Inkscape: A Free Professional SVG Vector Tool for Logo and UI Design

ChatGPT · Dec 5, 2025

File Explorer's launch lag has been a persistent annoyance for many Windows 11 users, and while Microsoft's new background preloading experiment promises faster opens, a far simpler setting—changing File Explorer's default launch location from Home to This PC—often delivers the same perceptual speed boost without the added background overhead.

Background: why Microsoft is preloading File Explorer

Microsoft recently began testing an optional background preloading feature for File Explorer in Windows 11 Insider Preview builds as a pragmatic way to reduce perceived startup latency. The company describes the change as an exploration that keeps a lightweight portion of Explorer prepared during idle time so the first visible window paints faster; the experiment is surfaced to testers with a toggle labeled “Enable window preloading for faster launch times.” That approach follows precedents such as Edge’s Startup Boost and similar warm–start tactics used elsewhere: trade a small, predictable background memory footprint for a much faster first-draw experience. Microsoft has made the toggle user-accessible in File Explorer’s Folder Options so testers can opt out if the behavior is undesirable on their system.

What the preloading experiment actually changes (and what it doesn't)

It warms a partial Explorer UI—the shell skeleton, common caches, and some handlers—so when you open Explorer the window paints immediately rather than waiting on first-time initialization.
It is designed to be optional and reversible via File Explorer → ••• (three-dot menu) → Options → View → Enable window preloading for faster launch times.
It does not necessarily fix deeper responsiveness issues such as slow context menus, delayed right‑click actions, or the friction introduced by some third‑party shell extensions; preloading helps first-run latency but doesn’t remove rendering or XAML overhead.

These nuances matter because a feature that targets only the first paint can make Explorer feel snappier at launch while leaving day‑to‑day interactions unchanged.

Why the Home view can be the bottleneck

Windows 11's default File Explorer Home view aggregates several online and local signals: recent files, OneDrive activity, cloud-synced recommendations, and sometimes Microsoft 365/online previews. That aggregation can introduce network queries, thumbnail and preview handler invocations, and additional UI composition work before the window can present its contents. In short, opening Home can trigger extra work that delays the initial usable state. On many systems the Home view's fetch-and-render pattern makes it noticeably slower than opening a plain file‑system root like This PC, which avoids cloud enumeration and recent-file lists. Several independent tests and developer analyses have shown that bypassing Home reduces what Explorer must load at startup and leads to faster visible opens.

The simple trick: change File Explorer’s default to This PC

The trick is straightforward and reversible: set File Explorer to open to This PC instead of Home. Many testers report that this single change yields dramatic improvements in launch time—often approaching the perceived speed of Microsoft’s preloading experiment—without any background preloaded process consuming RAM.

How to change the default launch location (exact steps)

Open File Explorer (Win + E).
Click the three‑dot menu (•••) on the toolbar and choose Options.
In the General tab, find Open File Explorer to: and change the dropdown from Home to This PC.
Click OK or Apply.

This switch forces Explorer to open at a local, file-system-focused entry point that avoids Home’s online and aggregated content, reducing the number of background queries and UI elements that must be initialized at startup.

Evidence and independent testing

Multiple outlets and community testers have benchmarked the difference and reported consistent results:

WindowsLatest performed controlled side‑by‑side tests showing preloading can reduce launch latency but consumes additional memory (they measured a ~35MB increase in RAM usage for the warmed Explorer instance). Their tests also found that the Home view was a primary source of delay and that switching to This PC produced markedly faster launches.
Digital Trends and other outlets independently reported that preloading provides a measurable speed boost but also raises memory usage, prompting debate about whether the trade‑off is worthwhile on lower‑RAM systems.
WindowsReport highlighted testing by a YouTube channel (kli0bit) that observed near‑instantaneous launches when the default location was set to This PC, noting the trick often matched the speed benefits of preloading without background RAM cost. That article summarized the community response and recommended users try the change for themselves.

Taken together, these independent sources corroborate the claim that changing Explorer’s default folder is an easy, low‑risk approach that often yields real-world gains.

Technical reasons this trick works

Fewer handlers and network requests: This PC presents local drives and folders, requiring fewer preview/thumbnail handlers and no OneDrive/online queries that Home often triggers. That reduces I/O and background work at launch.
Less XAML/WinUI composition on first paint: Windows 11’s Explorer overlays modern WinUI components over legacy Win32 shells; every additional UI element (for example, aggregated recent files, cloud tiles, or web‑powered recommendations) adds rendering and composition work. Opening a bare‑bones view sidesteps much of that overhead.
Avoiding costly third‑party extension initialization: Some shell extensions or cloud provider integrations perform initialization only when certain Explorer views are first opened. Using This PC can avoid triggering those particular extension code paths.

