Is it a good idea to use the Desktop for storage?

rollo · 02-11-2007, 07:04 PM

A simple question here.

Is there a reason why you shouldn't store user files on the Desktop? I read somewhere that the Windows desktop loads its contents into RAM, slowing performance if there are a lot of files.

I imagine this wouldn't apply to Desktop subdirectories. Anyone know the score?

Cliffster · 02-11-2007, 07:27 PM

Loads? I suspect you mean cacheing the icons etc on the desktop itself rather than the contents per se, also some setups will show pictures as thumbnails, in which case, there might be a slight performance hit if you've got one of the eyecandy icon themes and a bucketload of png files.

Otherwise, no. Absolutely no reason not to store files on the desktop if you really want. Though i dont see why to. A symlink to /home/you/ would be all thats needed for quick access imo.

slantoflight · 02-11-2007, 07:38 PM

[QUOTE=rollo]A simple question here.

Is there a reason why you shouldn't store user files on the Desktop? /QUOTE]

he heh. You know what answer that question is begging for.

jschiwal · 02-11-2007, 07:41 PM

You don't want to load up your Desktop in Windows on your "work" computer. With single signon, the Desktop is probably cached to the server. It could take forever logging on.

rollo · 02-12-2007, 05:11 PM

Thanks guys. I'm still not entirely sure of the answer to my question, but I think it's that Desktop storage is unproblematic.

By the way, I'm not using Windows! Sorry for the confusion. It was just a comparison (hence the differently capitalised "Desktop").

Why would you want to store on the Desktop? Seems logical to me. If you use the Desktop as an "inbox" (as I do), then by sticking other important files in subdirectories there, you only have one directory to back up.