| Author |
Message |
greg_mitch
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 5320
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:28 pm Post subject: Does having files on the Desktop slow down a computer? |
|
|
I have several project folders on my desktop at work with links to several network drives. I end up throwing a lot of files in these folders because I need to keep them temporarily or I don't feel they warrant a network save so my Desktop is getting rather large in file size.
My computer has been remarkably slow since I received it and crashes all the time when using multiple drawings in CAD.
My IT support has suggested that all of the files on my desktop are causing the issues. I have 6gig of RAM but they are telling me that the size of my Desktop files is eating up all the available memory. They want me to move all of the files to "My Documents" and then put back just links on the desktop to this folder.
I have never heard of this and have always saved things to the Desktop. Why would it matter anyway since the Desktop is just an image of a folder (c:users/username/desktop)?
Anyone provide any help here regarding the storing files on the Desktop?
Thanks.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That makes no sense at all, Greg. The "Desktop" is just another directory - an Explorer window if you will.
If the computer is slow and it's been crashing since you received it, then it obviously isn't the files on the desktop, which clearly weren't there when you got the computer.
I'd comply with their request, though... Move everything to My Docs and put shortcuts back there... Then, when the slowdowns and crashes still occur, you can say, "Well, we know it wasn't the files on the desktop now, don't we?" and they can get down the business of actually fixing the problem.
I've always made a shortcut back to My Docs, then you've got a second method to jump there easily even if you end up on the Desktop when you're opening or saving.
I assume you're using AutoCAD with large drawings... What version of Windows and AutoCAD are you using? 6GB is probably barely cutting it - AutoCAD is a POS memory HOG.
But, the IT guys sound like they're full of it... It sounds like bad RAM or motherboard to me. I'd suspect bad RAM if it's crashing when you have multiple drawings open. If the IT guys won't get to work on your issue, and if you have a work buddy with the same hardware config, you guys could try swapping RAM after hours and see the if the problem moves to his machine.
I'll ask my CAD buddy what he thinks.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zaphod
Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 2002
Location: Cloverdale
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
now, if you had 4 or 5 beeeelion files on your desktop then you might be hitting a limitation in how folders are processed by explorer. i'm not saying that there is such a limitation, but when explorer displays/opens a folder it touches each and every item in that folder to show the appropriate icon and so on. when a folder gets huge it would follow that this processing would take some time, perhaps not linear to the number of items in the folder, but that depends on the coding in folder display.
since (as SC pointed out) desktop is just a folder it would have the same potential limitations/slowdowns but since it is always "displayed" that slowdown might have an overall effect on your PC.
however - and this is where the BS meter goes off for what your IT guys said - replacing the desktop items with shortcuts to their new location does not change the number of items in the desktop folder and so the same limitation/problem would exist. thinking further, since the shortcut link file needs to be followed to a different folder and file to complete the display processing, replacing all your items with shortcuts would potentially slow down the PC even more.
but i still call the advice into question and think it's a RAM problem. i had an old sun 3/80 running as an Xterm and it had a bad RAM SIM in it. the thing ran fine until i put too much onto it and that particular SIM was used - then boom it crashed. it could run for a week until i hit the limit. or a day if i was really multitasking.
RAM - it's a harsh mistress.
_________________
walk gently. leave a good impression.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, no, that's the Moon.
(Sorry, old Heinlein reference  )
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Why anyone now a days saves documents or even saves anything (pics, music, videos, files and whatever) on their main drive (C:/) just boggles my mind.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:02 pm Post subject: Re: Does having files on the Desktop slow down a computer? |
|
|
| greg_mitch wrote: | My IT support has suggested that all of the files on my desktop are causing the issues. I have 6gig of RAM but they are telling me that the size of my Desktop files is eating up all the available memory. They want me to move all of the files to "My Documents" and then put back just links on the desktop to this folder.
|
Like SC said your IT guy is full of sh*t. If what he said was true my media server which is the same box I rip on would be going backwards with 12TB of files.
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg_mitch
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 5320
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| macgyver655 wrote: | | Why anyone now a days saves documents or even saves anything (pics, music, videos, files and whatever) on their main drive (C:/) just boggles my mind. |
They only give us a 74gb drive so...I don't have a lot of room to save files anyway.
I have about 10gb on the desktop in various folders.
I figured he was full of sh*t but I did google it and saw a few conversations that might lend some credibility to his argument.
I will move the files and just create one shortcut...means more clicks for me but it will be quickest to un-do once I determine it didn't help for sh*t.
I am on W7 x64 with a C2D E4400 with 6gig ram and Quadro FX 1700. Using ACAD MEP 2009 and Revit MEP 2011.
My computer at home is faster...
But we all just got a new toy as noted in a previous thread...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Even a 74gb drive can benefit from 2 partitions.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Do you use roaming profiles? (Not sure if that even makes sense on W7, but...) If so, then storing files on your desktop means that they follow you everywhere you log in, which could add overhead. But I don't get the impression your company uses that.