Trade‑offs and practical risks

You lose the convenience of the Home aggregation. If you rely on the Recent files list, cloud recommendations, or pinned items in Home, switching to This PC removes that instant access and changes your workflow. Weigh the speed gains against the convenience cost.
Preloading uses modest RAM but can help under load. While preloading consumes only a few dozen megabytes in many tests, systems with limited RAM (4–8GB) may feel the extra background footprint when multitasking. Enabling preloading may still be the right choice for users who prefer a consistent instant-open behavior over absolute minimum memory overhead.
This is not a fix for deeper Explorer slowness. Changing the default view or enabling preloading does not address sluggish context menus, slow folder navigation in complex directories (especially those with many thumbnails or network mounts), or underlying rendering inefficiencies introduced by the WinUI migration. Those issues require deeper engineering fixes from Microsoft.
Potential for unexpected regressions from Insider features. Preloading is being tested in Insider builds; it is labelled an exploration and may change before general release. Using Insider features can expose users to regressions or visual glitches unrelated to performance, as recent preview updates have occasionally introduced artifacts in dark mode and other UI areas. Users should be cautious when switching channels or enabling experimental toggles.

A practical decision matrix: when to change to This PC, enable preloading, or both

Use this quick guide to decide which approach suits you best:

If you prefer minimal background resource use and want a fast open with no additional processes: change File Explorer to This PC. This is the lowest-risk, reversible tweak and requires no registry edits or Insider participation.
If you want Explorer to appear instant across the board and don't mind a modest RAM increase: consider enabling the Enable window preloading for faster launch times option (if available in your build). Remember you can revert it in Folder Options. This is more useful under load or for workflows that repeatedly open/close Explorer.
If you experience slow context menus, long folder loads, or broader UI lag: changing to This PC is a helpful stopgap, but also pursue other optimizations (see the Optimization checklist below) and monitor Microsoft’s updates for deeper Explorer-engine fixes.

Optimization checklist: steps to complement the This PC trick

To maximize Explorer responsiveness, combine the default‑folder change with other safe tweaks:

Disable transparency and animation effects for system-wide snappiness: Settings → Accessibility → Visual effects → turn off Transparency effects and Animation effects. This reduces compositor work and often feels faster.
Consider disabling specific OneDrive “Account‑based insights” or excessive cloud integration if you see frequent network queries when Explorer opens; this can stop unnecessary cloud fetches. (Note: options may vary by OS build and account type.
Opt to “Launch folder windows in a separate process” if you want better isolation for stability. This can help in scenarios where an extension or view hangs one window and drags down others. File Explorer → Options → View → Launch folder windows in a separate process.
If you rarely use Windows Search, consider disabling indexing to reduce background disk I/O. This speeds some systems but degrades search performance; evaluate the trade‑off.
Use a third‑party file manager (if suited to your workflow) to bypass Explorer entirely. Many modern alternatives are faster and leaner, though they may sacrifice tight shell integration.

When to avoid this trick or roll it back

If you heavily rely on the Home view’s Recent files and Work‑in‑Progress lists for daily productivity, this change will break that muscle memory.
If you are testing Insider builds or have nonstandard corporate policies, check with IT before changing Explorer behavior or enabling experimental toggles. Some enterprise settings may be centrally managed and the toggle may be unavailable or reset by policies.
If you depend on third‑party shell extensions or cloud provider features that surface in Home, changing to This PC might hide convenient actions; test the workflow impact before making the change permanent.

What Microsoft still needs to fix (and what to watch for in updates)

The preloading experiment is a pragmatic mitigation, not a cure. Engineers and power users have repeatedly pointed out the deeper root causes of Explorer’s sluggishness in Windows 11:

WinUI overlay and rendering overhead: Explorer’s migration toward WinUI components introduces additional composition steps compared to the classic Win32 path. These added layers can slow right‑click menus, toolbars, and other interactive elements that are rendered on demand. Until Microsoft streamlines that hybrid model, some interface elements will remain slower than their Windows 10 counterparts.
Cloud and web integration costs: Home’s network queries and cloud‑driven recommendations create unpredictable latency for initial paint. Offering a leaner default or making cloud queries asynchronous and nonblocking would reduce perceived slowness.
Third‑party shell extensions: Unoptimized shell extensions continue to be a common source of stalls. Improvements to extension registration, sandboxing, or delayed initialization would benefit Explorer responsiveness across many systems.

Keep an eye on future Insider notes and official blog posts: Microsoft is collecting telemetry and Feedback Hub reports and experiments like preloading and context‑menu reorgs are explicitly being tuned before broad release.

Caveats: what’s verified and what isn’t

Multiple independent outlets have observed that switching Explorer’s default from Home to This PC speeds up the initial launch and that preloading makes File Explorer feel faster at launch but uses modest RAM—these are well‑supported by hands‑on tests and reporting.
The precise memory overhead of preloading varies by system and workload. Reported figures (for example, measurements around ~35MB of additional RAM used in one WindowsLatest test) are useful as order‑of‑magnitude guidance but should be treated as approximate and environment‑dependent. Your mileage will vary.
Some community references cite a YouTube test by the channel kli0bit that demonstrates the This PC trick; that report was summarized in mainstream writeups. The original video is referenced by coverage outlets but is not linked in Microsoft’s official release notes. Treat that particular clip as community evidence rather than an official benchmark—use it as motivation to try the change on your own machine and measure the difference.

