Windows 11 Archive Extraction Performance: Progress, Challenges, and User Impact

Windows 11’s pursuit of performance gains has always been a central talking point since its initial release, with Microsoft promising smoother operation, increased productivity, and a host of incremental refinements. Yet, as recent updates roll out, many users and power testers continue to voice a mixture of satisfaction and frustration. The latest in this saga involves Microsoft touting improved extraction speeds in File Explorer, part of the April non-security preview update (C-release) KB5055627. However, as documented both by enthusiast forums and detailed third-party benchmarks, these changes reveal both genuine progress and some unresolved—and, to many, deeply aggravating—shortcomings.

Windows 11, Compression, and the Long Shadow of Legacy Code​

With the debut of Windows 11 23H2, Microsoft highlighted a refreshed focus on native compression and archiving, integrating support for more archive formats and tweaking the File Explorer’s extraction routines. This was widely discussed in the tech community, as users hoped the long-standing lag behind third-party tools like 7-Zip and WinRAR might finally be addressed.
Benchmarks shared by testers immediately after the August 2023 update, however, revealed that while improvements were noticeable, the gap in performance—particularly on bulk extraction tasks—remained yawning. Third-party apps continued to outpace File Explorer, often by a significant margin, especially when handling large archives with many small files.

April 2024 Update: Real Gains, Teasing More​

Fast forward to the latest April 2024 update (KB5055627), and Microsoft’s release notes now cite “improved performance when extracting zipped files, particularly with a large number of small files.” While this is a targeted limitation—many compression routines can handle single large files well, but struggle with thousands of tiny items—it is one that’s acutely felt by developers, gamers, and power users routinely working with source code, mods, or unpacked applications.
Independent testing—such as that conducted and documented by the developer of CompactGUI (a tool built on Microsoft’s own technology for aggressive drive compression) and shared widely on Reddit—has validated Microsoft’s claims to a point. Extraction speeds, with Windows Defender real-time protection enabled, saw about a 10% bump compared to previous builds: 333 seconds down to 303 seconds when extracting a typical test set.
Yet, as these testers are quick to note, the improvement, while real, is relative. File Explorer still lags far behind both PowerShell’s Expand-Archive command and especially third-party tools like 7-Zip. With Defender disabled entirely—something few average users will want to do for security reasons—extraction speeds improved by as much as 35%. This puts the spotlight on Defender’s significant footprint on I/O-heavy operations, which has long been a source of user grumbling.

Defender’s Drag and File Explorer’s Architecture Woes​

Microsoft Defender, the built-in security suite, is both a blessing and, in cases like this, a performance burden. Real-time scanning of each and every file as it’s extracted is crucial for security, but the overhead can be enormous, particularly for archives with thousands of files or those stored in user-accessible directories such as Downloads. The Reddit test cited above highlights this duality: Defender’s role as a safety net is clear, but its inefficiency in high-frequency extraction scenarios is hard to justify when competing tools do not suffer from the same slowdowns.
The bigger issue, though, is File Explorer’s own underpinnings. The user “IridiumIO”—incidentally the developer behind CompactGUI—describes Microsoft’s approach as essentially sticking new features (such as support for RAR and 7Z archives) on top of what he calls “XP-era processing.” Decades-old architectural choices, he argues, form a hard ceiling for File Explorer’s performance. This is particularly galling for power users, as the PowerShell command “Expand-Archive”—also built into Windows—delivers extraction performance much closer to third-party applications. Why, they ask, hasn’t Microsoft simply migrated File Explorer’s extraction logic to use this far more efficient backend?

Path Length, Directory Depth, and Per-File Overhead​

Performance quirks aren’t just about Defender or legacy code. The same Redditor notes that archive extraction in the root of C:\, as opposed to the user’s Downloads directory, yielded an additional 10% speedup. The implication is that File Explorer may be performing unnecessary file system checks or lookups along complex directory paths for each file extracted. If this is true—and broader benchmarking could confirm or dispel the effect—it means users with heavily nested folder structures could see even worse performance, compounding frustration.

