Yeah. 60% more responsive for something infamous for taking multiple seconds to launch is depressingly bad. That’s “not even trying” levels of improvement.
The start menu should open essentially instantly (excluding optional animations) – 100 ms is good, 200 ms is somewhat adequate. They’re aiming for somewhere between 400 and 1200 ms.
I hope for them that they underpromise and overdeliver because this does not inspire confidence.
Uh. I think I found the issue. A menu isn’t even supposed to have various degrees of responsiveness.
Yeah. 60% more responsive for something infamous for taking multiple seconds to launch is depressingly bad. That’s “not even trying” levels of improvement.
The start menu should open essentially instantly (excluding optional animations) – 100 ms is good, 200 ms is somewhat adequate. They’re aiming for somewhere between 400 and 1200 ms.
I hope for them that they underpromise and overdeliver because this does not inspire confidence.
For a menu to take longer than 200ms is ridiculous. At 500ms of wait for my menu to show, the OS is getting nuked.
As for the ‘inspire confidence’,when was the last time MS inspired anything that was not disgust? Excluding the C-suite and some investors, of course.
Some of the newer C# features are nice. Of course .Net is not handled by the same people who keep setting Windows on fire.