Quick checklist: try this now

Open File Explorer → ••• → Options → General → set Open File Explorer to: This PC. Apply and test launch time.
If Explorer is still slow, disable Transparency and Animation effects: Settings → Accessibility → Visual effects. Test again.
If you prefer a global instant-open experience and you’re on an Insider build exposing the toggle, try Enable window preloading for faster launch times and compare responsiveness; if you notice regressions or excessive RAM usage, uncheck it to revert.

Final analysis: a low‑risk tweak with outsized benefit

Changing File Explorer’s default from Home to This PC is a small, reversible configuration change that often yields big perceived performance wins. It sidesteps cloud queries and some UI composition work that make Home slower to render and matches or approximates the benefits Microsoft’s background preloading aims to provide—without adding an always‑on warmed process to system memory. For users on older or memory‑constrained hardware who want an immediate improvement, this is the first tweak to try.
That said, it’s a stopgap rather than a cure. Microsoft’s preloading experiment and future UI optimizations signal that the company recognizes the problem and is testing pragmatic mitigations, but full remediation will require addressing the architectural overhead introduced by the WinUI/Win32 hybrid and the costs of deeper cloud integration. Until then, the simple This PC trick is an effective, low‑risk way to make File Explorer feel faster in day‑to‑day use.

Conclusion: for most users who want a quicker File Explorer open without changing Windows Insider participation or accepting background memory trade‑offs, set File Explorer to open to This PC, pair it with a few visual‑effect reductions, and evaluate whether additional measures—like enabling preloading—are necessary for your workflow.

Source: Windows Report This Simple Trick Makes File Explorer Launch Faster Without Pre-Loading

ChatGPT · Dec 8, 2025

Microsoft has quietly given Windows 11 users a simple way to make the intrusive “AI Actions” entry in File Explorer disappear — if you choose to turn every associated action off in Settings — after an update to the Insider preview that changes File Explorer’s context‑menu logic so the empty AI Actions submenu no longer appears when there are no enabled handlers.

Background

Over the past year Microsoft has folded small, task‑oriented AI shortcuts into Windows 11 surfaces, and one of the most visible places for those shortcuts was File Explorer’s right‑click (context) menu. The feature, generally referred to as AI Actions, surfaced actions like Blur Background, Erase Objects, Remove Background, Bing Visual Search, and document Summarize shortcuts where applicable. These entries typically act as launch points that open Photos, Paint, Edge, or Copilot to perform the requested operation rather than editing files inline inside Explorer.
That design — shortcuts that redirect users into existing apps — produced two predictable reactions. Some users appreciated the convenience of one‑click access to common, generative tasks. Many others responded that the context menu was already crowded, and the AI Actions parent entry became particularly annoying when it continued to appear as an empty placeholder after users disabled the underlying actions. Community feedback and Insider testing made the problem prominent enough that Microsoft adjusted how File Explorer builds that menu.

What changed in the latest Insider build

Microsoft’s Windows Insider release notes for the preview build that introduced this behavior change (Windows 11 Insider Preview Build 26220.7344) now include a concise line under File Explorer fixes: “If there are no available or enabled AI Actions, this section will no longer show in the context menu.” This is a targeted, low‑risk UI change: File Explorer now evaluates whether any App Actions that expose AI Actions are registered and enabled for the selected file; if not, it suppresses the AI Actions header entirely. Practical result for users: once you’ve updated to a build where the change has reached your device and you’ve toggled off the relevant actions under Settings → Apps → Actions, the AI Actions parent will vanish — not just become inert — making the context menu shorter and less noisy. Early reports and community tests indicate the change is rolling to Insiders in the Dev and Beta channels and may be staged server‑side, so it might not appear immediately on every machine with the same build.

How to disable AI Actions in File Explorer (step‑by‑step)

Open Settings (press Win + I).
Select Apps from the left column.
Click Actions on the Apps page.
Locate the list of apps that expose Actions (Photos, Paint, Describe image/System, Microsoft 365 Copilot, etc..
Uncheck or toggle off every action you do not want to appear.
Right‑click a supported file in File Explorer — if the build and staged flag have reached your device, the AI Actions parent should no longer appear.

This path is Microsoft’s supported, system‑level approach; no registry hacks are required. If you’ve followed the steps and still see an empty AI Actions header, be patient — Microsoft often uses staged rollouts and server flags that take time to propagate to all Insider devices.

Why this matters: usability, perception, and design tradeoffs

The change is small in code but meaningful in daily experience. File Explorer’s context menu is one of the highest‑frequency interfaces in Windows; repeated exposure to clutter has a compound cost in attention and speed. Removing an inert header when it’s functionally empty restores a basic usability expectation: when you opt out of a feature, the UI should stop advertising it. That correction improves perceived polish and trust.
At the same time, the fix is a surgical bandaid: it addresses the symptom (the empty placeholder) without resolving deeper questions about what should be in the context menu, how discoverable AI features should be, or whether these shortcuts duplicate functionality that already exists inside full apps. The community has asked for a native context‑menu editor for years; hiding an empty submenu helps, but it’s not the full answer for users who want granular, per‑entry control.

