was maybe even not yet out (but on the Don's ToDo list - not sure any more), but that functionality was "the thing" for me. Subjectively, the use of XY freed months of my life for other things. So, for my way of using XY, the initialization time, even the time of the first network access (server scanning, when not cashed) do not play any role at all.

[FCrane]

Well, just as i presumed, a quantum computer user detected, who not only able to notice half second delay, but even 100ms delay and difference with 50ms.

Yeah, we mock the things we don't understand, don't we? Maybe you can just accept that everybody's workflow and way of organizing workspaces is different and so it can be beneficial (or necessary) that Explorer windows open fast... I like to keep my desktop tidy and therefore I open Explorer windows only when needed and close them immediately after. But that can happen many times a day. Probably I've just not yet understood that your way of doing things is the only acceptable and reasonable way...

Anyway, I'm a software developer myself and therefore I do know what can be done and what can't be done... And even looking at your competition we can see that it can be done better (or at least faster).

So you can continue to make fun of this, try to find excuses why it's not necessary to make it faster, claim it's lightning fast (or at least fast enough for everybody) anyway, suggest (pointless) work-arounds, ask the user to adapt to the program instead of serving his needs, etc. and loose a lot of customers (most do not bother to notify the developers about a slow program, but simply delete it and move on), or you can invest half a day to implement a better startup-strategy for multiple instances and increase the startup speed 10x... But seeing the ignorance here I doubt that this will happen in the next 1000 versions or so ;-)

Regards!