Lots of icons on the desktop

Lots of icons on the desktop

Am I correct that since computers have more than 1gig memory now, and
mine has 8 gigs, there is no longer a concern about having too many
shortcuts on the desktop?

Even though screens are bigger and there is room for at least twice as
many as the former maximum, since shortcuts are only 1 or 2KB, the
amount of RAM used is insignificant and there's no reason not to fill
the screen with shortcuts. ??

micky wrote:
Lots of icons on the desktop

Am I correct that since computers have more than 1gig memory now, and
mine has 8 gigs, there is no longer a concern about having too many
shortcuts on the desktop?

Even though screens are bigger and there is room for at least twice as
many as the former maximum, since shortcuts are only 1 or 2KB, the
amount of RAM used is insignificant and there's no reason not to fill
the screen with shortcuts. ??

Now, this article refers to an "Icon Cache".
Not the same thing as rendering them into frame buffer RAM.

What I wanted to show you, was the size of the resources
involved. They're manipulating a cache size of 8MB. Or 0.1% of
your current RAM.

https://www.thewindowsclub.com/incre...ize-in-windows

Now, if your video card is similarly voluminous, I wouldn't
be too worried about a few icons. My $40 video card had
1GB of RAM on it, for example. Expensive cards have 8GB of
video RAM, 11GB of video RAM, all the way up to 16GB of HBM2
RAM. In those cases, the video card is "as big" as your
system main memory.

Compositing of windows, to save on redraw resources, uses
somewhere in the vicinity of 128MB of RAM. And that's if
you had a ton of windows open. Again, much larger of an
issue than a pile of icons. Only if the management
of the drawing of icons was inefficient, might the
overhead become significant.

And at least in Win10, you'll notice that the blinking
or flashing the screen does occasionally, doesn't exactly
repaint at the speed of light. If there is an icon cache,
I'm not impressed.

Paul

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 13:32:56 -0500, micky
wrote:

Lots of icons on the desktop

Am I correct that since computers have more than 1gig memory now, and
mine has 8 gigs, there is no longer a concern about having too many
shortcuts on the desktop?



There is no concern now, but there's never been a concern. How much
memory the computer has is irrelevant. Shortcuts on the desktop use a
tiny amount of disk space, but no memory.

The only issue, if you want to call it an issue, is that if there is a
lot of shortcuts, the screen will be very crowded and you may find it
hard to fund the one you're looking for.

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 12:35:57 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 13:32:56 -0500, micky
wrote:

Lots of icons on the desktop

Am I correct that since computers have more than 1gig memory now, and
mine has 8 gigs, there is no longer a concern about having too many
shortcuts on the desktop?



There is no concern now, but there's never been a concern. How much
memory the computer has is irrelevant. Shortcuts on the desktop use a
tiny amount of disk space, but no memory.

The only issue, if you want to call it an issue, is that if there is a
lot of shortcuts, the screen will be very crowded and you may find it
hard to fund the one you're looking for.



Not only that, but you may also find it hard to find it. ;-)

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 13:32:56 -0500, micky
wrote:

Lots of icons on the desktop

Am I correct that since computers have more than 1gig memory now, and
mine has 8 gigs, there is no longer a concern about having too many
shortcuts on the desktop?

Even though screens are bigger and there is room for at least twice as
many as the former maximum, since shortcuts are only 1 or 2KB, the
amount of RAM used is insignificant and there's no reason not to fill
the screen with shortcuts. ??

You can have more than one screen. Make a new one
& shift icons across.

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 13:32:56 -0500, micky
wrote:

Lots of icons on the desktop

You can delete them, or perhaps create one or more folders as a way to
group them and drag them into their respective folders.

Am I correct that since computers have more than 1gig memory now, and
mine has 8 gigs, there is no longer a concern about having too many
shortcuts on the desktop?

That's not a concern and never was. You're probably thinking of
something else. Fonts, from the 3.1 or Win95 days? *shrug*

Even though screens are bigger and there is room for at least twice as
many as the former maximum, since shortcuts are only 1 or 2KB, the
amount of RAM used is insignificant and there's no reason not to fill
the screen with shortcuts. ??

I'm not sure why you'd want to fill the screen with shortcuts. How would
you find anything? Anyway, see above for a way to reduce the clutter.
I'd simply delete them, but dumping them into one or more folders would
also work. My desktop has a single icon/shortcut, Recycle Bin, but I
haven't used it in ages so it's a candidate for removal. When I use the
Recycle Bin, it's always from Win Explorer/File Explorer.

On 27/11/2018 18:32, micky Mouse Idiot wrote:
Lots of icons on the desktop

Am I correct that since computers have more than 1gig memory now, and
mine has 8 gigs, there is no longer a concern about having too many
shortcuts on the desktop?

No you are not correct because Desktop Icons and shortcuts have nothing
to do with " more than 1gig memory now ". It has never an issue even in
the past when people had only 256MB ram.


Crap deleted - not worthy of reading further from an idiot. ??


--
With over 950 million devices now running Windows 10, customer
satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.