Windows Desktop Heap Tweak Guide Posted! - Page 3

FrozenSpoon · 12th Mar 2006, 08:06 AM

Microsoft has made a tool to monitor desktop heap. You can download it at this page.

Just remember, you should not be increasing this value if you don't need to. It does slow your computer down.

peaz · 12th Mar 2006, 09:59 AM

Thanks for the link!

And welcome to ARP as well. Hope to see you around here more.

Adrian Wong · 17th Mar 2006, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrozenSpoon

Microsoft has made a tool to monitor desktop heap. You can download it at this page.

Just remember, you should not be increasing this value if you don't need to. It does slow your computer down.

Hey, great link!! Thanks!!

Bikedude · 3rd May 2006, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrozenSpoon

It does slow your computer down.

Thanks for the link to the much needed dheapmon tool, but do you have any documentation to back up your claim above?

I'd like to point out that 64-bit Windows has a default desktop heap of 10MB or so... (I don't recall the exact value, but it was substantially larger than 3MB!)

The global desktop heap is always 48MB (32-bit Windows). I strongly doubt this memory is pageable, so using more of it shouldn't affect speed? (even for low-memory configurations)

--
Rune

Adrian Wong · 3rd May 2006, 10:03 PM

Eh, I think I missed that comment.

AFAIK, increasing the desktop heap does not slow Windows XP down. It just reduces the number of desktops that can be created, as stated in the article.

FrozenSpoon · 12th May 2006, 03:49 PM

About performance, according to KB126962:

Quote:

Because the desktop heap is mapped into each process' address space, this value should not be set to an arbitrarily high value (as it would decrease performance), but should only be increased sufficiently to allow all the desired applications to run

Bikedude · 12th May 2006, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrozenSpoon

About performance, according to KB126962:

The KB article refers to NT 3.5, and I think most of us have systems sporting lots more memory compared to back then.

Whether you eat 3MB or 8MB from a process' 2GB address space shouldn't matter much IMO. (regardless of system memory) Granted, seeing as they bumped up the size in 64-bit Windows, I'm not eager to defend this view. (nor can I think of a useful benchmark -- all I know is that I hit the 3072KB default limit easily)

I'm also sceptical to blindly trusting KB articles, and particulary this one since it fails to document the third (and possibly fourth) parameter. There's certainly a fair share of not entirely accurate KB articles around.

FrozenSpoon · 13th May 2006, 03:04 AM

It still says it applies to 2000, XP, etc.

As more shared memory is mapped into process address space you're going to have more memory that needs to be synchronized. That could cause a performance hit. But I would tend to agree that unless you're running a 486 you'll probably never notice

Still, as it does cause a performance hit, you shouldn't go changing it all willy nilly.

Adrian Wong · 15th May 2006, 12:35 AM

I have a feeling that the performance hit statement is due to the amount of cacheable memory, rather than a real hit to the performance of the operating system.

dbgblog · 15th Jan 2007, 10:53 PM

FYI: Microsoft’s Critical Problem Resolution team for Windows has recently posted a blog entry about desktop heap that goes into more detail than the current KB articles on this topic. Check it out if you are interested...

http://blogs.msdn.com/ntdebugging/ar...-overview.aspx

12th Mar 2006, 09:59 AM	#22 (permalink)
peaz ARP Webmaster Join Date: 13 Oct 2002 Location: http://atpeaz.placidthoughts.com/ Posts: 8,501 Reputation: 1633 Rep Power: 31	Thanks for the link! And welcome to ARP as well. Hope to see you around here more. __________________ Ken Ng Tech ARP Visit my web gallery - Ken's Digital Canvas Shoot and Earn Money from Stock Photography Sterling@PJ Community Forums

