Posts by granitegull51

The templates here are honestly pretty lackluster.

Also, why isn't there a direct link to my own posts? Why am I stuck having to use the search bar every single time just to find my own stuff????

Levis just rolled out Oracle, and they’re acting like it’s some massive achievement.

I usually steer clear of places like Miller, Oak Creek, or those big Western chains anyway, so I’ll just stick to my local spots and the corner deli. 😁

loneharbor47 said:Bravo... congrats! 😉

"Don't believe them, don't fear them, don't ask anything of them." Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

I mean, let them just go ahead and delete any threads they deem "inconvenient"—it really just says everything about their own character anyway 😁

Brian Edwards6 said:Regarding the topic itself, based on how it's framed and its overall nature, my take as a moderator is that this would fit much better under the Politics subforum rather than Law. You can see what I mean by looking at the response from user krena, though I think the point made by granitegull51 here is an even better example. The Law section is meant to be more of a technical space, not really a place for venting or showing support and stuff like that. For instance, if granitegull51 had posted this in the Law subforum, they actually would have received a warning for making such unnecessary and baseless generalizations.👍

Look, man, don't sweat it too much—it's pretty obvious that these kinds of threads are just a symptom of "legal institutions actually doing their jobs."

So, hey, feel free to delete or censor whatever you want, but honestly, these conversations aren't going anywhere; they'll just end up being posted and archived somewhere else anyway.👍👍👍👍👍

Honestly, they can delete whatever they want; everyone knows the legal profession is basically just a hiding spot for the absolute bottom-feeders of society.

Just a little something for comparison here:

What’s actually going to happen when our fund managers finally step up and admit they were basically gambling with our hard-earned money by "investing" it all into domestic stocks and bonds?

Larry Ortiz5 said:What are you even talking about? 😕 Honestly, don't get too attached to XP. It’s basically hitting retirement age next year, so within four months they’ll be pulling the plug on Windows updates, software developers will stop supporting it, games won't run, and so on...

Well, it can go into retirement for all I care, because I personally blocked all those updates after 2013 anyway. If everything wasn't properly set up by then, it isn't going to change later on. And as for all that Microsoft spying nonsense, I just use Windows XP Anti-spyware, which they don't even make for Windows 7.

Look, Windows XP 32-bit is rock solid—it flies, and it boots up lightning fast, which is definitely not something I can say about the 64-bit version of Windows 7. To be honest, nothing else really matters to me.

To me, Windows 7 is just another one of those bloated Microsoft half-baked products—they manage to get a few things right, but then they just totally drop the ball on everything else.

I’ve actually made the jump back to Windows XP, and honestly? I don't see myself ever going back to 7.

So, I finally went ahead and wiped that massive piece of junk I was using, rolled it all back to Windows XP 32-bit, and man... everything is just flying now. It’s actually working perfectly!😁

analogharbor44 said:What does gold, history, and the future have to do with your trading? Seriously! 😕
Why even call for the mods? Honestly, I don't think your posts even belong in this thread!

The guy is just being ridiculous. Honestly, I’m just going to ignore him and let him shout his numbers into the void until he runs out of breath. 😁

melloworca6 said:Oh, you don't think so? Well, I guess that explains why most people who pick up a virus end up happily throwing money at repair shops to fix their computers—there’s really no other way to look at it.

Honestly, I have no idea which antivirus program is supposedly hogging so many resources that it's better to just uninstall it altogether. 🤷 Mine stays running in the background constantly, and I honestly can't tell it's even there; it doesn't eat up any noticeable space or slow down my system.

And let's be real, most people are just terrified of tech issues, so they rush straight to a service center. 🙂

Look, I'm definitely no IT guru or anything, but I've gone ten years without an antivirus and haven't run into a single issue.

Back in the day, I'd just do a quick little cleanup a few times a year using Hijackthis, Spybot, and stuff like that, and I was good to go.

Now, I don't even bother with all that anymore; I just stick with ABP, and my machine runs perfectly fine.

Plus, yeah, I browse pretty much every kind of corner of the web and download 😁

silverviper3 said:Thanks, man,

granitegull51, look, AVG is actually one of the top-tier antivirus options out there. I don't see how you can call it garbage when it literally flagged something that every other security suite completely missed. 🤷

Honestly, every single antivirus and anti-malware program on the market brags about catching "threats," even when those threats are totally insignificant.

