Frogboy Frogboy

Memory use myths

▼

Memory use myths

Customization software is not resource intensive

from WinCustomize Forums

I'm not sure where the myth began. But somewhere down the line, a false belief has turned into pseudo-fact amongst some people that customization software uses a lot of memory.  That's never been the case. Not even in the beginning.

At the dawn of Windows customization, software had to run on Windows 95 which only had 128K (that's kilobytes) of GDI resources. Customization software ate up a lot of those GDI resources since they were reserved for the user interface.  But even in 1995, 16K of memory was trivial. It's just that early versions of Windows were so limited in their GDI resources that it was a problem.

But Windows 2000 and Windows XP have never had any such problem.  And yet, we still see some uninformed, but vocal, user claim that <Program X> is "bloated" and uses a "ton" of memory.  Those people come in two forms:  The guy who really has no idea what he's talking about and the guy who thinks 10 megabytes of memory is a "ton" of memory.

The former guy is annoying because he matches his ignorance with his prolific posting.  The latter guy makes you wonder if their source of income is mom's allowance or something.  I can buy a 256 meg stick of memory for my PC for around $20. 

So let's get this out of the way: Desktop customization programs do NOT use much memory.

Here's WindowBlinds wbload.exe process use:

That's 576K.

Here's DesktopX:

That's only a couple megabytes of memory and it's running a useful object in this instance.

I could go on through a variety of programs both made by Stardock and made by third parties. None of them are "memory hogs".  You can certainly load up enough stuff with something like DesktopX to make it use a ton of memory.  Graphics, animation, etc. has to be stored somewhere.  But that's not the desktop customization's fault any more than it's Photoshop's fault if the user loaded a gigabyte sized image.

So next time someone tries to claim that some desktop customization program is "bloated" or something, point them here.

111,663 views 94 replies
Reply #51 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Also keep in mind that I had my computer running for about a week now.
Reply #52 from WinCustomize Forums Top
As you can see the wb dlls are loaded for every process that has a window.


Apparently you don't understand how dll's work. They are *shared* libraries. That means that it's loaded into memory the first time it's needed by a program - then every other program that needs it references the already-loaded copy. It's listed multiple times by process explorer, because each program does not need to know that another program has loaded the dll - and thus reports that it has loaded it. It's simply the way they work.
WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #53 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Apparently you don't understand how dll's work. They are *shared* libraries. That means that it's loaded into memory the first time it's needed by a program - then every other program that needs it references the already-loaded copy. It's listed multiple times by process explorer, because each program does not need to know that another program has loaded the dll - and thus reports that it has loaded it. It's simply the way they work.


The code section is shared, the data (local variables etc) are not.
None the less, I didn't mean to imply that it is in some way bloated or memory-heavy, it's just that some people look at the mem-usage of wbload.exe and think that's all of it
Reply #54 from WinCustomize Forums Top
None the less, I didn't mean to imply that it is in some way bloated or memory-heavy, it's just that some people look at the mem-usage of wbload.exe and think that's all of it


You mean like Brad?

Posted via WinCustomize Browser/Stardock Central
Reply #55 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Well, technically the memory usage of WB is wload.exe... It just uses more memory when additional programs are loaded.
Reply #56 from WinCustomize Forums Top

If we're going to go down the path of what gets injected into every process, I suggest we start looking at uxtheme.dll and how big it is.    After all, there are companies such as TGT Soft and msstyles advocates who claim that msstyles have "0 foot print".  Uxtheme.dll is a shared DLL like Wblind.dll but it has a LOT more per process storage and has not undergone anywhere near the optimization that wblind.dll has.

At the end of the day, one can look at the total memory load with WindowBlinds running (with the theme service turned off) versus the total memory load with no WindowBlinds but a msstyle running.  In every case, WindowBlinds uses LESS total memory.  Wblind.dll's injection is a relativley trivial amount of memory as all it's doing is re-directing some paint calls -- the same as uxtheme.dll.

The reason I focus on the wbload.exe process is because THAT is the actual "extra" overhead that people see over msstyles (msstyles uses a svchost.exe process).  99% of users out there running XP are running uxtheme (Windows XP style).  Therefore, the question is what are people going to take on by using WindowBlinds. The answer is that they'll have wbload.exe. Most of those users won't turn off the theme service. So that wbload.exe is the extra memory.  WB has less per process overhead than uxtheme.dll due to far more use of shared memory/resources.

 

Reply #57 from WinCustomize Forums Top
If I open all my tabbed docks I find OD using 53mb and its currently using 144mb of VM. I have three docks, one tabbed, 14 tabs on that tabbed dock.

I have 3/4 of a gig ram but run without any xp styles, just the plain gray classic style, it's so much faster and I can't really afford the drop in speed I get with something like luna when you consider I have to take a performance hit using so many custom icons. Its swings and roundabouts I guess.

I'm not complaining, my objectdock icon folder is just under 200mb so you'd have to expect those graphics are going to hog the memory. I guess my point is that it seems to depend on what you do with your customising as to how much ram it will consume.