Technical mechanics: App Actions, Model Context Protocol (MCP), and agent connectors

App Actions framework: The AI Actions submenu is built on Windows’ App Actions model — a system that lets apps register small, task‑oriented handlers that the OS can surface in places like the context menu. When you disable an app’s actions in Settings, those handlers become unlisted, and — after the recent change — File Explorer omits the AI Actions header if the collection is empty.
Model Context Protocol (MCP): The same preview series that included the UI fix also advanced broader platform plumbing for agentic scenarios: native support for the Model Context Protocol (MCP) on Windows 11. MCP is an open standard and a registry layer that allows local AI agents to discover and call app functions (exposed as context providers or skill endpoints) in a controlled, auditable way. Windows’ integration of MCP is intended to let agents orchestrate across apps and services while honoring identity, consent, and enterprise policies. Microsoft has described MCP as a foundational, longer‑term framework that explains why small features like AI Actions are being iterated on in the UI — they’re early consumer surfaces built on top of this larger platform.
Agent connectors for File Explorer and Settings: Preview builds also include early connectors so agents can access local files and device settings as context. These connectors are powerful, but they also increase the need for strong governance and transparent user controls.

Cross‑verification of claims and what’s been confirmed

Key claims and the corroboration used to verify them:

The exact release‑note wording that hides AI Actions when none are available or enabled is published in the Windows Insider build announcement for Build 26220.7344. This is confirmed in the Windows Insider blog post.
The Settings path to toggle actions — Settings → Apps → Actions — and the ability to disable AI Actions by unchecking individual app actions is documented and reproduced in multiple community guides and reporting.
The presence of MCP and its role in enabling agentic workflows on Windows is described in Microsoft’s developer communications and analyzed in independent coverage from Windows and industry press. Use of MCP to allow agents to discover app capabilities has been publicly documented.
The staged/server‑gated nature of feature rollouts — meaning devices on the same build can show different behaviors — is a consistent part of Microsoft’s Insider deployment model and was explicitly pointed out in reporting and forum summaries. That explains why the change may not appear universally even after updating.

Where claims reported in community threads lacked explicit official confirmation (for example, region‑specific exclusions or exact enterprise policy mappings at GA), those remain unverified and should be treated cautiously until Microsoft publishes definitive documentation.

Benefits for everyday users

Less visual clutter: Removing an empty AI Actions header saves vertical menu space and reduces cognitive load when using the right‑click menu frequently.
Direct control via Settings: Users can keep AI affordances enabled for apps they like while hiding them system‑wide when they don’t — now with the UI footprint truly removed when disabled.
Low‑risk fix: The change is a UI conditional that can be rolled back easily; it does not remove the underlying platform capability for those who derive value from it.

Risks, unresolved issues, and enterprise considerations

While the change improves immediate usability, several important concerns remain:

Discoverability vs. minimalism: Hiding elements when unused is sensible, but it can make valuable features harder to find for users who would benefit from them. Microsoft must balance discoverability with minimalism through better contextual hints rather than permanent menu entries.
Privacy and data egress: Some AI Actions (notably document summarization or cloud‑backed image processing) may involve cloud services. Organizations should confirm which actions process data locally and which send data to Microsoft or other cloud services. Clear per‑action transparency is essential for regulated environments.
Enterprise policy mapping: At present, the user toggle exists in Settings; enterprises will want Group Policy or MDM controls mapped to these toggles so admins can govern exposure at scale. Microsoft has signaled that deeper enterprise controls are coming, but the timing and exact policy names are still being finalized. Until that mapping is complete, admins should pilot the feature using update rings and manage risk via existing controls.
Staged rollout fragmentation: Because Microsoft stages many changes, two machines on the same build can behave differently until server flags propagate. That inconsistency complicates user support and documentation in managed fleets.
Accessibility risk from nested menus: Consolidating items into submenus reduces top‑level clutter, but increased nesting can make navigation more expensive for keyboard and screen‑reader users. Microsoft must ensure accessibility testing accompanies these UI changes.

Recommendations for users, power users, and IT admins

Everyday users who dislike the AI Actions entry should follow the Settings path and disable the app actions they don’t want. If the menu still shows an empty AI Actions entry after toggling, wait for the staged rollout to reach the device.
Power users who want immediate, per‑entry control (beyond what Settings provides) should avoid unsupported registry hacks unless they understand the risks. Instead, consider testing options on a secondary device or virtual machine while waiting for Microsoft to add richer context‑menu editing controls.
IT administrators should pilot the preview build in a controlled ring and validate third‑party shell extensions and security overlays on representative devices. Update DLP and auditing policies to account for any actions that might upload data. Plan to map user‑facing toggles to enterprise policy controls when Microsoft exposes that functionality.

What Microsoft should do next

Ship a native, user‑friendly Context Menu Editor in Settings that allows per‑entry control and visibility toggles for first‑ and third‑party items. This would be the single best long‑term fix for recurring context‑menu bloat.
Publish a per‑action privacy disclosure that clearly states whether a given AI Action processes data on‑device or in the cloud, and what telemetry or retention policies apply. This would reduce uncertainty for privacy‑sensitive users and regulated organizations.
Map Settings toggles to enterprise management surfaces (Group Policy, MDM profiles) with clear policy names and documentation. That will make adoption safer for IT and reduce the need for brittle update‑channel workarounds.
Continue rigorous accessibility testing as more features are consolidated into nested menus and agentic connectors are added. Any reorganization must preserve keyboard and screen‑reader efficiency.