In my opinion, you’re better off just uninstalling your antivirus altogether to save on system resources and just run manual cleanups every now and then using tools like Hijackthis. Most people tend to blow viruses and malware way out of proportion; they aren't nearly as scary as everyone makes them out to be. 🙂

Just uninstall it. Honestly, McAfee is just unnecessary junk, kind of like most other bloatware out there. AdBlock is the only way to go.

dustyheron5 said:Eric Sprott—gold hitting $2,000/oz before year-end, silver climbing past $100/oz...

http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldne...old_Price.html

How many of these wild predictions did we see back in 2011?

They’re really overreaching with these forecasts again. Honestly, from what I can tell here in the States, there aren't any delivery delays whatsoever despite all this talk about "insatiable demand."

Joshua Kern90 said:I mean, let's be honest—Adobe Reader is just way better and more widely recognized than Foxit Reader. 😁

Honestly, I feel like Adobe is just a half-baked product at this point. We could easily start an entirely new thread just to vent about that, couldn't we?

Benjamin King2 said:Is everything really covered? And more importantly... who are we actually doing this for? 🙂

You bet it is. 😂 Hey, could you do me a favor and pull up one of those PDX catalogs using Foxit?
.

I mean, it’s right there in the names, isn't it? Adobe and Foxit are clearly PDF readers. As for PDX... honestly, neither I nor probably 99% of regular users have ever even heard of it, let alone actually used it in our daily lives.

Look, I get it—Adobe definitely has some specialized features under the hood that other programs lack, but honestly? That’s hardly an excuse to be such a resource hog. It shouldn't be acceptable for it to chew through fifteen times more system resources than Foxit does. It just feels excessive.☕

Honestly, if you spend any amount of time online, you’re going to run headfirst into endless rants about how much of an "incomplete product" the Adobe Reader actually is. It’s everywhere.

Just a little something:

I was just browsing through this page over at dearadobe.com/top_rated.php, and honestly, it’s got me thinking about how much our workflow depends on these specific tools. It’s kind of wild when you stop to consider it, right? We get so used to clicking the same icons every single day that we almost forget there's a whole ecosystem behind them making everything possible. Anyway, I found myself getting a little lost in the rankings—kind of a rabbit hole situation! It’s easy to get distracted by these lists, but looking at what people are actually prioritizing right now is pretty eye-opening. It makes me wonder if my own preferences have shifted as much as I think they have lately. Just one of those things where you start looking for one answer and end up questioning your entire digital setup. Oh well, back to the grind!

----
I'm not quite sure what we're diving into here, but I'm ready if you are! Let's get this conversation moving. What's on your mind?

So, I was thinking about this earlier—are Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player actually considered "64-bit programs" when they come pre-installed on a 64-bit version of Windows 7? And more importantly, does that actually make them run any faster than the 32-bit versions would?

Benjamin King2 said:I mean, obviously, if you actually have the hardware to support it. You can't really expect brand-new software to run smoothly on some piece of junk that's ten years old, right? 😲

But honestly, macOS eats up just as many resources as Windows does—is there some kind of conspiracy against the average user out there or what?

And what is this legendary Foxit actually good for? Besides failing to read half of the PDF formats out there, having pretty rudimentary security, and a text search function that’s basically useless? Are you only using it because you're running low on disk space?

I remember ten years ago they were pushing 64-bit processors, telling everyone that once 64-bit operating systems arrived, everything would suddenly run twice as fast. Then you actually install Windows 7 and realize there's barely any difference. And are even Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player 64-bit? I notice Windows Media Player handles Full HD okay, but let's be real, it's a pretty mediocre player.

macOS hogs resources because it follows the exact same philosophy as Microsoft. I still remember when Windows XP first dropped and everyone was complaining about how much memory it pulled. Eventually, people started making those "Windows XP Lite" versions that had everything you needed but used half the resources. 😉

To me, it's clear people were happy because they finally got a more optimized product after the mess that was Windows Vista, but that only happened because there was massive pressure put on Microsoft.

-----------
If we're really sticking to this topic:

Foxit Reader—specifically version 2.3 from back in 2008—only takes up about 6.59MB of hard drive space and 9MB of RAM, yet it can read absolutely anything. It opens files that Adobe won't touch, the text search actually works, and you can select text and extract graphics without a headache.

