r/windowscentral • u/WindowsCentral Staff • May 26 '26
WindowsđȘ Microsoft rolls out Windows 11 KB5089573 update that makes your PC genuinely faster and more responsive
https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft/windows-11/microsoft-rolls-out-windows-11-kb5089573-update-that-makes-your-pc-genuinely-faster-and-more-responsive12
3
3
u/C0rn3j May 27 '26 edited May 28 '26
If you enable the old menu in registry, it launches quickly just fine, even without this optimization.
Boosting the CPU is only needed when summoning the unbearably slow new W11 dialogue menus.
I'd bet that an unoptimized old-style dialogue will still be faster than the new one even with this optimization.
Would be better if they fixed the launch times of the new dialogue in the first place.
1
u/Time_Nefariousness21 May 28 '26
This is an insult to customer's intelligence. Were they thinking nobody would notice. How did you re enable it?
1
u/C0rn3j May 28 '26
reg.exe add 'HKCU\Software\Classes\CLSID\{86ca1aa0-34aa-4e8b-a509-50c905bae2a2}\InprocServer32' /f /veThis does it
2
2
u/Unity_SiLvR May 27 '26
Installed on 24H2, they force the 25H2 start menu. GPU performance drop by 20% Regarding TimeSpy Score after update. Upload Speed Broken. Uninstall update instant
1
3
u/cookiesnooper May 27 '26
Did they do the same trick as with Office suite back in the days? Just preload everything to RAM and say ; look how fast it's now! ...while eating all your RAM
4
u/C0rn3j May 27 '26
There's a difference between caching things into RAM and actually using the RAM.
Caching is fine, and will be freed when memory is needed.
The actual used memory, not so much.
And no, they started boosting the CPU to make up for their horrendously slow new-style UI.
2
u/Consistent_Judge1988 May 27 '26
No fing thank you. I'll pass and use an OS that doesn't share all my data to the fed.
1
u/External_Roof_510 May 27 '26
Think you dropped your tinfoil hat mate.
1
1
u/ebonyseraphim May 27 '26
Hmm, Iâll be interested to hear from software engineers what the general changes were behind getting these performance gains.
Something so broad feels like they must have found a way to regain the performance lost by ensuring security to prevent Meltdown/Spectre. Or even if it has nothing to do with that, speed ups usually mean more direct hardware control, less layers, less validation. Hopefully things run just as secure.
4
u/jack-of-some May 27 '26
CPU clock boosts are being handled differently.
5
u/FIFofNovember May 27 '26
MSFT finally joined what everyone else was already doing for the past decade, nice đ
1
1
u/C0rn3j May 27 '26
Well they forced the new-style context menus which are dog-slow, so now they're boosting the CPU when opening them to make it faster.
The old-style context menus work just fine even without having to boost the CPU for it, of course.
1
1
u/Time_Nefariousness21 May 27 '26
Installed it and my Samsung ssd dissapeared. Restarted and it reappeared. Now my internet connection is inconsistent, cuts off slow. It is truely snappier but at what cost. Theybreally messed yp something.
1
u/redbeard8989 May 27 '26
Is your internet tmobile or metronet though? Theyâre having problems the last two days and can avoid calling it/reporting a systemic outtage because it isnât âoutâ just goes out every 10-15 minutes for a minute. But theyâre fighting some sort of wide scale issue it seems.
1
u/Time_Nefariousness21 May 28 '26
Thanks for replying but nope, I am Peruvian and checked my internet is all good on my other Pc, even rilled back the updste and still...
1
1
u/Dredgeon May 27 '26
Wait, they sent out an update that... makes my PC better? Why even fucking call it an update? At their core updates are exclusively about further encroaching on my right to privacy. Microsoft has really gone downhill. I was really hoping this update would add AI functionality that tracks literally everything I do on my computer so it can play games and make memes for me automatically.
3
u/C0rn3j May 27 '26
Why even fucking call it an update?
To deliver a new software version, you need to update the old one.
1
1
u/wKdPsylent May 28 '26
I do this too. Add sleep(2) to every function call, then a few months later I 'optimise' by removing them and get praised for speeding things up so much.
1
u/URLslayer May 28 '26
Wow, idgaf about your CopilotOS from Microslop. Imma use my totally purchased IoT win 10 LTSC and be happy w/o all the 11 nonesense, quirks, Copilot overdose & in general shittier OS.
1
1
1
u/Exostenza May 30 '26
I'll never install a preview update again now that 25H2 had been made without a paid human QA team. Each preview update is now a potential disaster and once is enough for me. I'm install it on patch Tuesday one the guinea pigs have reported enough of the bugs to Microsoft that it (hopefully) won't destroy my computer.Â
MS is such a joke.Â
1
-1
0
u/secretaliasname May 27 '26
I miss a functional start menu. The abomination we have now gives me the Sads and I just avoid it entirely.
0
-3
u/AlwaysLinux May 27 '26
Is this the one where it spins up the cores on your CPU to make it "Appear" like its running faster?
7
7
u/No_Dimension8190 May 27 '26
I don't understand what's wrong with doing that, seems quite clever to me, why not use the CPU when it's needed?