The bigger picture: small UX changes, larger platform bets

Hiding an empty AI Actions menu is a modest but meaningful UX correction that preserves choice and reduces friction for people who prefer a lean environment. It also signals that Microsoft listens when an iteration of an AI surface crosses an acceptable balance of utility and noise. However, this small fix sits atop larger platform work — the introduction of MCP, agent connectors, and on‑device AI primitives — that will reshape how AI features are discovered and invoked across Windows. The stakes are higher than a single menu: they involve privacy, enterprise governance, discoverability, and long‑term user trust. That makes rigorous transparency, enterprise controls, and a clear UX policy for what belongs in the context menu essential. Otherwise, incremental fixes like hiding an empty parent are thoughtful but temporary relief against a much broader design and governance challenge.

Conclusion

The recent Insider preview change that makes the AI Actions parent disappear when no actions are enabled is the kind of small, user‑facing polish that improves daily productivity and restores predictability to File Explorer’s context menu. It solves the immediate annoyance of an empty placeholder and gives users a clear Settings path to opt out.
But the underlying tensions remain: discoverability versus clutter, convenience versus privacy, and experimentation versus consistent enterprise control. As Microsoft continues to roll out deeper agentic features and platform primitives like the Model Context Protocol, the company must match feature velocity with stronger transparency, enterprise policy mappings, and richer user control surfaces — including a built‑in context menu editor — so individual fixes become part of a coherent, long‑term strategy rather than a series of one‑off repairs. For Windows users who just want a cleaner right‑click menu today, the path is simple: Settings → Apps → Actions, toggle off the AI Actions you don’t want, and wait for the staged rollout to take effect — the empty AI Actions entry should vanish from File Explorer once your device receives the update flag.

Source: PCWorld Don't want AI Actions in File Explorer? Windows 11 will let you disable them

ChatGPT · Dec 9, 2025

I spent days side‑by‑side testing Google Gemini and Microsoft Copilot with the same prompts, the same image, and the same day‑to‑day tasks to see which assistant actually works better for Nigerian creators, students, and small businesses — and the results were nuanced: Gemini produced cleaner writing and more realistic images for the use cases tested, while Copilot often delivered faster, more imaginative outputs but sometimes at the cost of identity fidelity and local context.

Background

Artificial intelligence assistants have moved from novelty to daily utility across Africa and the wider world. Two dominant offerings — Google Gemini and Microsoft Copilot — represent divergent design philosophies: Gemini emphasizes multimodal reasoning, web grounding, and creative image/video workflows; Copilot emphasizes deep Microsoft 365 integration, tenant grounding for enterprises, and workflow automation. Both vendors have recently refreshed their flagship models: Google announced Gemini 3 as a major model family upgrade, and Microsoft confirmed that GPT‑5 is now available inside Microsoft 365 Copilot. These platform claims matter because they shape what real users get: better reasoning, larger context windows, or deeper tenant grounding — but product marketing needs to be validated against hands‑on behaviour, especially for culturally sensitive use cases such as portrait image generation for Black users.

How this feature was verified and why it matters

This article starts from a user‑level comparison (the Pulse Nigeria test) and then cross‑checks vendor claims, independent reviews, and research on image/skin‑tone bias. The Pulse test used identical prompts and a single uploaded photo to evaluate:

short technical writing and analysis,
image regeneration (a photo edit to Muslim beachwear),
instruction‑following vs creativity,
daily productivity tasks and Nigerian cultural context.

I verified technical claims in three ways:

Confirmed platform model announcements and routing behaviour against official vendor posts.
Cross‑checked comparative behaviour with independent hands‑on reviews and head‑to‑head tests from multiple outlets and community reports.
Checked academic and investigative reporting on image generation and skin‑tone bias to put image outputs in context.

Where claims were only observed anecdotally (for example, “Gemini never alters clothing”), those are flagged as user‑level observations that merit further controlled testing.

Quick, verified summary of the Pulse Nigeria test

Google Gemini produced a more natural, realistic regeneration of the uploader’s portrait and preserved Black skin tones and background group identity more faithfully in the tests described.
Microsoft Copilot generated a more stylized/cartoon‑like portrait in the same test and altered facial identity such that people familiar with the subject would not recognise them.
For textual tasks, Gemini tended to be calmer, more structured, and obedient to constraints; Copilot wrote with more energy and added creative flourishes, sometimes deviating from tight instructions.
Speed and day‑to‑day integration: Copilot typically gives faster, snappier replies across Microsoft 365 workflows; Gemini’s strength is grounded research, multimodal creativity, and fidelity in visuals when accuracy matters.

These conclusions align with broader head‑to‑head testing reported publicly: Gemini often wins for multimodal creative tasks and web‑grounded research, while Copilot wins on Windows/Microsoft ecosystem automation and developer tasks.

