It's not so much of a tweak as a pay me now vs pay me
later argument.
The downside is that if the DLLs become needed again at
some point (you launch something that needs them, or
choose something that needs them, etc), Windows has to
take time to load the DLL again rather than having it
already cached or available. Also, there is a slight
performance hit to unloading things as opposed to leaving
them around.
However, if applications ever need the RAM that
these "unneeded" DLLs are "using", Windows will unload
them anyway.
So, in theory, you either unload them when they
become "unneeded" and take the hit if you need them
again, or you let Windows unload them if there becomes a
RAM crunch, and take a slight hit there.
It's also interesting to note that the actual performance
gain/loss of this "tweak" is quite miniscule, I
personally don't think it's even worth touching.
-----Original Message-----
We are all aware of the tweak that forces windows to
unload unneeded DLLs from RAM. My question is, why would
microsoft want to keep unneeded DLLs in memory in the
first place? Is there any downside to this tweak?