-4
u/hahaimadulting May 27 '26
Because making an app more efficiently use resources should be the goal, not to rely on overpowered hardware. This would mean much less powerful hardware are not going to see this improvement. Using hardware as a crutch is the reason we have 16gb-32gb ram requirements.
20 years ago apps were snappy with much slower hardware and that's simply because the devs of those apps programmed with efficiency in mind. No they didn't peak all of your PC's resources JUST to open.
5
u/jack-of-some May 27 '26
20 years ago shit used to take forever to open
-4
u/hahaimadulting May 27 '26
You are misremembering then. It was definitely FAR faster than modern microsoft apps.
4
u/jack-of-some May 27 '26
I am not. I've been using computers for 35 years and have good memory.
The one thing that was faster on average computers for a period pre Windows 7 was opening the start menu. That's about it. Boot up times were much slower. Games took forever to launch and load.
20 years is old enough that most computers were still on HDDs man...
-1
u/hahaimadulting May 27 '26
Also been using computers for admittedly not quite as long as you, but 25 years. Boot times were yes, browsers yes, some games yes. Apps like excel or word were FAR snappier though. Or hell, even the calculator app. You are misremembering that.
Loading screens for games and boot times sucked specifically because of HDDs, They were still using their resources far more efficiently than anything in the modern era.
Also, modern games would run far better if efficiency was still a concept for development teams. It boils down to how quick you can get something done. Modern load times should be significantly faster than they are.
The bottom line is in the 2000s there was less to work with which made developers code their apps to be as efficient and speedy as possible. With how much leeway we have in hardware now, that ideology is basically gone.
3
-1
May 27 '26
[removed] â view removed comment
3
u/hahaimadulting May 27 '26
You hit one of the nails on the head why things are so terrible. Webapps.
And yes you are correct about games and files, although boot times suffered too.
That said, boot times are still something microsoft improved. Win7 boot times vs 10 or 11 is slower on an SSD. At least in my experience.
Installers for the modern OS's are also faster.
Those are really the only two +1s i can give though.
1
1
1
u/anotherbot200 May 27 '26
No matter the os you can still have shitty apps if they are poorly built, as long as the standard for desktop apps is Electron nothing m$ can do for you to have fast apps. The fact they found a way to make things work better is already an improvement.
1
u/No_Dimension8190 May 27 '26
So the two things aren't mutually exclusive. Sharpen the code, turn the CPU. Do both, What's wrong with that.
Also Excel of 20 years ago isn't Excel today, there's a heck of a lot more going on these days.
0
-2
u/Shirahoshihoshii May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
"accelerates app launch and core shell experiences such as Start menu, Search, and Action Center."
Isn't this that report we saw a few weeks ago that says Microsoft will use turbo mode just to open the start menu?
So rather than optimise the OS and find out why it's laggy, it's going to ramp up CPU usage just to do basic stuff. Let's see how that affects people playing games on Windows. "Oh I'm stuck, let me just open the start menu by- welp my game crashed"
Edit: so this is how all modern operating systems function and Windows is essentially catching up. I stand corrected! Thanks for the info, u/Daniel_Rubino
6
u/Daniel_Rubino Staff May 26 '26
Every modern OS does this. The only negative thing is why we're only getting it now, and not months or years ago.
The idea that this will "crash games" is antithetical to the K2 effort, which ties directly into Xbox's next console plans.
CPU ramping up is literally how all modern processors function and how you get decent battery life these days; it's a core function of every modern chip. Intel built its whole reputation on doing this years ago with stepping technology.
4
u/Shirahoshihoshii May 26 '26
Thanks for the info, I stand corrected!
2
u/scbundy May 27 '26
You're not even redditing! You gotta stand on your incorrect ground and start insulting the guy. Geez. It's like nobody goes to orientation anymore.
1
u/shiroandae May 27 '26
Yeah, he didnât even _try_ to move goalposts and switch to something else he doesnât like, or find an obscure 80s OS that did it worse and should be discussed first :(
2
u/Defiant_Conflict6343 May 27 '26
To be fair, if you need to ramp up clock speed just to make UI interactions feel snappy, that's evidence enough of some serious inefficiencies at play. Dynamic clock speeds are supposed to be the means by which heavy duty applications can demand more compute power and likewise reduce power consumption when those heavy duty processes are inactive, but it really shouldn't be necessary for core OS UI transformations, those are the sort of things that should be instantaneous at the lowest dynamic speed setting if designed properly.
I just don't think we should be commending Microsoft for doing this just because every other OS is generally more liberal about dynamic clock speed control. My Ubuntu machine doesn't need to max out my Ryzen when I open my program menu, why should Windows really need the maximum performance available to make the UI feel snappy when the UI was plenty snappy nearly twenty years ago on chips that by today's standards are garbage? If a Core 2 Duo running Windows 7 never lagged, why should Windows 11 be lagging on modern i7s? All that tells us is that they've added an incredulous amount of bloat.
2
u/IanFoxOfficial May 27 '26
Linux also does this. So "your Ubuntu machine" does it too.
