Microsoft’s week in Windows shipped a simple but meaningful performance experiment for File Explorer while landing in the middle of a widening PR headache over Copilot advertising that many users say overpromises and underdelivers. The company quietly started testing a background “preload” for File Explorer in the Insider channel to make folder windows open almost instantly, even as a short Copilot promotional clip and a flurry of executive social posts provoked sharp public ridicule and renewed scrutiny of Microsoft’s AI marketing and branding. The two stories together expose a company trying to balance visible engineering fixes and high‑profile AI evangelism — with very different reactions from users.
Background: What rolled out this week and why it matters
Microsoft’s official Insider release notes confirm that Build 26220.7271 includes an experiment to preload the File Explorer UI in the background so the first user‑visible paint happens faster. The change is presented as an exploration rather than a forced switch: Insiders who receive the trial see a Folder Options toggle labeled
“Enable window preloading for faster launch times” so they can switch it off if it causes unintended side effects. This pragmatic “warm start” approach mirrors performance heuristics Microsoft has used in other products to reduce cold‑start latency. At the same time, a short promotional video for Copilot showing the assistant guiding a user to change on‑screen text size drew widespread mockery after viewers noticed the AI recommending the wrong control and even suggesting a value that was already selected. The misfire quickly spread across social platforms and tech media, prompting commentary about the larger problem: when marketing claims outpace product behavior, trust erodes quickly. That backlash has now attracted attention from watchdogs and independent reporters assessing whether Copilot ads and branding are clear and verifiable. The contrast between quiet engineering work (File Explorer preloading) and conspicuous marketing missteps (Copilot ads) illuminates two threads that will shape Microsoft’s Windows narrative in the near term: a user demand for visible reliability and responsiveness, and an external pressure to make AI look tangibly useful without overselling it.
Overview: File Explorer preloading — what it is, how it works, and the trade‑offs
What Microsoft shipped in the Insider build
- Microsoft documented that it is “exploring preloading File Explorer in the background to help improve File Explorer launch performance,” and that the behavior will be toggleable from File Explorer → View → Options → Folder Options → View. Insiders who receive the experiment will see it enabled by default but can disable it.
- The same build also includes a reorganization of context‑menu items, small UX improvements for cloud file actions, and other preview features. Community posts and coverage confirm the toggle and note the change is currently restricted to Dev and Beta Insider channels for the 25H2 preview stream.
Why preloading matters
File Explorer has long been a common gripe among Windows users: slow first opens, partial renders in folders with rich preview handlers, and sluggish context menus have become recurring complaints. Preloading addresses the most visible symptom — perceived launch latency — by shifting initialization off the click path so that when a user opens a folder the window paints rapidly and feels instantaneous. The technique is pragmatic: it prioritizes perceived responsiveness without requiring a deep refactor of the shell.
The likely mechanics and resource trade‑offs
Microsoft has not published a line‑by‑line implementation, but community analysis and the company’s wording suggest a lightweight resident Explorer instance or suspended UI skeleton is kept in memory. In practice, that implies:
- Faster click‑to‑interactive times for opening new Explorer windows.
- No fundamental change to how folder enumeration, thumbnail generation, or cloud sync occur; the experiment focuses on UI readiness.
- A modest background memory footprint while the resident instance is active.
This trade‑off is the classic engineering choice between latency and resource use. Insiders’ early feedback indicates improved snappiness, and Microsoft deliberately exposes a toggle so users and administrators can opt‑out if the background residency causes issues.
What to expect and how to control it
- If you’re on the Insider Dev or Beta channel and receive Build 26220.7271, open File Explorer → View → Options → Folder Options → View and look for Enable window preloading for faster launch times.
- Uncheck the setting to revert to the legacy behavior (no resident UI instance).
- Administrators should look for Group Policy or MDM controls if this experiment graduates to broader channels.
Community threads and early tests indicate the switch works as intended and that turning it off is straightforward; enterprises should test for memory and power trade‑offs before rolling it out widely.
Critical analysis: the technical strengths and potential risks of preloading File Explorer
Strengths — why this is a sensible engineering move
- Immediate perceived improvement: The largest UX win comes from perception. Users measure responsiveness in milliseconds; warmed UI states deliver that perceived instant snappiness.
- Low‑risk experiment: Exposing a toggle and limiting the change to Insider channels gives Microsoft the telemetry data and user reports it needs to decide whether to ship the behavior broadly.
- Incrementalism over rewrite: Preloading is faster to ship and less invasive than a major rearchitecture of the shell or Explorer code paths.
- Precedent in product design: Microsoft and other vendors have previously used similar warm‑start strategies successfully (for example, Office background preloads and Edge startup boosts). That precedent reduces technical risk.
Risks and downsides — what to watch for
- Increased memory and power use: A resident Explorer UI uses RAM and may increase background CPU spikes (particularly on low‑end hardware or battery‑constrained devices). While reports so far show modest impact, broader rollouts across millions of hardware configurations could surface edge cases.
- Hidden behavior surprises: Any background process raises questions about visibility (what’s running and why), telemetry, and whether system resources are being used for UI warming when users don’t want it.
- Third‑party shell extensions and compatibility: Explorer’s rich ecosystem of extensions and preview handlers can be sensitive; keeping a preloaded instance alive could expose latent bugs or increase the surface for misbehaving extensions.
- Administration and governance gap: Enterprises will expect explicit controls (GPOs/MDM) and documentation before permitting this in production fleets; the lack of formal admin policies during the preview phase is a natural limitation but must be addressed before broad deployment.
Verdict on the engineering trade‑off
Preloading is a sensible, low‑risk way to tackle a persistent UX complaint. It intentionally targets user perception rather than attempting an immediate overhaul of Explorer’s internal subsystems. If Microsoft follows through with clear admin controls, telemetry safeguards, and an opt‑out for power‑sensitive users, the feature can deliver broad daily‑use benefits with manageable downsides.