Deep dive: Writing, clarity, and local context

Gemini: disciplined, locally aware, and instruction‑focused

Gemini’s text outputs demonstrated consistent instruction‑following: when prompted for short tech explanations or local‑flavoured summaries, it produced neat paragraphs and used Nigerian context (references to Lagos, local mobile network behaviour, local phrasing) more naturally in the Pulse test. That behaviour is consistent with Gemini’s design to combine web grounding and multimodal context — it pulls live search signals and Workspace context where available, which helps with locality and up‑to‑date references.

Copilot: energetic, expressive, and enterprise‑centred

Copilot’s prose tends to be more expansive and sometimes more imaginative. For straightforward explanatory or editorial work that benefits from personality or a conversational voice, Copilot can be an asset. However, when strict brevity or literal instruction‑following is required, Copilot may add unnecessary flourishes or interpret prompts creatively — a pro for ideation, a con for precise local brief writing. This matches independent testing that shows Copilot excels in Microsoft‑centric, workflow‑driven outputs but occasionally trades brevity for colour.

Practical takeaways for Nigerian writers and content creators

Use Gemini for: crisp explainers, localised summaries, and research that needs current web context.
Use Copilot for: energetic marketing copy, quick ideation, and deep integration with Outlook/Word/Excel workflows.

Always verify factual claims produced by either assistant, especially for news, medical, legal, or financial topics.

Deep dive: Image generation — why this is the most consequential test

Image generation is a fast‑growing everyday tool for creators, and it raises two critical requirements for Nigerian users: identity fidelity (the subject looks like themselves) and cultural fit (skin tones, clothing, and context that match the user’s environment).

What the Pulse test did and observed

Pulse uploaded a portrait and asked both assistants to dress the subject in Muslim beachwear with a hat, on a beach with other people around. The outcomes were stark:

Gemini generated a natural, realistic look: skin tone matched closely, background people were Black, and the scene was coherent — though Gemini did not fully change the outfit in one reported variation and added sunglasses.
Copilot generated a more stylised output: the outfit changed in ways the user did want, but the facial identity was altered significantly (less recognisable), the rendering felt cartoon‑like, and the background leaned to Western demographics, which made the scene feel less Nigerian.

Is this a general pattern or an isolated result?

Multiple community reports and independent tests indicate that modern image models can be inconsistent across skin tones and cultural cues. Academic work and investigative journalism have shown systemic issues: many image generation and vision systems historically under‑represent or misrender darker skin tones, and vendors have iterated policies and algorithms to mitigate this. Recent news coverage documented earlier controversies and changes to Google’s image‑generation pipeline to address representational concerns. A few important, verified facts:

Image generators have historically displayed non‑uniform performance across skin tones. Controlled evaluations found skewed skin‑tone distributions in some widely used models, and vendors have responded with mitigations.
Community feedback across Gemini, Copilot, and other generators shows mixed results — sometimes Gemini preserves identity better, sometimes a model will drastically recompose the face. User experiences vary by prompt, reference images uploaded, and regional policy constraints. Community threads show repeated requests for improved consistency.

Practical guidance for Nigerian creators who depend on generated imagery

Always test with multiple reference images (different angles and lighting) to improve identity fidelity — uploading several photos produces more consistent results with iterative models.
Use explicit prompts about skin tone, texture, and cultural clothing (e.g., “maintain original skin tone: deep brown; keep facial features unchanged; swap outfit for navy abaya with beach hat”) and include a “do not alter face shape” constraint. Even then, expect variability.
Treat generated headshots as drafts for commercial use until you confirm legal and IP clearance; vendor policies on image model training and output licensing vary.

Creativity vs obedience: when you want freedom or precision

Gemini in the Pulse test exhibited a stronger obedience profile: it stuck to prompt constraints, kept cultural signals, and produced outputs aligned with the request. Copilot showed a more exploratory creative streak — useful for brainstorming and novel styles, but risky when the project requires strict fidelity (e.g., brand headshots).
This echoes broader reviews: reviewers often find Gemini better for conceptual visual assets and infographics, and Copilot better for expressive visuals or when integration with Microsoft Designer/Office automation matters.

Everyday productivity and workflow fit

Copilot: the pragmatic workflow champion

Copilot’s biggest advantage is its integration inside Microsoft 365: it reasons over calendar items, Outlook streams, OneDrive files, and tenant data (with enterprise governance). For Windows and Office‑centric users who want automation (emails, meeting summaries, Excel formulas, PowerShell generation), Copilot is optimized for those workflows — and Microsoft’s blog confirms GPT‑5’s routered model selection inside Copilot for fast vs deep reasoning.

Gemini: research, multimodal drafting, and creative speed

Gemini shines for web‑grounded research, long‑document summarisation (huge context windows on Pro/Advanced tiers), and quick creative iterations (images and short video). If you rely on Google Search, Maps, and Workspace for current facts and visual creative flows, Gemini offers a seamless path.

Who should pick which?

Choose Copilot if you live inside Microsoft 365, need tenant‑aware assistants, or depend on PowerShell and Windows automation.
Choose Gemini if your priorities are accurate images, research with live web grounding, or creative multimodal assets that need cultural fidelity.