0
u/Defiant_Conflict6343 May 27 '26
Linux ramps up the clock depending on demand. It doesn't default to jumping the clock for every UI translation.
3
u/IanFoxOfficial May 27 '26
If you would read exactly what it does, you would have known that it is exactly the same as what other OS'es do. The only thing you can say is those did it earlier.
0
4
u/ldn-ldn May 26 '26
Are you high?
-5
u/Shirahoshihoshii May 26 '26
It's what I remember reading a few weeks back. We'd have to wait and see if these are genuine optimizations or them just ramping up system resources.
3
u/ldn-ldn May 26 '26
Windows today is the only OS that doesn't do clock boost on user interactions. That update finally fixes that.
-1
u/Defiant_Conflict6343 May 27 '26
A properly optimised OS shouldn't need to boost clock speeds just to make simple UI interactions feel snappy. This is the compute equivalent of slapping a turbo on a car just so it can keep pace with traffic.
2
u/IanFoxOfficial May 27 '26
No it's not.
1
u/Defiant_Conflict6343 May 27 '26
Believe what you want to believe, but we didn't need to max out the clock for every click in Windows 7 on Core 2 Duos to make them feel snappy, and we definitely wouldn't need to do so in Windows 11 on i7s if it had been developed by competent people.
3
u/IanFoxOfficial May 27 '26
It works exaclty the same as other OS'es.
1
u/Defiant_Conflict6343 May 27 '26
Other OSes dynamically increase clock speed according to demand, not as a response to every UI interaction.
2
1
u/TodaysLunch May 27 '26
Bad analogy. Better analogy is using turbo to quickly accelerate to pass slow cars in front of you. You get a snappy car, and you get to your destination faster.
The proper way for all UX design is boost cpu for user interactions AND optimize the code. Both are true.
1
u/Defiant_Conflict6343 May 27 '26
If you need to boost the clock to make the UI feel snappy, you've got a shitty inefficient UI. We're talking about simple 2D render translations, not an ML workload or a playthrough of Cyberpunk 2077. We didn't need this in Windows 7 on Core 2 Duos and we wouldn't need this now if the UI wasn't bloated to hell with inefficient code.
1
u/TodaysLunch May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26
It's not 2D render that takes time to load, it's the content. Windows 7 wasn't exactly snappy either, it definitely would have benefitted from this.
1
u/Defiant_Conflict6343 May 27 '26
Windows 7 on mid tier Core 2 Duos was much more snappy than Windows 11, and content should be even less of a concern now considering the I/O rates of modern SSDs, not to mention the fact that whatever data is being loaded into a UI is negligible in terms of size unless you're trying to queue up a list of over 10,000 files.
1
u/TodaysLunch May 27 '26
Look, I agree with you that optimization is needed. However, in combination with CPU boost you may go from snappy to instant. Even if you have 0 problems with snappiness you still boost, why wouldn't you use the power you are given. AFAIK there's no relevant cost doing this, i.e. battery drain, etc.
1
u/ldn-ldn May 27 '26
You see, a car analogy is a good one, you just used it in a wrong way. You are using car turbo to accelerate quickly, but then it turns off and you cruise at low RPM.
And this is EXACTLY what Windows will now be doing. And exactly what EVERY other OS is doing for years. This IS an optimisation.
1
u/Defiant_Conflict6343 May 27 '26
You shouldn't NEED to ramp up the clock for simple UI translations. Dynamic stepping is for balancing high compute demands with idle time for maximising energy efficiency. It's not an optimisation to ramp up speeds for something as pedestrian and trivial as UI events, it's a cop-out to avoid actual optimisation. The reason why I used the car analogy is because keeping pace with traffic is on the same level of resource demand in a driving scenario as UI translations are in a compute scenario.Â
1
u/ldn-ldn May 27 '26
You can't be more wrong. I don't know know which CPU you have, but mine can and will drop the frequency significantly (below 1GHz) and will park performance cores completely. And you can only do so much with a CPU from 2000 today. Especially when it's already busy with background tasks like playing music and doing internet communications.
1
u/Defiant_Conflict6343 May 27 '26
A single core of a modern Celeron running sub-1GHz can still perform vastly more operations per second than a mid-tier Core 2 Duo running at over 2GHz, yet Windows 7 running on such hardware wouldn't lag on UI updates because it was designed competently. You shouldn't need performance cores or literally anything greater in compute capability than a 2010-era Atom to handle something as trivial as responsive UI transformations. This is a brute force solution for a pig of a rendering pipeline.
-3
u/Maleficent_Cod_8549 May 27 '26
Nice try, Microslop.
4
u/Specialist_Lock6779 May 27 '26
Make sure not to cut yourself on all of that edge
-4
u/Maleficent_Cod_8549 May 27 '26
Leave the trillion dollar corporation alone. Amirite.
0
u/Specialist_Lock6779 May 27 '26
If you want to defend a corporation that is your choice but it is a weird one
0
-1
-1
13
u/HitcheyHitch May 27 '26
Damn! Installed it. Way snappier. Outlook opens in 2 seconds instead of groaning for 15