Adobe Reader 9, on the other hand, eats up 100MB of hard drive space and 25MB of RAM, and its most useful feature is just zooming in. 😂 Plus, it litters your system with all sorts of unnecessary junk.

Douglas Garcia52 said:Look, don't take this the wrong way, but I really think you’re missing the mark when it comes to actual IT and how computers work. There’s a massive difference between actually learning the ropes so you know what you're talking about, and just regurgitating some nonsense you read online or memorized from a manual. Theory is one thing, but hands-on experience is a whole different beast. Honestly, that mid-range graphics card you're talking about has absolutely nothing to do with how the OS itself performs.

Honestly, comparing a Volkswagen Golf to a newer Volkswagen Golf is kind of like comparing apples to oranges. I mean, sure, you could argue that the older model is "better" just because parts are cheaper and it’s easier on gas, but that’s not really the whole story, is it? It feels like we're missing the bigger picture here.

Look, I’m definitely no IT expert or anything, but I think I speak for about 90% of regular users when I say that speed and how much juice a system pulls are the things that actually matter to us.

Look, at the end of the day, the whole point of Windows is just to get your apps running as fast as possible. Honestly? I couldn't care less about things like the registry, routers, Superfetch, or the management shell. I’m sure all that stuff is incredibly useful for people like you, but let's be real—90% of regular users aren't even touching those features.

That’s exactly why I keep comparing the Volkswagen Golf Mk2 to the Mk5. For most people, life isn't about racing; you just need a reliable way to get from point A to point B. Now, don't get me wrong, the Golf 5 definitely handles that trip with much more elegance and polish, but there's a catch. It’s a heavier car, it drinks more fuel, and let's be honest—maintenance parts are going to cost you a lot more. When you weigh all that out, it doesn't actually make it any more efficient than the old Golf 2. 🙂

Benjamin King2 said:It’s totally normal—Windows XP doesn't have Superfetch, whereas Windows 7 does. But I have to ask, why exactly is this "hard drive wear and tear" such a big deal for you?

That’s just classic Microsoft logic, right? It’s like they don't care at all about how much memory you're actually burning through. I mean, look, if you’re an average user rocking an 80GB hard drive, and then Windows 7 grabs 5GB just to exist, plus all those various system resources and background junk eating up another 15GB... well, suddenly that space starts feeling pretty precious. It definitely matters when you're watching your storage vanish like that.

Honestly, I don't see why we need to waste so much storage space on stuff like this. It’s just like how there’s absolutely no point in Adobe Reader hogging up 200MB of space when its actual features are basically non-existent.🙂

Jonathan Morris40 said:When it comes to wireless tech and networking, I honestly think if you have even a basic grasp of how things like switches, routers, and general network architecture actually function, you start to realize just how much of a lifesaver this stuff is. It’s a total game-changer for network and systems admins—it really simplifies the heavy lifting in ways people don't always give it credit for.

Also, just so you know, you can actually build your own management shell now and add whatever specific elements you need to work with. Honestly, I don't even have the energy to sit here and list all the advantages of moving up from Windows XP anymore. I feel like if I even casually mentioned that a single hair was lying on the ground, you’d somehow interpret that as me tripping over a mile of tangled cables.

I’m talking about the 90% of users out there who honestly haven't the slightest clue what any of that stuff up there actually means. Seriously, there's really no reason for them to be installing Windows 7 just because of it.

Taylor Morales31 said:Look, Daniel, this thread is specifically for those of us using Windows 7. Let’s skip the patronizing lectures—some of us have been around the block a few times, so you won't find it easy to teach an old dog new tricks! You already have a dedicated thread for XP, so maybe just head over there? Besides, if you're that unhappy, you can always take it up with Microsoft directly or just build your own OS from scratch. Why not?

On my end, things don't freeze up nearly as much as they used to on XP, where the system would just hang constantly. But honestly, let's move this back to the XP thread; no offense intended, but you're spreading yourself a bit thin here with all the posting.👍

I'm just trying to start a discussion, really. I'm just seeing what Windows 7 64-bit is actually capable of.

Since I got caught up in all the massive hype surrounding it, I went ahead and installed Windows 7 64-bit, but when I take an objective look at the performance-to-capability ratio, XP still seems to hold the edge.

