Can there be too many desktop icons in XP?

Can someone tell me if the number of icons on the desktop of windows xp affects how fast the computer runs?

I've been told that covering the desktop with icons will make the system slower because it uses up the ram. True or False?

I've had people agree and disagree--and I'd like to know what's right, and the reason why.

Thank you for any information you can give.

 

The desktop is a folder on your HDD, and as such uses minimal (just for it's display) RAM until something there is called up by a user. The CPU does not run any code from the HDD; it can only run code in RAM.

When your HDD is full, no more icons can be added. However, if your HDD is full of files, that does slow your computer because it must look further to find things. Not generally noticeable on modern machines until the glut is extreme.

 

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1153278,00.asp

 

As the article points out this can be system dependent.

I myself do not like an overcrowed desktop so I created folders for various things such as Games, Network Games, System Tools etc. Then added a shortcut to the proper folder. Then drag-N-dropped the folders over into the Start Menu.

Just for the sake of looking I just looked and I have seventeen ( 17 ) folders in the start menu.

Also I did this because I was getting too many things on the Desltop and there was a visable slowdown. And I have XP Pro with 256 meg of RAM.

BillyBob

PS.
Lets change the 17 to 7 folders and 10 shortcuts to various other things.

BB

 

The attached files shows what I mean.

One click on the DeskTop and they are all gone leaving only the three at the top left.

BillyBob

 

Billy Bob,

Might i suggest more RAM. 256 "will" work but its a bare minimum. Low RAM
means a lot of thrashing is probably going on with the RAM i.e., loading and
unloading programs into RAM (specially large programs). You would do well by
your system to get 1 gig of RAM. Things might improve and your system will
thank you.

savagcl

 

And I have XP Pro with 256 meg of RAM.

OOPS !! I goofed. I have 512meg. And even if I had 1gig my desktop would still not change.?

But my Desktop setup has nothing to do with System RAM or overall operation. I just do not like a cluttered desktop regardless of what it does or does not effect. Can you just imagine what my desktop would look like if I had even half of those shortcuts on it

Also the Video card may come into play here too. I did notice quite a difference ( desktop included ) when I upgraded to a better Video card. And finallly got the right drivers for my machine and/or OS.

Also if I set a blank background rather than the picture that I have it might make a difference.

But I must admit here that speed is actually my least concern. Reliabilty and overall preformance is. If it is a bit slower but more reliable then So-be-it.

And last but not least. No one part of the system works alone. It takes several different parts ( including the Operator which I have found to be the biggest problem ) working together.

BillyBob

 

I have NO icons on my desktop. But have lots of pointers in the desktop folder and access them via the desktop addition on the taskbar, which is also kept hidden until the mouse calls it up by reaching the bottom of the desktop. This allows access to all the pointers without clearing windows from the desktop.

 

A question for sparrow or anyone.

Wouldn't the way Sparrow shows still use a lot of system ram/resources and video ?

I tried that way once and found it to actually slow things down.

If things show up when the mouse is lowered to the bottom then I believe stuff must be stored in RAM.

My list does not show until I atually click on START. And sometimes I can even see it being redrawn which tells me that it is not stored in RAM.

But most of the time 99% it pops right up.

I can also access/start other things without clearing/closing any open windows.

BillyBob

 

Hey Folks.

Thanks for bring up desktop Icons etc.

I was just messing around ( due to this post ) and found that I had two different shortcuts to WeatherBug. No wonder it looked different sometimes. It was actually installed in two places. And two different versions. As of this moment it is now down to just one version, one install and ONE shortcut.

BillyBob

 

I don't think I can tell from whence something as small as an icon file (= pointer, file size 1K = smallest file size allowed) is called up; it takes far longer to move the object pointed to to memory and that seems often to be instantaneous.

The reason for pointers is to save human's time, avoiding the multiple clicks and searching required in using menus; our time is much more valuable than the computer's.

BillyBob both our techniques use pointers, so I think it's six of one and half a dozen of another.

 

I agree with the pointer ( shortcut ) part. But not knowing any better I question it being 6 of one and 1/2 dozen of the other.

Unless I am thinking wrong, all of that stuff ( the way sparrow shows ) is loaded ( and drawn by video ) at bootup. And I do not think there is any way that it can not effect bootup time.

That is just why I keep nothing but the essentials loading at bootup.

BillyBob

 

Well, I have a few icons on the desktop spread around the monitors edge. This
way i can run any appl or be on the Net and still have access to all my
programs, harddisk, dvd, etc. I dont use a background.
The two folder icons contains all my utilities and sound applications.
On the taskbar, I have very little loaded at startup because it will save memory.

Was under the impression that "things" in the taskbar are loaded into memory
and still have that impression. Unless something has changed, its not just the
icon but the application is also loaded into memory (hence the faster access).

savagcl

 

Icons that appear on the taskbar represent programs that are at least partially running in RAM, but I think pointers, such as desktop icons, are not. Only the pointer is in RAM and doesn't take up any significant space - it's size is less than 1K.

My task manager shows 34 processes running, 11 of which are mine, indicated by tray icons. I also have icons in desktop, which aren't running; if they were, task manager should show them. IMO, none of this has an impact on performance.

 

1k pointers are not a problem unless you are extremely short on RAM (really
extreme).

Wasnt aware that only a portion of an app was loaded. Always thought it was
all or nothing. Have to wonder what determines the point that it stops
loading.... and how much is loaded - 1/4, 1/2, 3/4????

Still seems like if you "pre-staged" a lot of apps, RAM would be used that could
be made available to the app that you really wanted to run.


savagcl

 

Hi savagcl,

It's an old trick, to load a small portion of a program into memory, usually a part that responds when you click on something, or a part that responds to an IRQ, or to some other message to which the main program itself must respond. The portion that gets the original message "calls ", starts, loads into RAM the main program to handle things. For example, that's what the icons on the quick launch area do. When the main program finishes and releases its RAM, the resident part remains. Icons in the notification area act similarly in some cases; in other cases they act as an interface with the user, calling up a menu for example.

Actually in the old days the "resident program ", resident in RAM, did all the work. But now many programs have grown much too large to remain in RAM all the time.

 

I think what we really have here is something that can be customized to a combination of the users liking and what the system can handle.

It is not something that must be done done a certain way.

What works for one may well not work for someone else. What one likes the other may not.

That is a point that may well be determined by the amount of RAM. 1gig of RAM will handle a lot more than 512meg.

If I were to set up my Wifes' machine like mine she would be handing me my head on a platter. And I have to be a bit more carefull on her machine also because she only has 256meg of RAM.

BillyBob

 

Sounds like my daughter and grand daughter. They leave their systems running
24/7 and loaded up with everything they can. I dare not touch their systems.
But everytime i go see them, i have to do a cleanup, defrag, etc, since they
never bother and that puts me in trouble right off the bat.

I do have some leeway since they are my hand-me-down systems! Plus if
something breaks, guess who the system belongs to then.....

Ah, the joy of being a father/grandfather!!!

savagcl

 

I have no problem with Kids/Grandkids as they all have OEM machines which I will not touch because all three of my machines I hand built. But, Neices & Nephews from next door make up for that.

Two of them have not even spoken to me or appeared to use the one PC that they are allowed to use for over a week now. And all because I found that stuff had been downloaded and INSTALLED without even asking me.

When I asked why the answer I got was " Our FRIEND SAID we needed it." My answer to that was "Well, this is not your Friends machine. "

BillyBob

 

WOW !!

I am now on the machine referred to above for testing.

I COULD NOT get here before.

BillyBob

I an just checking from my machine to be sure the reply did indeed get here. Looks OK now.

BB