Files and Folders Saved to Desktop

I'm providing training on a laptop suite used by our organization. When we came to the part in the lesson covering desktop usage there was discussion as to what is actually correct.

The instructor guide reads, "Shortcuts should be the only icons seen on the desktop. As far as other files go, you should minimize what is placed on the desktop. Working files (e.g. PowerPoint briefs, downloaded weather files, etc.) stored directly on the desktop are loaded into system memory when the computer is started; this is not an efficient use of system resources. Note: if you insist on storing files on your desktop, create a folder first and store the files there."

The OS is WinXP SP3 with 2gb of ram. So what's the story here? Do files saved to the desktop get loaded into system memory? Can you avoid this issue by simply creating a folder on the desktop and moving the same files into that folder? I don't see how creating a subfolder in the desktop directory solves the issue. The folder and its contents are still on the desktop.

I've always been aware of the conventional wisdom to not clutter the desktop with files and exe because of decreased performance but I never really looked into the cause and effect on resources. I rarely access anything from the desktop anyway, so it has never been a preference to store anything there.

Thoughts?

No, they don't get loaded into memory. For a counter argument, show him the desktop is already a folder.

EDIT: I guess I could see the icon being loaded into memory because it is being shown, but we are talking about kilobytes of RAM here.

So where does this conventional wisdom come from? Google searches turn up many reference that read similar to...

"Here’s a little tidbit that most people don’t know: all the icons, files and programs stored on your desktop are loaded into memory via your windows ‘user profile’. A messy desktop equals a slow PC. Desktop shortcuts are not much of a problem because of their small size. Files, downloads, and programs should be stored in a folder on your hard drive or a network drive, not your desktop."

Was this something that occurred with older OS's? WinXP and previous? Note, these laptops are WinXP SP3.

I can't remember an OS that does that. XP does not, for sure. I have a ton of stuff (gigabytes of data) on my work computer and it is no different. I know other technicians that have more than I do and none have speed issues. Again, this is because the desktop is a folder. There is no reason for the OS to load the files into RAM.

If that were true, wouldn't the files load faster....i.e. RAM Disk in a sense? There is no performance impact on where the files are stored. On Drive C, D, Desktop, And putting them in a folder on the desktop puts the flaw in the initial suggestion...Woudln't the Folder be loaded in memory too? And as already mentioned the desktop is a folder.

Paladine, I think the issue that the instructor guide is wanting me to hit home is that once loaded, less ram will be available for other resources and will significantly reducing performance if a lot of crap is stored on the desktop. I agree with you that the loading speed should be increased.

Room, I'm told that this occurs due to the interface with the domain. Our organization's domains are setup similarly from site to site. All people’s profiles are saved to the server at logoff and loaded from the server at login. So could it be the domain that dictates that each system’s desktop is loaded into ram at login?

This doesn’t make sense to me either. Hasn’t the desktop from at least windows xp to windows 7 been stored in a folder located on the hdd at C:\Users\[user name]\Desktop. I myself have all my user files stored on a separate hdd different from where the os is loaded on my home desktop but not laptops.

I’m going to test this “loading to ram” on an organization laptop. I tested my home laptop by dropping a 2gb video file on the desktop. I’m running win7 64bit with 4gb of ram. I paid particularly close attention to explorer.exe and dwm.exe for significant memory usage changes. The ram usage increased several mb, but nowhere near 2gb. After rebooting, the ram usage during and after profile loading actually decreased back to near the value from before the file was added to the desktop. I then deleted it and there was little impact to ram. I rebooted and there was no significant change. I repeated the experiment and there was even less of a change in ram usage.

It seems like this is a domain issue. Any thoughts?

Thideras is correct, that is old wives tail info that has been popularized from who knows where.

Easy test: compare ram usage with an empty desktop, to ram usage with a desktop with gigabytes worth of files on it.

Result: No difference in resource utilization.

As for the user profile stuff with the domain, everything in my documents, my pictures, and my music is part of your user profile same as the desktop is. There is no tangible or observable difference from saving things in the desktop folder or the my documents folder - but no one is telling you not to clutter up the my documents folder.

Domain or not, desktop is nothing special and whoever wrote the instructor guide didn't verify their information before passing on "folk wisdom".

I remember being told that years ago too. Is that just so old that it is from back when computers were much slower it would impact the start-up speed so it was assumed it was eating resources?

Could be bugfreak, thats kinda what I was thinking. Sometimes folders can take some time to enumerate file info, depending on what sort of info is configured to be displayed by explorer - but the desktop doesn't exactly have those issues.

When I first heard of desktop files using RAM. I sort of chuckled.

Inert files will use a tiny bit of RAM. Not in a way most would expect. Sure the Windows shell, Explorer will cache files. Though nothing coming close to a user noticing it or it burning through resources. Actually, you would use no more RAM. Than a user account would see exploring, Explorer. When it gets set to the pagefile. Poof it is there until Windows has no need of the caching data. Which might be a few kB as a pointer..

So in my best guess. What would an inert file use RAM for? The Explorer shell, not as a separate memory address space or register. So no matter where it resides. If you see it, it will use some space someplace. Be it an icon, symlink or the package.

Interesting

I always put files were they should be just because... I dont use my desktop its usually covered by open windows and accessing it is at best slowing me down. Easier to hit the "start" button or just have an explorer window already open I can alt+tab to.

the few shortcuts I have on my desktop are moved to the second monitor and STILL tend to get covered up lol

But I also believed the myth about large files on the desktop. I know windows had lots of performance issues with caching icons/thumbnails even as recently as a few years ago. So this could be part of the problem.

(Even know in Windows 7 with an SSD. I open one of my storage folders and watch the green progress bar crawl at the top of the screen. Granted we are talking about hundred of files or more...)

Neuromancer said:

(Even know in Windows 7 with an SSD. I open one of my storage folders and watch the green progress bar crawl at the top of the screen. Granted we are talking about hundred of files or more...)

Click to expand...

Changing the explorer options can greatly impact this. Disabling any meta information you can will help it load faster - by default file size and all sorts of different stuff is calculated, and disabling those things makes it almost instantaneous. An SSD helps as well, but that isn't free.

I have a bunch of 2TB drives with hundreds of HD video files on them, and they can load instantly if I disable stuff... If I leave explorer at default it takes quite a while for that green bar to go across.

Just FYI, in case you wanted to try some different settings - I know I don't use a lot of the meta information it gives by default.