At the end of the day, I think it's important for people to have options when they're buying a new PC.

It's a known thing that everyone has their own preferences and "holy grails." To be perfectly honest, I'm not exactly blown away by Windows 7 64-bit. It reminds me of those threads in the "Cars" forum where people openly admit the vehicle they bought was kind of a lemon, only to get roasted by every other owner on the board.

Brian Campbell36 said:Using AutoCAD on Windows 7 64-bit is a total headache.
First, you run into all these compatibility issues, whereas on XP, everything installed smoothly without any real drama.
As for the installation process itself, I'm not a fan of how Windows 7 spends 20 minutes reinstalling the system and then drags out updates for another three hours.🙂.

That’s exactly my point. Even when they finally get AutoCAD running properly on Windows 7, it isn't going to be any faster or more stable than it was on XP. So what's the payoff for Windows 7? Having fancy themes while the system sits idle consuming 10% of my Intel and 1GB of Intel?

And regarding the installation, it's similar to XP—that also has updates that take forever to finish.

Brian Campbell36 said:The one thing I liked about moving away from XP is that I don't have to manually install every single driver anymore; Windows 7 handles most of it automatically.

I liked that part too, but that's really just because Windows 7 is newer and has a larger database of recognized hardware. Plus, there aren't many 64-bit drivers available for older machines anyway...

Still, Windows 7 failed to install my Realtek audio drivers, so I ended up having to do it manually myself.😉

Benjamin King2 said:It feels to me like you just want all the newer software to run faster than the old stuff without actually investing in any hardware upgrades, which honestly isn't how things work.

Windows XP and Windows 7 are worlds apart when it comes to actual functionality. They aren't just different versions of the same software with identical features; they simply can't demand the same amount of system resources.

I mean, obviously, newer software is supposed to be faster and/or higher quality. I used PDF readers as an example because the difference between a top-tier product like Foxit and a mediocre one like Adobe Reader is night and day.

And how can you say they aren't comparable when pretty much every program runs on both operating systems? Just look at how many comparisons people post online every single day...

Windows 7 isn't actually faster than Windows XP, nor is it noticeably better. Especially for the average user—which covers well over 90% of the population. After everyone absolutely trashed Windows Vista, they polished up Windows 7 a bit, but it’s still not quite enough.

Having a handful of shiny new features isn't a good enough reason to burn through so many resources.

Check out this image:


It uses almost twice as much Intel and hard drive space, and I'm certain it eats up more Intel too.

For instance, AutoCAD flies like a bullet on Windows XP, whereas on Windows 7, it can actually start to stutter. Even Photoshop runs a tiny bit slower on Windows 7. It’s honestly kind of funny when you see someone insisting on switching to Windows 7 just because of some widgets or supposedly "better" wireless support.😂

Sure, they improved disk management. But does Photoshop run faster on Windows 7? Nope.

They have 64-bit technology now. Does it make video playback any faster? Not really.

It's all just marketing...

Jonathan Morris40 said:Windows XP is just so incredibly stable that whenever one single application decides to freeze up on me, hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del sixty times in a row won't do a damn thing to wake it up. At that point, honestly, the only way to get things moving again is to physically smash that reset button.

Honestly, Aero has been such a lifesaver for so many people who have absolutely zero experience with Windows or computers in general. I’m talking about those folks—like my aunts and grandmothers—who honestly have no clue what they’re doing when they sit down at a PC. And don't even get me started on the power users, the ones juggling massive amounts of multitasking and running dozens of different operations all at once every single day. It’s truly made a huge difference.

You know, looking at how things run on my end, Masa and I find that Windows XP almost never actually freezes up on us. Even when it does hit a snag, it somehow manages to shake it off and keep moving without me having to pull the plug and restart everything. 🙂

Honestly, I think the older generation just finds it way easier to stick with the old-school systems that don't have all this Aero nonsense or those useless widgets cluttering up the screen. It’s exactly like handing a high-end smartphone to your grandmother right after she’s used a basic flip phone—it’s just unnecessarily complicated, and frankly, it eats up way too many resources. Most people out there are still running setups with a 2GHz processor and maybe 2GB of Intel, so they really don't need the extra bloat.

