| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 84387 | 2007-11-03 17:59:00 | Desktop Icons | B.M. (505) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 608097 | 2007-11-04 08:32:00 | Welll...I guess if you are hurting for RAM in the first place, the above repair to the registry won't help...as you'll just set aside more RAM for the icon files and take some more away from XP..which at 512 is on the ragged edge for RAM anyway...but it's a good try if you like.... I noticed that my setting was "1000" anyway...and that's the primary value to be set in the repair....so maybe it's a good place to start too. Like I said though..take some RAM for icons and the rest of XP is gonna suffer a little. Yeah, I ran XP Pro on 168MB of RAM and it worked just fine. In fact, no hangups or bottlenecks anywhere really. |
beeswax34 (63) | ||
| 608098 | 2007-11-04 14:25:00 | Yeah, I ran XP Pro on 168MB of RAM and it worked just fine . In fact, no hangups or bottlenecks anywhere really . I thought so too . . but it is different if you have two to benchmark along side each other . I have two Dells, P-3, and basically the same (one has a DVD-Rom and the other has a burner . The one with the ROM has 384 RAM, the other a full 1024 . The differences are subtle in some areas, much different in others . Screen rendering is slightly different for time . . . and maybe resolution . . but that might be me or the monitor . Screen rendering is radically different too . . . almost frustrating in the one and livable in the other . I am also seeing my 3 gig SOYO running next to the two Dells . . . and the differences are outstanding . . . . but that isn't a good test as the SOYO is an Athlon and is a lot faster processor too . The real differences are in boot and shut down time, and downloading files from the internet . I don't really see any or much difference in installing from a cd . . . but that might be because I don't pay much attention to that part . . . burning, however, is VERY different in time used from one to the other . There are differences . . and some areas are really different . . . others not so . |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 608099 | 2007-11-04 18:44:00 | :( My new you beaut registry entry doesn’t make any difference. :( | B.M. (505) | ||
| 608100 | 2007-11-04 21:20:00 | You obviously don't have an attractive desktop wallpaper picture that you like to see properly, B.M.? 70 icons cover a lot of screen... I dumped all of mine except the most-used 9. They all fit in one row down the left side, leaving space for the pretties. Yes I agree Laura. Seventy is far too many icons. I have 25 but am constantly told I have too many even at that number. I also never have a picture background to the desktop and keep it plain. I have no problems. However most of my icons go to a new folder - my Utilities folder has 13 shortcuts and my Photo folder 15 shortcuts. And so on. I feel the stress of too many icons has more effect on operator efficiency than it does on the computer. Far better to be organised so that work entailed in looking for the wanted program is simplified. I do feel very envious of your layout Laura and have the feeling I will soon be trying to emulate your effort. Tom |
Thomas01 (317) | ||
| 608101 | 2007-11-04 23:22:00 | :( My new you beaut registry entry doesn’t make any difference. :( Maybe because.....quote..."Well my Registry has a nice new string value entry called MaxCacheIcons which is set to 4096 so we’ll see if that helps. " ??( Unless that is a typo....) The entry should be Max Cached Icons. |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 608102 | 2007-11-04 23:34:00 | Ohhhhhh?!? :confused: The article I read had it all as one word . :groan: But now I think about it there was some discussion as to what it should be called . I'll start again . :D |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 608103 | 2007-11-05 00:08:00 | Mmmm. Separate words and as Terry says (or implies), don't forget the "d" on the end of the middle word... | johcar (6283) | ||
| 608104 | 2007-11-05 01:47:00 | Right, redone to Max Cached Icons so let's see how that goes . :D However, if you Google MaxCacheIcons or MaxCachedIcons or Max Cached Icons you get heaps of hits on all of them . :confused: All claiming to be correct of course . :groan: |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 608105 | 2007-11-05 06:08:00 | Looking good. :thumbs: | B.M. (505) | ||
| 608106 | 2007-11-05 18:23:00 | Well guys installing a Icon Cache seems to have done the trick nicely . :thumbs: There are a number of conflicting methods that didn’t work for me so I’ll detail what did . The Operating System was XP Home Service Pack 2 There was no registry entry MaxCacheIcons – MaxCashedIcons or Max Cached Icons to adjust the value off so the String had to be created . The String had to be created in the Registry location of : HKEY_Local_Machine\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\Explorer The only String Name that would work was Max Cached Icons, none of the others would & the Value was set at 4096 . Ok, remember this was on XP Home and some of the other articles on the web refer to XP Pro . But wait, there’s more! Some of you may remember this link of mine that was never resolved . . co . nz/showthread . php?t=80023" target="_blank">pressf1 . co . nz Well, believe it or not, but the shut-down time has been halved so a beaut bonus there . :D Don’t ask me how the Icon Cache effects the shut-down time but I’m sure someone out there will know . Thanks everyone who contributed . :thumbs: |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||