3rd May 2006, 10:03 PM	#25 (permalink)
Adrian Wong Da Boss Join Date: 10 Oct 2002 Location: In front of my ASUS F8V notebook! Posts: 30,146 Reputation: 3081 Rep Power: 67	Eh, I think I missed that comment. AFAIK, increasing the desktop heap does not slow Windows XP down. It just reduces the number of desktops that can be created, as stated in the article. __________________ Dr. Adrian Wong Tech ARP \| Blog @ Tech ARP \| The Free Trade Zone DYKT : The only offshore account I have is at the sand bank? Keep Tech ARP free! Visit our sponsors! We need PROGRAMMERS and TECHNICAL WRITERS! Contact us if you are a hot shot programmer or technical writer! My items for sale : 50x SD Card \| Memory Stick PRO \| Cyclone Energy Saver \| Seiko SS watch \| Tiger/Carlsberg beer jugs \| Travel Speakers \| Motorola V600 \| Nokia N90 SOLD! \| New Lowepro Mini Trekker AW Other items for sale @ the FTZ : Zalman CNPS9500 LED @ $20 \| Zalman CNPS7700 Cu @ $20 \| Zalman CNPS7000 Cu @ $20 \| Swarovski bracelet watches \| Dell 17" LCD \| Hi-Fi speakers \| English DIVX movies \| HP LaserJet toners! \| Office chairs

15th May 2006, 12:35 AM	#29 (permalink)
Adrian Wong Da Boss Join Date: 10 Oct 2002 Location: In front of my ASUS F8V notebook! Posts: 30,146 Reputation: 3081 Rep Power: 67	I have a feeling that the performance hit statement is due to the amount of cacheable memory, rather than a real hit to the performance of the operating system. __________________ Dr. Adrian Wong Tech ARP \| Blog @ Tech ARP \| The Free Trade Zone DYKT : The only offshore account I have is at the sand bank? Keep Tech ARP free! Visit our sponsors! We need PROGRAMMERS and TECHNICAL WRITERS! Contact us if you are a hot shot programmer or technical writer! My items for sale : 50x SD Card \| Memory Stick PRO \| Cyclone Energy Saver \| Seiko SS watch \| Tiger/Carlsberg beer jugs \| Travel Speakers \| Motorola V600 \| Nokia N90 SOLD! \| New Lowepro Mini Trekker AW Other items for sale @ the FTZ : Zalman CNPS9500 LED @ $20 \| Zalman CNPS7700 Cu @ $20 \| Zalman CNPS7000 Cu @ $20 \| Swarovski bracelet watches \| Dell 17" LCD \| Hi-Fi speakers \| English DIVX movies \| HP LaserJet toners! \| Office chairs

15th Jan 2007, 10:53 PM	#30 (permalink)
dbgblog Newbie Join Date: 15 Jan 2007 Posts: 1 Reputation: 0 Rep Power: 0	Desktop heap info from Microsoft's CPR team FYI: Microsoft’s Critical Problem Resolution team for Windows has recently posted a blog entry about desktop heap that goes into more detail than the current KB articles on this topic. Check it out if you are interested... http://blogs.msdn.com/ntdebugging/ar...-overview.aspx

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Desktop Graphics Card Comparison Guide	peaz	Reviews & Articles	365	2nd Dec 2008 07:28 PM
Windows Services Exposed adn Expunge	kayFX	General Software	9	10th Jun 2005 09:32 PM

12th Mar 2006, 08:06 AM	#21 (permalink)
FrozenSpoon Newbie Join Date: 12 Mar 2006 Posts: 3 Reputation: 0 Rep Power: 0	Microsoft has made a tool to monitor desktop heap. You can download it at this page. Just remember, you should not be increasing this value if you don't need to. It does slow your computer down.

13th May 2006, 03:04 AM	#28 (permalink)
FrozenSpoon Newbie Join Date: 12 Mar 2006 Posts: 3 Reputation: 0 Rep Power: 0	It still says it applies to 2000, XP, etc. As more shared memory is mapped into process address space you're going to have more memory that needs to be synchronized. That could cause a performance hit. But I would tend to agree that unless you're running a 486 you'll probably never notice Still, as it does cause a performance hit, you shouldn't go changing it all willy nilly.