Desktop Icon question

Vic Mackey · Post by **Vic Mackey** » Mon Dec 09, 2002 9:19 am

if i want to remove the Recycle Bin, Internet Explorer, My Computer, and My Network Place icons from the desktop and put them into the start menu instead where can i find the .exe files for those? cause when i add it to start its gonna want to know where the .exe file is.

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Mon Dec 09, 2002 11:47 am

All the .exe files are under C:\Program Files\Name of the program.

Vic Mackey · Post by **Vic Mackey** » Mon Dec 09, 2002 11:59 am

well i found that i can just drag and drop a copy of it into the start menu. but now i have another problem. when i right click on those icons, there is no option to delete. so how do i get rid of them?

Vic Mackey · Post by **Vic Mackey** » Mon Dec 09, 2002 12:07 pm

well using winguides tweak manager ive been able to remove all but recycle bin. i used the tweak that should have allowed me to delete recycle bin but it still wont display 'delete'.

P.S. the reason i want them off is cause i have a cool Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers wallpaper on hehe

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Mon Dec 09, 2002 12:16 pm

You can easily remove any icon you please with a check of a box in X-Setup.

Vic Mackey · Post by **Vic Mackey** » Mon Dec 09, 2002 12:26 pm

eek! steele when i goto windows explorer the C: drive is no longer displayed! what happened to it? how do i get it back?
i have x setup and clicked the box to show delete only and it still wont show up. what am i doing wrong?

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Mon Dec 09, 2002 12:27 pm

What did you do? Undo the tweak you did.

Vic Mackey · Post by **Vic Mackey** » Mon Dec 09, 2002 12:33 pm

i removed the my computer, my network connections, and internet explorer icons from the desktop. why would that make C: drive disappear in windows explorer? i have a copy of those in start menu. when i double click my computer it shows C:. why wont it show up when i click windows explorer?

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Mon Dec 09, 2002 12:40 pm

How did you remove them? I know by removing certain icons it can cause problems.

Vic Mackey · Post by **Vic Mackey** » Mon Dec 09, 2002 2:25 pm

whew i fixed it. i used winguides tweak manager and clicked "Remove My Computer from desktop and start menu". then i right clicked the icon and deleted it. now i went back into winguides and unchecked that box. now My Computer is back in windows explorer. hehe geez what a hassle for removing icons lol. but still wont let me delete Recycle Bin from desktop. i used the remove recycle bin tweak in both x-setup and winguides and theres still no delete option. lol

Vic Mackey · Post by **Vic Mackey** » Mon Dec 09, 2002 2:31 pm

hey steele are there any tweaks in x-setup that you suggest i should do??

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Mon Dec 09, 2002 2:43 pm

All of them

. The best advice I can give you is update it and take the time to sit down and go through the tweaks, I know it is time consuming but you will learn allot and optimize your system.

gerryg · Post by **gerryg** » Sun Dec 15, 2002 12:43 am

Do a search on the Web for Desksweeper. It's a small utility that will hide/unhide the icons on your desktop with a single mouse click. That way you'll get to see all of that beautiful wallpaper you have there. And best of all it's free. Good Luck!

Lobo · Post by **Lobo** » Sun Dec 15, 2002 12:48 am

Icons on your desktop use resourses, so

Lobo · Post by **Lobo** » Sun Dec 15, 2002 12:58 am

Works for all OS's

Desksweeper:

http://www.freedownloadscenter.com/Shel ... eeper.html

gerryg · Post by **gerryg** » Sun Dec 15, 2002 1:00 am

What resources? This utility has little or no effect on resources and it gets the job done without going through a lot of changes. I've used it for over two years on new and old computers with no consequences whatsoever.

Lobo · Post by **Lobo** » Sun Dec 15, 2002 1:07 am

I said that desktop icons use resources, icons next to clock use resources too, but don't know which uses the most

gerryg · Post by **gerryg** » Sun Dec 15, 2002 10:07 am

Sorry about that Lobo. Misunderstood what you were saying.

Lobo · Post by **Lobo** » Sun Dec 15, 2002 10:39 am

It's cool matey

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Sun Dec 15, 2002 12:26 pm

Originally posted by Lobo
I said that desktop icons use resources, icons next to clock use resources too, but don't know which uses the most

Icons use resources? What? You can adjust your icon cache to speed up the display of your icons..... but icons use resources?

Andrzej · Post by **Andrzej** » Sun Dec 15, 2002 1:12 pm

unfortunately YES

not only ram is consumed
& not only prg but also
...desktop icons use resources, icons next to clock use resources too..
IMVHO & that close to clock on bar
a litle more than on desktop
keep your desktop as CLEAN as possible
disappear icons from bar if it posible
possibly - evrything that OS MUST take care
consuming: resoures & ram
but it is NOT such important on modern PC

only in cases relatively weak to targrets
eg hdw &| sfw overloaded PC

Lobo · Post by **Lobo** » Mon Dec 16, 2002 1:28 pm

Read Dr. Tweek, yes they use resources

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Mon Dec 16, 2002 1:31 pm

Originally posted by Lobo
Read Dr. Tweek, yes they use resources

Says who? Show me where? Grow up and start helping people instead of acting like a child.