I've heard arguments that files on the desktop create more load than other locations -- because Explorer has to keep them in memory or some damfool thing like that -- but I haven't seen any definitive / reliable confirmation of that.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garyfritz wrote: | | Do you use roaming profiles? |
Was this question for me? If so, then no, thats not what I mean.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
No, I was asking if Greg's company used roaming profiles.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| macgyver655 wrote: | | Why anyone now a days saves documents or even saves anything (pics, music, videos, files and whatever) on their main drive (C:/) just boggles my mind. |
Because unless a connected network share is under-utilized and on gigabit-E, it'll be about ten times as fast to save it locally.
Oh, do you mean, why do people save to the same disk the operating system is running on?
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: |
Oh, do you mean, why do people save to the same disk the operating system is running on?
SC |
There you go.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akajester
Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Posts: 934
Location: Wisconsin
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Having two partitions isn't going to speed anything up. If they're on the same physical hard drive. If anything you'll create more drive thrashing by having to copy files back/forth between what the OS thinks is two hard drives. You really need two physical drives for a performance increase. Unless you mean for organization or backup reasons, than yes two partitions can help.
Dale
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| akajester wrote: | Unless you mean for backup reasons, than yes two partitions can help.
Dale |
Save loss in case of operating system failure. Anyone not having at least 2 partitions, 1 with the OS and software and the other for personal stuff now a days makes no sense. Shortcut to additional drive partitions on desktop.
This situation in this thread is also a perfect example. PC running slow and crashing and dont know why. All important data is on additional drive partitions, just format C: and install fresh OS. Simple and sweet and your back running full steam in no time. And all data in intact.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There's nothing wrong with what you're saying, Mac... But, it's really not a big deal. As fast as everything is now, if a user is at least saving his/her work to his/her user directory (as Greg is), then it doesn't take long at all to back up the user directory, nuke the OS, and restore the files to the user directory.
Unless you go to the trouble of setting up directories with permissions, you also defeat whatever multi-user security the OS has by saving all your work to a separate partition vs. saving in your "user" directory.
Mac OS X doesn't have any fragmentation issues, and has a really cool backup feature called Time Machine that backs up the contents of the main drive partition, so I intentionally save things to my boot drive (for backup), and to an encrypted user directory for security. I know Windows also has similar features. It's not as critical for a desktop as it is for a notebook that moves around, but it's still something to consider when you're deciding how to setup your working file space.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | There's nothing wrong with what you're saying, Mac... But, it's really not a big deal. As fast as everything is now, if a user is at least saving his/her work to his/her user directory (as Greg is), then it doesn't take long at all to back up the user directory, nuke the OS, and restore the files to the user directory.
|
If you save to a user directory and your OS fails and a repair is unsuccessful then all you data is lost. Even a backup on the same partition as the OS is worthless.
Not so when saved to another partition.
I've been doing this for years, not only for myself but for customers also. Then you dont have to worry about doing a backup to install a fresh OS.
Short of a hard failure, your data is never lost. I always burn important stuff to disc for this case.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg_mitch
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 5320
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garyfritz wrote: | | No, I was asking if Greg's company used roaming profiles. |
Not sure...I have never logged into another machine and no one ever does, so probably not.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akajester
Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Posts: 934
Location: Wisconsin
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| macgyver655 wrote: | | akajester wrote: | Unless you mean for backup reasons, than yes two partitions can help.
Dale |
Save loss in case of operating system failure. Anyone not having at least 2 partitions, 1 with the OS and software and the other for personal stuff now a days makes no sense. Shortcut to additional drive partitions on desktop.
This situation in this thread is also a perfect example. PC running slow and crashing and dont know why. All important data is on additional drive partitions, just format C: and install fresh OS. Simple and sweet and your back running full steam in no time. And all data in intact. |
why would you lose data if the OS fails? You just copy your files off the drive, reinstall windows and copy your stuff back. You won't lost any data unless the physical drive fails or you carelessly wipe the partition or drive. Two partitions doesn't save you from a hard drive failure, nor does it speed anything up. If you want to protect your files AND speed up your computer you need at least 2 physical drives to spread the load. One for the OS and one for rendering the files, scratch disk, file storage or whatever. Then backup whatever you want to an external drive. Two partitions creates more drive thrashing. The only reason you'd do it is to keep files organized or make backup or reinstalling the OS easier.
I doubt he'll get IT to reinstall his machine with separate partitions or drives, so this is all moot anyways. On our campus we've run dual drives many times for professors that have rendering or other situations that make sense. I can't say the same for corporate situations though.
Dale
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akajester
Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Posts: 934
Location: Wisconsin
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| greg_mitch wrote: | | garyfritz wrote: | | No, I was asking if Greg's company used roaming profiles. |
Not sure...I have never logged into another machine and no one ever does, so probably not. |
Even if you use roaming profiles, most profiles are cached locally by default. So, it only affects the login process if they wipe the profiles routinely or prevent them from caching.
Dale
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
