Does the view that one selects for folders affects memory usage?

[SaintSatinStain]

Does the view that one selects for folders affects memory usage?

The views are Thumbnails, Tiles, Icon, List, and Details.

I have selected the view according to the type of file for some of the folders, for example the My Pictures folder I use the Thumbnail view, for the document files I use Icon, but for some I use list. The rest I have accepted happenstance. In the folder view for non-image files I like the list view; I can easily see all that is in the folder with that view. But I dont really need the Thumbnails view as the default for any folder since it can be changed temporarily when needed.

Which View uses the least memory?

[2k_dummy]

Simple answer, yes.

[SaintSatinStain]

I assume that the list view consumes less. Am I right?

[patio]

Correct.
I ascending order...
List
Details
Icon
Tiles
Thumbnails

[Deerpark]

If you want to experiment with this yourself then open the task manager and find the explorer.exe process. Then open a folder and change between the views. You will see that the amount of memory explorer.exe consumes will change according to the view you select.

[SaintSatinStain]

Thank you all.  One of the things that bugged me about XP Pro was the eye candy, most of which I turned off.  I did keep
Smooth edges of screen fonts
Use drop shadows for icon labels on the desktop
Use visual styles on windows and buttons

I kept the visual styles to keep friends and relatives from bothering me. They believed that something must be wrong with my computer because of the grey. It seemed a minor sell-out. They don't seem to notice that everything, except these three, are off. I have enough RAM, but my utilitarian soul prevails. I didn't buy a computer for decoration. I don't use themes or such foolishness. I got rid of all the games except Solitaire, Hearts, and Pinball; I did install Clickomania, addictive game, and Space Invaders. I know, I'm retro. These games are my only foolishness.

Permit me this added question. I know now,  Deerpark, I can see difference by the method you explained. Which start menu uses less memory, the XPerience one or the Classic? These may seem minor configuration changes after the major ones like disabling unnecessary services, uninstalling Telnet (also for security reasons), and using low RAMprint apps like NOD32, and other apps written in Assembly language or partially in Assembly. If you know of some apps in Assembly for XP please let me know.

[Deerpark]

You can't say an app is memory efficient or use less memory just because it is written in assembly. Actually not much software today is written entirely in assembly because, first of all good assembly code is hard to develop and second of all modern compilers for high level languages like C++ can automatically produce highly optimized, efficient machine code that it would take ages to get by manually optimizing assembly code.

[SaintSatinStain]

You are right, though Gibson's little apps are in Assembly and you can find programs in it here

http://www.picofactory.com/

I was told that NOD32 is partially Assembly. That is probably why it has a smaller RAMprint. 

And, unfortunately, some viruses are written in it too.

I forgot to add that Assembly programming language uses fewer  processing cycles to do something.  Can the higher languages match this?

[Deerpark]

Asse

I forgot to add that Assembly programming language uses fewer  processing cycles to do something.  Can the higher languages match this?

Not true. Good c++ code (or similar high performance language) and a good compiler can produce machine code that can compare to that of the best assembly code. Of course there are more factors that play in. Some high level languages focus more on speed than others. The skill of the programmers coding the app have a tremendous influence on the performance and so on.
Basically all I'm trying to say is that you can't say that because program a is written in language x it is going to be faster or have a smaller memory footprint than program b written in language y. It just isn't that simple.

And don't even get me started on Gibson.

[SaintSatinStain]

I was talking about Gibson's helpful little programs. I installed XP Pro on my aunt's computer - she's 91 now, was 89 when I bought her a computer- and his little programs are great for her. I dig into the registry, services, other places under the hood; She works on the surface, so some programs you and I may not need she needs. She does email, sends some pictures, instant message grandkids, and reads some newspapers on the 'net. I got her more RAM than I have, but still need programs with low memory use. The Gibson apps and ones from PicoFactory allow her do some adjusting without digging into the OS. All of her security is automatic and emails me if she gets a virus. Her av is NOD43, of course, which has some Assembly, Prevx2 etc.
Yeah, some are in other languages.  Seems most Assembly code is for internals and drivers and not for desktop utilities, or put with other code.  Well written code in other languages can be tight and speedy, but my daughter, and engineer with an aerospace company (I have to brag. She is stunningly beautiful, a genius, and nice daughter), and a physicist, former colleague at a college where I taught poetry and prosody,  told me that in Assembly you can write tighter programs. One problem with Assembly is that it is tied to particular computing environments: each variant will only work in a particular milieu.  I have to confess that I'm new to this; I've just begun to learn a couple of languages.  So my word is half a grain.  Most of the programs that I use have a low RAMprint and almost all are not in Assembly; although I constantly search for programs in it or have some of the code. An architect friend uses some programs in Assembly.

Some of what you say is true, but all factors considered, accepting some limitations of Assembly, it has the potential and actuality to, if the programmer is talented, produce tighter code.