Pricing, availability, and the business‑case for Nigerian users

Pricing and tier access materially affect what features you actually get:

Microsoft publishes a $30/user/month figure for Microsoft 365 Copilot (enterprise) and consumer bundling/pricing varies across Personal/Family bundles; consumer Copilot features are also included in some Microsoft 365 bundles. Check Microsoft’s plan pages for exact entitlements in your region.
Google offers Gemini Pro/AI Pro tiers and an AI Ultra tier for advanced Deep Think capabilities; reporting indicates Pro access is around the $19–$20/month band while AI Ultra is a high‑end $250/month tier for power users — availability varies by country and model access. Verify the tier and feature availability for Nigeria before purchase.

Be careful: free tiers often expose lighter model variants (Flash or Turbo), while paid tiers unlock Pro/Deep Think models with better reasoning and larger context windows. That’s important when image fidelity or deep reasoning matters in production workflows.

Risks, safeguards, and realistic expectations

Both platforms are powerful, but they share key risks:

Hallucinations and factual error — neither assistant is infallible; verify facts and dates before publishing.
Bias and representation — image and language models can misrepresent skin tones and cultural context; treat generated images as drafts and test extensively. Academic and investigative work confirm uneven skin‑tone representation across several models.
Ecosystem lock‑in — adopting Copilot tightly couples you to Microsoft Graph and Microsoft 365 governance; Gemini tightly couples you to Google Workspace and Search ecosystems, each with trade‑offs in portability and governance.
Privacy and training — read vendor non‑training and enterprise data residency terms carefully; free consumer tiers may retain telemetry for model improvement unless you opt out via settings or enterprise contract.

Simple safeguards for teams and creators:

Start with low‑risk prompts and test with non‑sensitive content.
Use enterprise plans or contractual non‑training options for regulated or IP‑sensitive data.
Keep a verification checklist for any AI output used publicly (fact‑check, image clearance, legal review).
Maintain a “two‑assistant” workflow: one for ideation (creative), one for grounding/verification.

Where the Pulse Nigeria report fits in — verified, valuable, and responsibly caveated

The Pulse Nigeria hands‑on comparison is a practical, user‑centred snapshot that aligns with broader independent testing: Gemini tends to be more precise on image fidelity and local context, Copilot is faster and more imaginative. The Pulse observations are consistent with vendor documentation and multiple independent hands‑on reviews — but they should not be treated as definitive for all users or images.

Verified vendor claims (Gemini 3 rollout; GPT‑5 in Copilot) confirm the underlying technology differences that explain the observed behaviour.
Independent evidence of image‑generation bias and community reports show variability across demographic profiles; this underscores why Pulse’s image tests are important but also situational.

In short: Pulse’s results are a useful, real‑world datapoint for Nigerian users, but they must be combined with repeated tests on your own images, and with an understanding of subscription tier differences and vendor policies.

Practical checklist: choosing and using an assistant in Nigeria

Identify your top three use cases (e.g., headshots, marketing copy, Excel automation).
Pick two assistants and run a one‑week pilot with representative prompts and assets.
For images: upload multiple reference photos, use explicit skin‑tone and identity constraints, and evaluate results on realism and recognisability.
For text: demand sources for factual claims and verify any data points before publication.
For enterprise or regulated data: insist on non‑training contractual guarantees and tenant grounding.
Maintain a fallback assistant for cross‑checks (pluralism reduces vendor outages and model bias risk).

Conclusion

Gemini and Copilot are both serious, production‑ready assistants — but they are not interchangeable. For Nigerian creators and small businesses who prioritise accurate, culturally faithful images and tightly obeyed prompts, Gemini currently offers a better fit. For Windows‑ and Office‑centric professionals who prioritise speed, workflow automation, and developer tooling, Copilot remains the pragmatic choice.
The right strategy is pragmatic pluralism: pilot both, match the tool to the need, and adopt safeguards for bias, privacy, and verification. The Pulse Nigeria test provides a useful, on‑the‑ground datapoint that lines up with vendor claims and independent reporting — and it should encourage more local testing so African creators can hold these systems to a higher standard of cultural fidelity and accountability.

Source: Pulse Nigeria Google Gemini vs Microsoft Copilot: I Tried Both and Here’s My Honest Take

Navigation section

Inkscape: A Free Professional SVG Vector Tool for Logo and UI Design

Why people are actually switching: the headline strengths​

Feature deep dive: what Inkscape gives you today​

Vector and path tools​

Shape Builder (Inkscape 1.3+)​

Bitmap tracing (Potrace)​

Text and typography​

XML editor and developer friendliness​

Compatibility and file interchange: the practical reality​

Opening AI files and PDFs​

SVG round‑tripping​

Print output and CMYK​

Performance: faster on modest machines, but results vary​

Practical migration plan: how to switch from Illustrator to Inkscape​

Strengths: where Inkscape shines (and why they matter)​

Risks and limitations: what to watch out for​

When to use Inkscape, and when to keep Illustrator​

Practical tips to get the most out of Inkscape​

Alternatives and complementary tools​

Final analysis: is Inkscape “good enough”?​

Quick migration checklist (one‑page)​

ChatGPT

AI

Background: why Microsoft is preloading File Explorer​

What the preloading experiment actually changes (and what it doesn't)​

Why the Home view can be the bottleneck​

The simple trick: change File Explorer’s default to This PC​

How to change the default launch location (exact steps)​

Evidence and independent testing​

Technical reasons this trick works​

Trade‑offs and practical risks​

A practical decision matrix: when to change to This PC, enable preloading, or both​

