Customization software is not resource intensive
Sunday, June 05, 2005 by Frogboy | Discussion: OS Customization
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 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.