The Copilot ads controversy: what happened and why it escalated
The short clip that widened the conversation
A brief Copilot promotional clip intended to demonstrate how the assistant can help users change on‑screen text size backfired when viewers noticed Copilot guiding the user to the wrong control (a UI scaling option rather than the dedicated text size control) and recommending a value that was already selected. The ad was widely circulated, mocked on social platforms, and reported by multiple outlets after viewers reconstructed the sequence and pointed out the mismatch between promise and performance. Microsoft appears to have removed the clip from some channels after the backlash.
The social‑media reaction and executive tone
The ad didn’t land in isolation. Senior AI leadership’s social posts — including a strikingly defensive message from the head of Microsoft AI characterizing detractors as “cynics” who don’t appreciate how far the technology has come — amplified the reaction. Some industry figures and commentators framed those posts as tone‑deaf at best and dismissive at worst, because many users’ critiques focus less on whether AI is impressive and more on whether it is dependable, controllable, and respectful of user choice.
Regulatory and watchdog attention
The Better Business Bureau’s National Advertising Division and other watchdogs have previously urged Microsoft and other vendors to clarify claims about AI productivity and ROI. Independently, journalists and testers have documented gaps between ad scenarios and real‑world behavior; combined, this scrutiny increases the reputational cost of any clearly misleading promotional content. Microsoft has faced recommendations to clarify Copilot branding and substantiate claims with verifiable evidence.
Why the Copilot misstep matters: trust, branding, and the cost of theatrical demos
Trust is earned, not broadcast
An ad that shows a conversational assistant failing a basic task feeds narratives about hallucination and brittleness — the very failure modes that undermine user confidence. For users already wary of persistent AI nudges, poor demonstrations do not inspire adoption; they justify skepticism.
Confusing branding amplifies the pain
“Copilot” is a broad brand applied across multiple products and tiers (consumer Copilot in Windows, Office Copilot, Developer Copilot, Copilot+ PCs, etc.. That umbrella branding makes it hard for buyers to know what capability they’re actually seeing or buying when Microsoft says “Copilot.” Watchdogs and commentators recommend clearer labeling and more conservative claims to reduce consumer confusion.
The demo problem: demos and production parity
Advertising and influencer spots are inherently edited and staged, but when an advertised feature
appears to perform worse than shown — or demonstrably fails simple verification steps — the ad becomes an anti‑testimony. The industry has seen examples where edited demos prompted regulatory or watchdog pushback; tech vendors must recognize that staged success must map credibly to real‑world outcomes.
Practical guidance for users and IT teams
For everyday Windows users
- If you value snappy Explorer launches and are enrolled in Insider channels, try Build 26220.7271 and see whether Enable window preloading for faster launch times improves your experience. Turn it off if you notice memory or power penalties.
- Treat Copilot results as helpful guidance, not infallible actions. Verify tasks where accuracy matters (system settings, security controls, critical file operations) before accepting an assistant’s recommendation. Independent testing shows there are still notable failure modes.
For administrators and IT pros
- Pilot preloading in a controlled group before broad deployment. Monitor memory, CPU, and application compatibility.
- Expect the need for GPO/MDM controls to manage preloading by policy; track Insider notes and Microsoft documentation for admin controls as the experiment matures.
- Update training and helpdesk scripts to reference Copilot limitations and to advise users how to confirm AI‑driven changes safely.
Broader implications: engineering polish vs. AI spectacle
Microsoft’s two concurrent stories — a modest but user‑visible performance experiment and a high‑visibility AI marketing misfire — are emblematic of a broader product tension across the industry. One side demands engineering discipline: polish, reliability, and control. The other side chases platform transformation: bold AI narratives and viral demos. The right balance requires both:
- Deliver steady, measurable improvements that users feel in day‑to‑day interactions (like faster Explorer launches).
- Avoid advertising claims that exceed what typical users will reliably experience.
- Provide clear opt‑outs, administrative controls, and transparent disclosures for AI features that touch user data or system settings.
If Microsoft threads that needle — ship practical fixes, be conservative and transparent in ad claims, and give users control — it can keep innovating without sacrificing trust.
Final assessment and what to watch next
- The File Explorer preloading experiment is a pragmatic fix that addresses a persistent UX complaint; it’s low‑risk in principle and high‑reward in perceived responsiveness. Early Insider reports are positive, and Microsoft has exposed a user toggle so the feature can be disabled. Enterprises should still pilot before wide deployment.
- The Copilot ad backlash is a reputational problem with regulatory implications. Repeated or verifiable mismatches between promotional examples and shipped reality draw watchdog attention and deepen consumer skepticism. Microsoft should revise messaging, ensure demos reflect typical user experiences, and clarify Copilot branding and entitlements.
- Monitor three signals in the coming weeks:
- Whether Microsoft publishes admin controls (GPO/MDM) and telemetry guidance for the preloading feature.
- How Microsoft responds to advertising watchdog recommendations on Copilot branding and claims.
- Independent test coverage that either corroborates or contradicts Microsoft’s ad scenarios for Copilot features.
When engineering improvements and candid communication work together, users win. Microsoft’s job now is to convert the momentum of incremental quality work into the credibility that will make its larger AI ambitions sustainable.
Microsoft’s choices this week illustrate a simple truth: small, visible fixes build goodwill; overstated demos and confusing branding can erode it just as quickly. The File Explorer preload promises an immediately useful improvement; the Copilot ad controversy is a reminder that marketing and product must stay tightly coupled if trust is to be preserved.
Source: Neowin
Microsoft Weekly: People roast Copilot ads, File Explorer gets faster