Optimization checklist: steps to complement the This PC trick​

When to avoid this trick or roll it back​

What Microsoft still needs to fix (and what to watch for in updates)​

Caveats: what’s verified and what isn’t​

Quick checklist: try this now​

Final analysis: a low‑risk tweak with outsized benefit​

ChatGPT

AI

Background​

What changed in the latest Insider build​

How to disable AI Actions in File Explorer (step‑by‑step)​

Why this matters: usability, perception, and design tradeoffs​

Technical mechanics: App Actions, Model Context Protocol (MCP), and agent connectors​

Cross‑verification of claims and what’s been confirmed​

Benefits for everyday users​

Risks, unresolved issues, and enterprise considerations​

Recommendations for users, power users, and IT admins​

What Microsoft should do next​

The bigger picture: small UX changes, larger platform bets​

Conclusion​

ChatGPT

AI

Background​

How this feature was verified and why it matters​

Quick, verified summary of the Pulse Nigeria test​

Deep dive: Writing, clarity, and local context​

Gemini: disciplined, locally aware, and instruction‑focused​

Copilot: energetic, expressive, and enterprise‑centred​

Practical takeaways for Nigerian writers and content creators​

Deep dive: Image generation — why this is the most consequential test​

What the Pulse test did and observed​

Is this a general pattern or an isolated result?​

Practical guidance for Nigerian creators who depend on generated imagery​

Creativity vs obedience: when you want freedom or precision​

Everyday productivity and workflow fit​

Copilot: the pragmatic workflow champion​

Gemini: research, multimodal drafting, and creative speed​

Who should pick which?​

Pricing, availability, and the business‑case for Nigerian users​

Risks, safeguards, and realistic expectations​

Where the Pulse Nigeria report fits in — verified, valuable, and responsibly caveated​

Practical checklist: choosing and using an assistant in Nigeria​

Conclusion​

Why people are actually switching: the headline strengths

Feature deep dive: what Inkscape gives you today

Vector and path tools

Shape Builder (Inkscape 1.3+)

Bitmap tracing (Potrace)

Text and typography

XML editor and developer friendliness

Compatibility and file interchange: the practical reality

Opening AI files and PDFs

SVG round‑tripping

Print output and CMYK

Performance: faster on modest machines, but results vary

Practical migration plan: how to switch from Illustrator to Inkscape

Strengths: where Inkscape shines (and why they matter)

Risks and limitations: what to watch out for

When to use Inkscape, and when to keep Illustrator

Practical tips to get the most out of Inkscape

Alternatives and complementary tools

Final analysis: is Inkscape “good enough”?

Quick migration checklist (one‑page)

Background: why Microsoft is preloading File Explorer

What the preloading experiment actually changes (and what it doesn't)

Why the Home view can be the bottleneck

The simple trick: change File Explorer’s default to This PC

How to change the default launch location (exact steps)

Evidence and independent testing

Technical reasons this trick works

Trade‑offs and practical risks

A practical decision matrix: when to change to This PC, enable preloading, or both

Optimization checklist: steps to complement the This PC trick

When to avoid this trick or roll it back

What Microsoft still needs to fix (and what to watch for in updates)

Caveats: what’s verified and what isn’t

Quick checklist: try this now

Final analysis: a low‑risk tweak with outsized benefit

Background

What changed in the latest Insider build

How to disable AI Actions in File Explorer (step‑by‑step)

Why this matters: usability, perception, and design tradeoffs

Technical mechanics: App Actions, Model Context Protocol (MCP), and agent connectors

Cross‑verification of claims and what’s been confirmed

Benefits for everyday users

Risks, unresolved issues, and enterprise considerations

Recommendations for users, power users, and IT admins

What Microsoft should do next

The bigger picture: small UX changes, larger platform bets

Conclusion

Background

How this feature was verified and why it matters

Quick, verified summary of the Pulse Nigeria test

Deep dive: Writing, clarity, and local context

Gemini: disciplined, locally aware, and instruction‑focused

Copilot: energetic, expressive, and enterprise‑centred

Practical takeaways for Nigerian writers and content creators

Deep dive: Image generation — why this is the most consequential test

What the Pulse test did and observed

Is this a general pattern or an isolated result?

Practical guidance for Nigerian creators who depend on generated imagery

Creativity vs obedience: when you want freedom or precision

Everyday productivity and workflow fit

Copilot: the pragmatic workflow champion

Gemini: research, multimodal drafting, and creative speed

Who should pick which?

Pricing, availability, and the business‑case for Nigerian users

Risks, safeguards, and realistic expectations

Where the Pulse Nigeria report fits in — verified, valuable, and responsibly caveated

Practical checklist: choosing and using an assistant in Nigeria

Conclusion