Computer performance

[Eric Robinson]

I've been told that the number of shortcut icons on your
desktop affect performance. It has always been my
understanding that it is the number of icons on the
taskbar ("running in the background") that affect
performance. Who is correct ?

 

[Chris Lanier]

Icons them self on the desktop dont take up any memory. Any icon in the
taskbar is a program running in the backgound, which is taking up memory.

 

[gadget]

how bout fonts installed?
do they take memory?
gadgetman

 

[Will Denny]

Hi

Shortcuts on the Desktop don't do anything - they are there to access the programs that they are associated to. The same applies to the 'taskbar' icons - only there until there are invoked.

 

[Will Denny]

No - fonts only take up disk space.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

Actually, Will, any icons in the Taskbar's system
tray/notification area represent active applications/services, and so
do, indirectly, take up memory and sometimes CPU cycles. As you said,
icons in the Quick Launch area, like desktop icons, do not use any
system resources until invoked.

Bruce Chambers

--
Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH


Hi

Shortcuts on the Desktop don't do anything - they are there to access
the programs that they are associated to. The same applies to the
'taskbar' icons - only there until there are invoked.

 

[Will Denny]

Hi Bruce

'Taskbar'? The OP didn't mention the Notification Area - ah - the Semantics of XP.

 

[Ken Blake]

In

I've been told that the number of shortcut icons on your
desktop affect performance.

No, you've been told wrong.

It has always been my
understanding that it is the number of icons on the
taskbar ("running in the background") that affect
performance.

Even those don't necessarily affect performance. With most
programs, if you start one but don't actively use it, and let it
sit idle, it will quickly get paged out of RAM. It won't use any
CPU cycles if you're not actively using it, and it won't use any
real RAM, nor will it get paged in and out. Its effect on
performance quickly becomes next to nothing if its not being
used.

However, *some* background programs continually do things in the
background which can affect your performance.

 

[Alex Nichol]

I've been told that the number of shortcut icons on your
desktop affect performance. It has always been my
understanding that it is the number of icons on the
taskbar ("running in the background") that affect
performance.

Desktop icons have a small effect at boot (while the icons are fetched)
and an infinitesimal one when the screen needs to be withdrawn, but
these are negligible compared with convenience. Items in the task bar
though are the outward indications of programs running - these may have
no more effect than occupying a small amount of memory while waiting for
you to invoke them, or may be consuming large amounts of cpu and memory
- entirely depends on what they are

 

[David]

No - fonts only take up disk space.

I know that with Win98. Any Fonts installed loaded themselves into memory
at boot up. Thus cutting into performence. It wasn't a good idea to have
thousands of fonts because of this.

Doe XP work the same?

--

David

"Due to Viewer dicretion...
Graphic violence is advised"

http://www.HeroicStories.com/
http://www.thisistrue.com/
http://www.StellaAwards.com/