Lobo · Post by **Lobo** » Mon Dec 16, 2002 1:34 pm

Your the child with the big numbers that also use resources:

http://www.ncat.co.uk/Net_Lib/microsoft/tcp-ip_reg.htm

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Mon Dec 16, 2002 1:37 pm

Originally posted by Lobo
Your the child with the big numbers that also use resources:

http://www.ncat.co.uk/Net_Lib/microsoft/tcp-ip_reg.htm

OK.... so the link you post shows TCP/IP information..... what has that got to do with icons?

Lobo · Post by **Lobo** » Mon Dec 16, 2002 1:51 pm

How many times have I asked you to show me when you say ignore????

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Mon Dec 16, 2002 1:54 pm

Originally posted by Lobo
How many times have I asked you to show me when you say ignore????

What in the world are you talking about? I ask you to provide a link proving that icons use resources and you provide one about TCP/IP...... one has NOTHING to do with the other..... get a clue.

Lobo · Post by **Lobo** » Mon Dec 16, 2002 2:11 pm

You get a life recruiter:

Memory Use By Windows

The major components of the Windows API (Application Programming Interface) are Kernel, User, and GDI. The five system resource memory "heaps" are located in USER (the input manager) and GDI (the graphic display interface manager).

USER has one 16-bit heap and two 32-bit heaps. GDI has one 16-bit heap and one 32-bit heap. The USER 32-bit heaps are used to store WND (window) structures--one WND for every window in the system--and menus. The GDI heaps store fonts, brushes, palettes, bitmaps, pens, and other graphic items. The 32-bit heaps provide a capacity greater than the system will ever require. They don't cause resource usage problems, so for the purposes of this discussion, they will be ignored.

Windows allocates the remaining two 64K blocks of memory to programs for tracking purposes. These blocks are referred to as User Resources and GDI Resources. System Resources reported by Windows will be the lesser of these two values. You can view all "three" of these values using the Windows Resource Meter which can be run by going to Start | Programs |Accessories | System Tools | Resource Meter and after it is loaded, double-clicking its icon in the System Tray.

***The following is excerpted from a post on Delltalk, a user forum, by Kickaha Ota who wrote it in response to a question about low memory warning from a user with a large amount of installed RAM.***

In order to understand why resources are limited, we first have to understand a bit about what resources are and how they work. Resources are Windows objects that a program can manipulate. For example, every window on the screen is a resource. Every picture that's displayed on the screen is probably a resource. If an application opens a file on disk, that open file is a resource. And so on, and so on.

If an application needs to use a resource, it asks the operating system to create or load it. For example, a program can say, "Hey, Windows, I need to create a window that's 300 pixels wide by 200 pixels high, okay?" Windows then goes ahead and creates or loads that resource, and gives the application back a magic number that represents it. "Okay, I've created your window, and it's #38710." Then the application can use that magic number to ask Windows to do other things related to that resource. "Okay, Windows; could you please display #38710 in the upper-left corner of the screen?" "Gotcha." Finally, when an application is through with a resource, it tells Windows to dispose of it. "Okay, please delete #38710." "Gotcha."

So, what format do these magic numbers take? Well, on most operating systems, it would be what's called a "pointer". You can think of memory as being like a post office, a huge collection of little boxes stretching off into the distance; every box can hold one piece of information. And just like every post office box has a number, every memory location has an address--a number that's used to access it. A pointer to something in memory is simply the address of the area in memory where it's stored. So, if I were a regular OS, and an application asked me to load a window, and I loaded that window into memory starting at memory address #12345678, I would tell the application "OK, I've loaded that window; it's #12345678."

On an Intel machine, these pointers are four bytes long. So if an application needs to hold a pointer to something, it needs to use up four bytes of memory in order to do it. That presented a problem to the original designers of Windows. Remember, memory was very limited back then; an 8MB machine was huge, and 4MB was more typical. And an application can use thousands and thousands of resources. So if resources were referred to by pointers, so that an application needed to use up four bytes of memory every time it wanted to refer to a resource, it could wind up using up huge chunks of memory just for these resource pointers.

So, instead, the Windows designers used a different scheme. They created the resource table. The resource table is essentially a big list of information about all the resources that are in memory at any given time. So if an application tells Windows to load a resource, Windows finds an empty spot in this resource table, and fills it in with the information about the resource that was just loaded. Now, instead of giving the application a four-byte pointer to the resource, Windows can just tell the application where the resource is in the table. If I tell Windows to load a window, and that window winds up taking the 383rd slot in the resource table, Windows will tell me "Okay, I've loaded the resource, and it's #383." Since these 'index numbers' are much smaller numbers than memory addresses, under this scheme, a resource's number can be stored in only two bytes instead of four; when you only have a few megabytes of memory to work with, and lots of resources being used, that's a huge improvement.