A/B Testing and the Mystery of Inconsistent Updates​

A cautionary note emerges from the real-world community tests: Microsoft’s ongoing practice of staged A/B feature rollouts (sometimes to gather telemetry or vet stability before a blanket release) can make genuine performance improvements difficult to verify. As the tester admits, it’s possible their particular system hadn’t actually received the full set of extraction optimizations, depending on their participation in the A/B test pool. This means some users may see little change for weeks or months after the initial announcement, which can lead to further confusion and skepticism.
This is not a hypothetical concern. Windows 11’s development cadence, with its blend of feature, security, and experiment-driven updates, has resulted in measurable variance—some users report rapid gains while others, even on similar hardware, see stagnant or inconsistent performance outcomes. The result is a trust gap between Microsoft’s PR and customer experience.

Critical Comparison: File Explorer vs. The Competition​

How does Windows 11’s File Explorer actually stack up in practical extraction tasks after this latest update? Multiple independent tests allow us to draw some clear, though not always flattering, conclusions.

WinRAR, 7-Zip, and PowerShell​

• 7-Zip is widely regarded as the gold standard for archive extraction speed and flexibility. Thanks to its open-source nature and years of performance tuning, it typically extracts large archives with thousands of files between 2x to 5x faster than File Explorer—even after the recent updates. Its CPU utilization is generally more efficient, and it avoids the per-file overhead that seems to hobble Explorer.
• WinRAR, while proprietary, is comparably fast and features smart multithreading and unobtrusive security checks. It, too, consistently outperforms Explorer on both large and small files.
• PowerShell’s “Expand-Archive” command sits somewhere in between: it’s not quite as fast as 7-Zip, but substantially swifter than File Explorer. And, crucially, it leverages more modern Windows APIs and better multithreaded execution, reducing per-file bottlenecks. As a built-in tool, it stands as proof that better performance is already available within the OS—just not in the default user interface.

Explorer’s Place​

File Explorer’s native extraction is, therefore, best described as functional—but still falling short for demanding use cases. For users extracting modestly sized archives from time to time, the difference is less pronounced. But anyone frequently dealing with large codebases, software packages, or multi-gigabyte game mods will instantly notice how much slower native tools are, especially compounded by Defender’s vigilant but heavy-handed file scanning.

User Frustration and Microsoft’s Missed Opportunities​

The tech community’s reaction to these incremental improvements is telling. There is appreciation for the progress—especially the 10-35% speed boosts in targeted situations—but widespread disappointment that Microsoft persists with half-measures rather than a root-and-branch modernization of File Explorer’s extraction subsystem. The fact that a fully functional, more performant backup (PowerShell) exists only deepens the sense of missed opportunity.
Several tech forums and Reddit discussions have crystallized around the same set of questions:

• Why is File Explorer’s extraction so inferior to what’s already bundled in Windows?
• What’s stopping Microsoft from updating Explorer’s backend to at least match PowerShell?
• Are planned updates being too cautiously A/B tested, delaying their benefits to the wider user base?
• Will Microsoft ever tackle Defender’s I/O impact, or at least provide ways for advanced users to whitelist trusted folders?

These questions are not trivial; they go to the core of Windows 11’s user experience philosophy. For a modern OS, the expectation is that basic file operations should be efficient, robust, and competitive with best-in-class alternatives. When they’re not, trust erodes and users—especially power users—seek out replacements and workarounds, deepening the fragmentation of the Windows utility ecosystem.

The Broader Picture: Windows 11’s Performance Push​

It’s important to recognize that updates like KB5055627 aren’t dropping in isolation. Windows 11’s broader arc is one of incremental performance lifts, UI unification, and expanded hardware compatibility. According to Microsoft’s own release notes and third-party reports, recent versions have seen measurable improvements in boot time, window rendering, memory management, and support for new CPU architectures.
But File Explorer—still the primary way most users interact with files—remains emblematic of Windows’ long balancing act between legacy support and forward progress. The incremental boost to archive extraction is important, but the clinging to legacy subsystems (reportedly as old as the XP era) and the unmitigated cost of real-time Defender scanning feel increasingly out of step with the rest of the system.