The bottom line i feel is how much more productive you can be with these kinds of customisations. I can scan my data folder visually with a lot of eye candy icons and identify where it is I want to go quicker than I can looking at a basic text list. I can launch software much quicker than I ever could without OD. So its not just eye candy for me, I think I'm far more organised and able to work more effeciently with the few heavy on ram customisations I've done.
Reply #58 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I have 3/4 of a gig ram but run without any xp styles, just the plain gray classic style, it's so much faster and I can't really afford the drop in speed I get with something like luna when you consider I have to take a performance hit using so many custom icons. Its swings and roundabouts I guess.


Windowblinds uses less memory than Luna. 820k (less than a meg) on my system.
Reply #59 from WinCustomize Forums Top
It's not really a question of memory, it's the speed my computer runs at with any theme other than the old classic one. I like folders to open instantly and I'm sure for a lot of people using heavily customised windows the setup works great, but for me on my overloaded box thats being used for too many things at once, work and play, I have to cut corners.
Reply #60 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Bloated can be more than just hogging memory. Bloating can be something such as a noticeable slowdown in overall system performance with certain programs enabled. Overall performance can be hampered by having too many things going on a time. DesktopX with a large number of widgets, WindowBlinds, CursorXP, and WindowFX all on at the same time IS going to slow down your system, it's pretty much a fact. But if you only use your pc as a toy to skin, then you probably won't care.
Reply #61 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I run three main tools that customise my windows, ObjectDock, Directory Opus (mind blowing tool once you get into it) and a sys tray clock that is more readable than the default at higher res. It's a shame we have to draw the line so quickly on adding more but that's just a limitation of the OS and processor.

We've certainly come a long way since Magic Workbench, a replacement set of icons for the ancient Amiga which alone hit the performance of standard Amigas just using a few extra icons.
Reply #62 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Oh by the way Windowvblinds uses less memory then even Windows classic or explorer itself.
Reply #63 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Oh by the way Windowvblinds uses less memory then even Windows classic or explorer itself.


I doubt that. Highly.
Reply #64 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I don't. I've seen the numbers and have seen the data Frogboy himself presented. I'll see if I can dig the numbers up for you.
Reply #65 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Must be correct then, seeing as Frogboy is a completely unbiased source.

My question is this though: why does Stardock keep writing stuff about memory usage. Okay so it only uses 600k of RAM. I could care less about how much RAM it uses and a whole lot more about how it affects overall system performance.
Reply #66 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I just want to clarify that I'm not trying to put down windowsblinds or any customisations people do to Windows. I'm not saying any of them will slow down your computer if you find a balance that works for you, Just in my case, I've chosen where I want to put my eggs and that's into a massively loaded ObjectDock and that works great for me. If I add more, and believe me, I've tried, the stuttering performance annoys me.

You just have to find a blend of customisations that works for you and any figures you come up with are really only meaningful to you in your situation.
Reply #67 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I agree with RiddickRom, I pretty much use only ObjectDock, the stuttering associated with adding anything else doesn't work well with me.
Reply #68 from WinCustomize Forums Top
wow...
wincustomize browser maximized:8,400k
wincustomize browser minimized:1,904k

still good numbers...but what do I care, I have a gig to use.
Reply #69 from WinCustomize Forums Top


I agree here in that while getting my father's laptop to perform and still have 50-60 mb free, I found that running windowblinds made a difference of about 1 mb over classic view. This number is with no desktop background, running XP SP2, StealthOS with transparent taskbar, and PointChrome Cursor. Classic gave me 149.5 mb used, this is with EZArmor running and @ idle. StealthOS gave me a steady 151.3. Considering the difference in looks, I'll go with the StealthOS over classic view anyday.

Anyway, it's not just a matter of how much memory you have and use, graphic card, CPU L2 cache, PCI latencies, and more come into play once you go beyond the shell OS.
Reply #70 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Sadly some people just won't listen. I am constantly trying to convince a friend to use Windowblinds but every time fl studio or soundforge crashes hes convinved it must be the skinning ! He turns off all Gdi and uses windows classic for speed but why don't we all watch analogue TV on 14" screens I ask ? it would be so much faster probably the same reason we don't still travel in horse drawn buggies, some people are eternally stuck in the stone age just so that video or render will encode five minutes faster !!!
Reply #71 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Although with all the arguing about memory usage its good to remember that its processor cycles we should be investigating
Reply #72 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Memory lane anyone?
Reply #74 from WinCustomize Forums Top



A picture says a thousand words.

I'd just like to add that without customisation XP can look pretty ordinary and even a little shoddy so I really like that we have the option to change th UI, but sometimes it can affect memory usage whatever the EXPERTS say.
Some of us have other priorities so it would be nice if IconX could optimise its efficiancy for the people who use it.
Reply #75 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Oh by the way Windowvblinds uses less memory then even Windows classic or explorer itself.


I doubt that. Highly.
End of quote


I don't. Explorer uses approx. 38,000k on my comp. Windowblinds and ObjectDock together only use approx. 5,100k. that's a big difference.