There's a problem with this scheme. There's only so many different possible values that you can store in a certain number of bytes of computer memory, just like there's only so many different numbers you can write down if you aren't allowed to use more than a certain number of digits. If you have four bytes of memory to work with, you can store billions of different possible values in those four bytes. But if you only have two bytes, there's only 65536 different numbers that you can store in those two bytes. So if you use two-byte numbers as your resource identifiers, you can't have more than 65536 resources loaded into memory at one time; if you loaded more than that, there'd be no way for programs to tell them apart. But on the computers of the day, there'd be no way to fit more than a few thousand resources into memory at one time anyway. So this limitation wasn't seen as being a problem, and the Windows designers went ahead and used the resource table and two-byte resource identifiers.

Now, we leap ahead to the present day. Memory is incredibly cheap; the memory savings from using two-byte resource numbers instead of four-byte pointers simply aren't significant anymore. There'd be more than enough memory to hold hundreds of thousands of resources in memory at one time. But there's still only 65,536 different possible resource identifiers; so only that many resources can be loaded into memory at once. Beyond that, you're out of resources, no matter how much memory you have left.

***End excerpt***

The number and type of applications running determine what portion of System Resources are being used. Known Resource "hogs" include:

"Eye/Ear Candy"--Active Desktop View as Web Page, themes which use sound effects, animated mouse cursors and desktop icons, and elaborate screen savers.
Multiple Web browser windows.
All multimedia applications.
System monitoring utilities (including the Windows Resource Meter which on my system drops resources by 5%)
Applications that have the ability to "preview fonts in font list" such as Office 2000, which load all installed fonts into GDI resources when the application is launched (requires 1% of GDI resources per 64 fonts).

When applications are loaded, it is common for them to require additional Windows components to be loaded as well. When the application is closed Windows will retain those components because they are likely to be needed again, so that resources initially allocated when an application is opened will not all be released when it is closed, although most will.

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Mon Dec 16, 2002 2:31 pm

OK so what your saying is that even when I mulitask.... Photoshop, IE, Trillian, NAV, Sygate & Word and I still never use all the 512MB of physical RAM I have.... that I should hide the shortcuts on my desktop (that make life easy) to save maybe 1MB of RAM?...... yeah that makes allot of sense. They use none to virtually no resources. You need to have a comprehension of how Windows uses resources, I know you have so much RAM that NO MATTER what you do you will NEVER use it all, most likely you will never use half of it because Windows is designed to use it's pagefile. You make comments about not running AV software or a good firewall because of the resources they use.... which have very little impact on todays fast computers...... what are you saving all your resources for? Windows 2K & XP have superior resource management and your "logic" is ridicolous...... computers have come a LONG way since Windows 95 and you need to get with the times and understand things, but you are too close minded to listen to anyone but yourself. There is no hope is teaching you or helping you with anything.... just don't try and tell someone that is just learning about computers what you "think" you know...... not everyone likes to reformat their pc once a week like you do just because they won't listen to others and can't fix problems with it. So keep your ridiculous "theories" to yourself so they don't harm anyone elses computer........ yeah you did get the klez virus didn't you? I wonder why?

Lobo · Post by **Lobo** » Mon Dec 16, 2002 2:35 pm

I know why and have taken steps, and everyone else does not have the RAM you do, but alas they can do as they wish

Lobo · Post by **Lobo** » Mon Dec 16, 2002 2:38 pm

It says all Windows, not 95

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Mon Dec 16, 2002 2:53 pm

Originally posted by Lobo
It says all Windows, not 95

Your are completely lost..... as usual you post a response that has nothing to do with anything I said. Keep your ridiculous childish posts to yourself.

Lobo · Post by **Lobo** » Mon Dec 16, 2002 4:17 pm

Nope, someone has to watch you close

Andrzej · Post by **Andrzej** » Mon Dec 16, 2002 4:52 pm

hopefuly ... still in my country experiments on PCs
NOT need bio-ethical commission approval
so after series of experiments
I can reinstal OS evry 4-6 weeks (exactly from NGost image)
without ANY consequence for: me, myCV, family & either PCs
but every week .... I'm still too lazy ...
but one can say ... there are more rooms for experiments hehehe

Lobo · Post by **Lobo** » Mon Dec 16, 2002 5:49 pm

Yo Tweekie, calm down

Andrzej · Post by **Andrzej** » Wed Dec 18, 2002 10:09 am

sorry the whole of yesterday I was OUT

...not exactly...
IMVHO

better to be more polite & elastic...
the show MUST go on
& it MUST be fun also for readers not only for the writer