Strengths and Risks: An Objective Assessment​

Notable Strengths​

• Steady, Verifiable Improvement: Independent benchmarks confirm real, if incremental, speed boosts in compressed file extraction, particularly for large numbers of small files in moderately nested directories.
• Expanded Format Support: Windows 11 now natively recognizes more archive types (including .rar and .7z) without requiring add-ons.
• Integration with Security: Despite the performance penalty, Defender ensures that malicious files don’t slip through during extraction, providing peace of mind for less advanced users.
• Ongoing Telemetry-Driven Optimization: Microsoft’s use of A/B testing and staged rollouts enables high-confidence, low-risk updates with fewer breaking bugs.

Potential Risks and Shortcomings​

• Persistent Performance Gap: Native File Explorer continues to trail third-party tools by a wide margin for heavy-duty extraction workloads, which may be unacceptable for developers, gamers, and IT professionals.
• Legacy Code Entrenchment: Layering modern features (like RAR/7Z support) atop old code can lead to technical debt, hidden bugs, and missed opportunities for architectural simplification.
• Inconsistent User Experience: Staged A/B testing and uneven rollout can mean some users benefit immediately, while others are left wondering if performance is ever going to improve on their setup.
• Security vs. Speed Dilemma: Defender’s footprint is significant, yet disabling (even temporarily) is risky for regular users—Microsoft has yet to provide smart, nuanced options for balancing these priorities.
• Potential I/O Bottlenecks: The suspected slowdown caused by path depth and per-folder checks, if confirmed by wider benchmarking, could point to more fundamental file system inefficiencies waiting to be addressed.

What Comes Next? Recommendations for Power Users and Microsoft​

Users seeking the best of both worlds—security and speed—are not without options. Savvy Windows 11 users often:

• Run PowerShell’s “Expand-Archive” for large/many-file archives, skipping File Explorer entirely.
• Rely on trusted third-party tools (e.g., 7-Zip) for high-volume extraction—aware that these may still be checked by Defender after-the-fact, but at least escape the I/O bottleneck during extraction.
• Adjust Defender’s settings, where possible, to exclude specific “Downloads” or “Work” folders from real-time scanning—though this should never be done recklessly.

For Microsoft, the opportunity and challenge are clear-cut. The company should strongly consider:

• Redesigning File Explorer’s archive extraction routines to use the same APIs and multithreaded logic found in PowerShell, or else integrating 7-Zip’s open-source backend directly (as is increasingly done in Linux desktop environments).
• Introducing granular Defender policies allowing savvy users and admins to safely tune real-time scanning for trusted locations.
• Increasing transparency around A/B testing so users know whether their systems have actually received the touted improvements.
• Rethinking the balance of legacy support and modernization in File Explorer, perhaps with an opt-in “Fast Extraction Mode” or similar.

Final Thoughts: A Work in Progress, But the Clock Is Ticking​

The recent update to Windows 11’s File Explorer marks visible progress and demonstrates Microsoft’s willingness to listen to user pain points. But the continued mismatch between native and third-party performance is a sharp reminder that incrementalism has limits. As Windows 11 matures, users are looking for more than just cosmetic upgrade—they want core functionalities to be best-in-class. Until File Explorer’s extraction routines receive a ground-up rework and Defender’s performance footprint can be intelligently managed, power users will still look elsewhere. The race for Windows 11 to “just feel fast” in every corner of the OS is far from over. In the meantime, savvy users will keep hunting for ways to bridge the gap that Microsoft’s updates have, thus far, only partially closed.

---

Source: Neowin Microsoft boosts Windows 11 performance with latest update but users feel it's not enough