So, how much more Intel are we actually talking about when we say "way more" compared to what you’d find on Windows XP? 🤷 Giga? Seriously, does anyone even use a computer today that doesn't have at least 2 gigs of Intel? Honestly, I feel like finding a machine with less than that would be like trying to find a decent cup of coffee in a gas station—nearly impossible if you actually want to get anything done.

On average, most people are just working with about 2GB of RAM. So, if you've got a single program that decides to hog an entire gigabyte, it’s an absolute disaster. It really throws everything out of whack.

Most modern setups these days seem to hover around that 4GB Intel mark. It’s a bit of a joke, honestly—if you're running Windows 7 and the OS decides to gobble up a full gigabyte just to stay upright, you're left staring at a measly 3GB. At that point, what's even the point of using 64-bit technology? You aren't really getting any of the benefits if the headroom is that tight.

Why on earth would anyone need this thing to run four times faster? Honestly, it doesn't have to be lightning-quick; I’d be perfectly happy if it just performed on par with Windows XP. For me, the raw speed isn't even the priority here. What actually matters is that they've finally sorted out the management tools, fixed User Account Control, overhauled the wireless and connectivity stability, and streamlined disk management. There's a whole mountain of other stuff they've improved too, which is much more important to me than some arbitrary "ultra-fast" benchmark. I mean, what am I actually going to do with all that extra speed? Zipping between windows and switching programs a fraction of a second sooner? I just don't see the point.🙂

Speed is everything when you're talking about a computer. I mean, can we really sit here and pretend it’s a good idea to clog up a system with every half-baked Microsoft product out there? Sure, they might technically run at the same speed, but they absolutely gorge themselves on resources. At the end of the day, that extra bloat just drags the whole thing down and makes it slower. It's just common sense, right?

Can you actually explain how much faster a computer runs once you've "cleaned up" the management settings, control panels, and wireless configurations? I'm looking for specifics here.

Honestly, I’m not seeing any real performance boost with any of my programs on Windows 7, except for maybe Windows Media Player—which, oddly enough, actually feels snappier than VLC Media Player lately.

I haven't really dug into the research on this one, but honestly, I don't think it makes a massive difference to the actual product. Everything from wireless connectivity to disk performance and general system management works perfectly fine on Windows XP. I did notice that my drives seem to run a little quieter, but as far as speed goes? Not really. It doesn't feel any faster to me.

Scrolling? Honestly, once you’ve spent enough time mastering Windows XP, you practically develop muscle memory for every shortcut out there. At that point, you shouldn't even be bothering with the mouse—you could just hit Win + R and launch whatever app you need in a heartbeat.

I’m just saying, they actually managed to mess up the most basic open/save dialog box. You have to scroll just to find My Computer. And where on earth is the up button??

VLC Media Player definitely works great, GOG player works perfectly, and BS player is awesome. Honestly, they even run better than they did on XP.

Are you talking about Windows 7 64-bit? These forums are crawling with people for whom Windows 7 64-bit brings nothing but headaches. And could you clarify how it runs "better"? In what way do 32-bit applications perform better on Windows 7? Or if they release 64-bit players, will they be twice as fast? Or maybe just 20% faster?

Douglas Garcia52 said:you're rambling 🙂🙂
The only thing bolded there is accurate, but again, it doesn't mean much more Intel.

Wait, are you seriously claiming Windows 7 boots faster than XP? Your friend already debunked that.

It seems to hog and constantly pull more Intel, but I still need to compare it properly against XP. 😁

Jonathan Morris40 said:and it consumes resources for logical and justifiable reasons. 😉

To each their own, I guess. But saying it uses 2x the resources just because it has widgets and supposedly a better wireless menu seems totally nonsensical to me.

Benjamin King2 said:That's the idea; we'll get there eventually.

Hold on a second—you want applications to run faster, but you don't want them sitting in the Intel? What's the fastest form of storage out there? Where should those applications be stored then? And what else is the Intel supposed to be used for? To wash your laundry? 😕

I agree, but this feels like Microsoft just being greedy with the Intel. It's perfectly possible to create OPTIMIZED software with the exact same features that uses significantly fewer resources.

Take Adobe Reader versus Foxit, for example. They have the same functions, yet Foxit uses 5x fewer resources. 😉 It's pretty clear that Adobe Reader is a half-baked product since they follow the same logic as Microsoft...